01-937� ���� � �� ° :� � Rr�.��e..� - s��p�, s �.00�
�, _ ,
�-�;,�. ���� ��-��
RESOLUTION
,�CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # d �� q �
CtteenSheet# �Oy �S3
S3
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals has issued a writ of certiorari to the City Clerk of Saint
2 Paul regazding Councii File No. O1-786 regarding the demolition of 1183 Arkwright Avenue and
3 has the authority to stay the enforcement of the council resolution to protect the subj ect matter of
4 the appeal pursued by properiy owner ponald Dnxin; and
WHEREAS, property owner ponald Druin has filed a motion before the City Council
requesting a Stay of the Council Resolution pending an Appeal by the Minnesota Court of
Appeals; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
WHEREAS, the vacant building registration fees are due and owing for the property; and
16 WHEREAS, vacant building inspectors have routinely encountered difficulty in obtaining
17 swift and appropriate response from the property owner to correct code violations found at the
18 property, including accumulation of garbage and animal fecesl; and
19
20 WHEREAS, the City Council is concemed about the reports of numerous animals present
21 inside the property and about the fire hazards associated with the accumulation of garbage inside
22 the property based upon the amount of garbage observed upon the porch during a recent code
23 enforcement inspecrion ordered by the City Council on August 1, 2001; and
24
25 WHEREAS, the City risks claims for damages arising out of this nuisance condition; now
26 therefore, be it
27
28 RESOLVED, that the City Council will stay the enforcement of its resolution, Council
29 File No. O1-786, to demolish the building at 1183 Arkwright upon the following reasonable
30 terms and conditions which it finds will adequately protect the health and safety of the City and
31 its citizens:
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals in the past has remanded a certiorari appeal back to the
City Council to impose reasonable terms and conditions of a stay pending appeal and the City
wishes to auoid any further delays in the abatement action; and
1) Property owner ponald Druin shall be responsible for the exterior maintenance
and security of the property at 1183 Arkwright.
2) Property owner will obtain an insurance policy naming the City of St. Paul as a
primary insured protecting and indemnifying it to the extent of the statutory limit
of municipal tort liability of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000.00) and
1 -
2 _. . . . _.
3 3)
4
5 4)
6
7
8 5)
9
�aised to cover any fulure increase in such limits which may later become law.
Property owner must remove animals currentiy present at the property.
Properry owner shail remove accuxnulation of garbage and any fuel in accordance
with state and local laws.
O� -9 ��
Property owner shall pay vacant building fees owing on this property within three
(3) business days following passage of this resolution.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that with the exception of Condition 5, which must be perfor
within three (3) business davs. a11 of the above conditions must be met within
Requested by Department of�
�� ���e-_�i����c-�
BY: � , t Q A
Form Approved by City Attorney n
c BY � �LI
Adopted by Council: Date ��
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy Approved
BY g j � .r � BY � �`
Approved by Mayor: Date �r // Z��
By C�. �
for Submission to
Gity Attorney
Meghan Riley 6-8710
MCILAGQ�A BY (DATq
: :
70TAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET
m��rawecrart
b�_q�q
N
airoara.
❑ OIYATIOpEY � V� ❑ CRYf1i1t1[
❑ RIMICI�LiFAU1CFiGR ❑ �WIICYLffiM1LCT6
❑WVdt(DRAiO�M(1� ❑
(CIJP ALL LOCA NS FOR SIGNATURE)
Request for stay of enforcement of Resolution No. O1-786, which orders dem�
emolition of property at 1183 �'kwright in St. Pau1.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB CAMMITTEE
CNIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Writ of Cert. by Court of Appeals
Conditions can be placed upon stay.
IF APPROVED
No conditions.
AMOUNT OF 7RANSAC710N f
(ocPwM
tms mis u�rm everwaked uMer a cantract for tnis tlepartment'!
YES NO
Hes thie perBOMim evM been e city empbyee?
vES No
Do� this Personlfirm V� a sldll r� no'melbC� M anv curtmt dty empbyee4
VES NO
la this peisoNfirm a tarpeted vendoYl -
YE3 NO
» : a :.
'M�� .'�.'.
COSTRtEVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCIE ON�
ACTIVITYNUMBER
YES NO
0�"�
� G ITT Op
a
�� r ,
�, � ' x
O - .7
a tiH§��91III ro
d Sic� � I a
i h
`�p� 385 �
SUMMARY NIIlVUTES OF T'HE
SAIl�'T PAUL CITY COUNCIL
Wednesday, August 8, 2001- 3:30 - 5:00 p.m.
CTTY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 3RD FLOOR
City Hall and Court Aouse
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
The meeting was called to order at 335 p.m. by Council President Bostrom.
Present - 7- Benanav, Blakey, Bostrom, Coleman, Harris, Lantry, Reiter
Absent - 0
CONSENT AGENDA (Items 1- 25)
NOTE: ALL ITEMS LISTED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION THERE
N'ILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. fF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED BYA
COUNCILMEMBER, TFIAT ITEM Yi'ILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND
CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
Councilmember Benanau moved approval of the consent agenda.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - Q
COMMUNICATIOIVS AND ADNIINISTRATIVE ORDERS
D� ��
1. Claims of Ellen Frederick, George Martinez, Richard Marty, Sr., Sanclra Salak, Tires Plus
East St. Paul #061, Michael Tuuri, and Dale Wenkus.
Refened to the Risk Management Division
2. Sttnunons and Complaint in the matter of Douglas L. Edge v. the City of Saint Paul and
Department of Fire and Safety Services.
Referred to the City Attorney's Office
3. Sununons and Complaint and Plaintiff's Interrogatories in the matter of Richazd Heille v.
the City of Saint Paul.
Referred to the City Attomey's Office
4. Scheduling Order in the matter of the Star Tribune v. the City of Saint Paul and Police
Deparhnent.
Referred to the Ciry Attomey's Office
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes
Page 2
Norice of Making Deposit into Court in the matter of the Saint Paul Housing and
Redevelopment Authority v. Soo Line Railroad Company, City of Saint Paul, et al.
regarding the condemnation of certain real properiy described as Block 70 and part of
Block 69, Irvine's Enlazgement of Rice and Irvine's Addition.
Referred to the City Attorney's Office
6. Letter from the Office of the City Attorney announcing a public hearing before the City
Council on August 22, 2001, to consider adverse acrion against the Cigarette/Tobacco
License held by Charlies's Chocolate & Crauings, dba Charlie's Chocolate & Cravings,
30 East 7th Street.
Letter from the Office of the City Attomey announcing a public hearing before the City
Council on August 22, 2001, to consider adverse acfion against the Cigarette/Tobacco
License held by El-Araby Mohamed, dba Great America Foods, 361 Earl Street.
8. Letter from the Office of the City Attorney announcing a public hearing before the City
Council on August 22, 2001, to consider adverse action against the Cigazette/Tobacco
License held by Eazl Schoenheider, dba Savoy Inn, 421 East 7th Street.
9. Letters from the Office of the City Attomey announcing public hearings before the City
Council on August 22, 2001, regazding the provisional taYicab driver's licenses held by
Mohamed Aluned, William Anderson, Hailemariam Ashagre, Robert Bland, James
Colbeth, Cihan Cukurova, Aly Elabbady, Kevin Ericson, Moses Jeahpa, Seyum
Melkauiu, George Merritt, Abdulahi Mohamed, Beau James Morseth, Steve Mullins,
Gregory Mulvaney, Aaron Patula, Sergio Perez, Jacob Person, Paul Peterson, Timothy
Romans, Steve Schsnidt, Jeffrey Solinger, Byron Turner, tlndrew Williams, Daniel
Wlaschin and Anthony Wright
10. Letter from the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection announcing
a public hearing before the City Council on August 22, 2001, to consider the appeal of
Paui Stephanyshun regarding the decision of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals denying a
variance to conshuct a detached garage larger than the 1000 squaze foot maximum
allowed and higher than the 15 foot maximum allowed at 313 Harrison Avenue.
11. Admiuistrative Orders:
D002049 Appointing Allen J. Shetka, Department of Public Works, to act and serve
as City Engineer.
D002050 Amending the 2001 budget in the Department of Plamuug and Economic
Development - City Downtown Capital Projects Fund by establishing a
new acfivity called Non-TIF related Professional Services.
Noted as on file in the City Clerk's Office
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes
FOR ACTION
12. Approval of minutes of 7uly 25, 2001.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - Q
Page 3
13. Resolution - O1-801 - Approving the May 1, 2001 through Apri130, 2004, Maintenance
Labor Agteement between the City of Saint Paul and the Bricklayers and Allied
Craftworkers, Local Union Number 1 of Mivuesota. (To be laid over one week for
adoption)
Laid over to August 15 for adoption
14. Resolution - O1-802 - Approving the May, 2001, through April, 2004, Labor Agreement
between the City of Saint Paul and the Lakes and Plains Regional Council of Carpenters
and Joiners. (To be laid over one week for adoption)
Laid over to August 15 for adoption
15. Resolution - O1-803 - Approving the July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2003, Labor
Agreement between the City of Saint Paul and the District Lodge No. 77, Intemational
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers AFL-CIO. (To be laid over one week
for adoption)
Laid over to August 15 for adoprion
16. Resolution - O1-804 - Authorizing the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection to accept grant funds in the amount of $8,950.00 from the Minnesota
Historical Society to ixnplement a Heritage Preservation District Sign Program.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
17. Resolution - O1-805 - Authorizing the Police Department to enter into an a�eement with
the Minnesota State Fair to use the fairgrounds on July 13 and19, 2001, to train the Saint
Paul Recnxit Academy on traffic stops.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
18. Resolution - O1-806 - Accepting a$107,724.00 g�rant from the Miimesota Center for
Crune Victim Services to the Police Department for the period of July 1, 2001, through
June 30, 2002, to establish a Family Violence Unit .
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
19. Resolurion - O1-807 - Establishing a 2001 financing and spending plan for the Police
Department providing police services to the District Six Plaxuung Council at the East
Consolidated Weed and Seed site.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes Page 4
20. Resolution - O1-808 - Establishing a 2001 financing and spending plan for the Police
Deparinient providing police services to East Side Neighborhood Development
Company.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
21. Resolurion - O1-809 - Authorizing the proper City officials to sign two agreements for the
skyway bridge over Fourth Sireet between Cedar and Miuuesota Streets, and the skyway
bridge over Cedar Street between Fourth Slreet and Kellogg Boulevard and Associated
Pedestrian Concourses.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
22. Resolution - O1-810 - Adopting a snnunary of the West Side Community Plan and
Riverview Commercial Corridor Revitalizarion Program as part of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
23. Preliminary Order - O1-811 - In the matter of condemnulg and taking the property rights
necessary to complete construction of a pedestrian/bike trial in the area southwesterly of
Lexington Parkway and Jessamine Avenue, and setdng date of public hearing for August
22, 2001. (File #18952E)
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
24. Preluninary Order - O1-812 - In the matter of the operation costs of the Above Standard
Street Lighting Systems for 2002 in Wards 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, and setting date of public
hearing for October 3, 2001.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
25. Resolution Approving Assessment - O1-813 - In the matter of the assessment of benefits,
cost and expenses for operation of the twenty-four Above Standard Street Lighting
System for the months of January through December, 2001, and setting date of public
hearing for October 3, 2001.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
FOR DISCUSSION
26. Resolution - O1-745 - Concerning adverse action against the Cigarette/Tobacco License
held by Ale Room, Inc., dba The Buttery, 395 Robert Street North. fPul�ic�xcm�r�
o� laid over from August i)
Councilmember Coleman said a request was received to refer this matter to an
Administrarive Law Judge (AL�.
Referred to an Adtninistrarive Law Judge Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes
Page 5
27. Resolution - O1-768 - Authorizing the City to enter into the Downtown Riverfront
Compact with Capital City Partnerslup, Saint Paul Port Authority, Saint Paul RiverCentre
Authority, and the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation for the purpose of
working together with other community partners to begin the process of outlining a future
riverfront development agenda. (Laid over from August 1)
Brian Sweeney, Deparhnent of Plauniug and Economic Development, appeazed. He said
about one yeaz ago leadership from the foundation community within St. Paul cazne to the
Mayor and various organizations to encourage them to put together a compact between
ali of the e�sting organizations to 1) codify the success that has taken place over the last
years, and 2) to put together a framework that this success could move forward. The
entities include the Capital City Parinership, the City of St. Paul with the leadership of
the 11�Iayor, the City Council, the development team from PED, Financial Services, Pazks
and Recreafion, and Public Works representing the City, the St. Pau1 RiverCentre
Authority, the St. Paul River&ont Corporation, and the St. Paul Port Authority to put
together this compact and the request was to have all of the Boards of each of the
organizadons approve such a compact.
On June 19, 2001, the Capital City Parinership Boazd approved the version before the
Council. The RiverCentre Authority approved it on July 25, and the Riverfront
Corporation Executive Committee approved in on July 25. On March 27, the Port
Authority approved a very early version of the compact which went through a number of
iterations throughout the spring. The Port Authority wanted to wait until all of the
different organizations had approved it and it could be addressed at the August 21 Port
Board meeting.
Councilmember Coleman said he felt there was a legitunate concern in the community
both in terms of how this document relates to the current plaiuung process that is just
begnuiiiig and what the role of the people on the district council as well as the citizens
wiil be and how they will have an impact on whaYs happening with future development
in downtown. He asked for an explanation of how this docuxnent fits in with some of the
other pieces.
Mr. Sweeney said they have met with the planning group which included a number of
community entiries that idenrified a fairly extensive downtown planning process. Staff
o was concemed that they ensured there was a lazger discussion when they tallced about
downtown and riverfront issues because with the development of the arena, the
downtown dishict has expanded along West Seventh Street. With the development of the
West Side Flats, there aze a number of issues that haue evolved that connect the
_ downtown to transportation so that was one of their concerns of the planning process for
downtown, isritially identified as just a District 17 downtown process. PED has asked
them to insure that anythiug they do will be incorporated mto the next phase of St. Paul
and the Mississippi Framework process.
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes
Page 6
Councilmember Lantry said she has a number of concerns. When the Port Authority
passed this in Mazch, it looked very different than it does now. Further, she said she had
communication from District 17 as to the degree of influence they have or where they
will fit in this process.
Councilmember Lantry moved to lay over to September 12.
Laid over to September 12 Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
Susnension Item
A1 Bataglia, Assistant Chief, Department of Fire and Safery Services, appeared. He
explained that the following resolution involves a contract amendment extension for Fire
and Safety Services to enter into a contract with the State of Miiuiesota to respond at the
request of the State Duty Officer of the Governor iu the event of a hazardous material
incident outside the City boundaries. This issue was under legislative action with the last
special session with the State. The contract extension period closed on June 30 and a new
contract was written asking the City to continue this service to the State. It has been done
for the past five yeazs. The funds received from tivs contract aze used to offset traiuing,
equipment replacement, and some personnel costs. As part of this, support and
equipment is aiso received from the State of Muuiesota. It has been a parinership thaY has
worked out well, he said and they want to continue it. Under the contract, the City will
receive $120,000.
Councilmember Benanav moved suspension of the nxles and approval of the following
resolution:
Resolution - O1-815 - Authorizuig the Department of Fire and Safety Services to enter
into a hazardous materials emergency response con�act with the State of Minnesota,
Department of Public Safety.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
28. Resolution - O1-769 - Requesting the City Council to review and approve funding
recommendations for the 2002 Civic Organizations Partnership Program (COPP). (Laid
over from August 1)
Gerry Strathman, Council Research Director, stated that Items 28 and 29 are companions.
They are resolufions brought before the Council each year prior to soliciting applications
for the COPP program. The resolutions define the types of programs that are eligible to
apply and be considered for funding under the COPP program and they designate the
amount of money the City Council intends to make available for this program in 2002.
The resolutions also contains a directive that was added several years ago indicating that
no program is to receive mare funding in the future yeaz than it did in the current year.
There is another guideline that is not in the resolution but which has been followed at the
Council's direcrive indicating that 10% of the funding made available must go to
programs that did not receive funding in the previous year .
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes
Page 7
The guidelines before the Council at this time aze exactly the same as those from last year
and the amount of funding designated is the same as last year.
Councilmember Coleman moved to strike lines 7 and 8 of the resolution. He said a
decision to not increase property tases has not been made yet and he did not feel it should
be included in the resolution.
Discussion ensued as to whether or not some organizations should be allowed to
potentially receive more funding as opposed to the cuirent guideline that they do not
receive additional funding.
Councilmember Benanav noted that $398,000 is the amount recommended for 2002
which is the same level as 1998. For the yeaz 1999 the amount was $465,000, $444,0000
in 2000, and $406,000 for 2001. Gerry Slxathman responded that there have been years
in the past where the Council has provided more funding for COPP than previous years.
Mr. Benanav said it is important that the Council be cognizant of that fact that if they
broaden the criteria to allow more programs to participate, there will be a struggle for
fewer dollars. He questioned how the allocations were increased in previous yeazs.
Gerry Stxathman said it was his recollection that the additional funds were taken from
CDBG funds and that no additional general funds were added.
Councilmember Blakey said he does not support strikiug line 7 as he is committed to not
increasing property tases.
Councilmember Harris said he felt lines 11 and 12 should be removed because no other
competitive process in government has a rule like that. The best program wins and gete
the money.
Councilxnember Lantry said she was comfortable removing lines 7, 8, 1 l, and 12. In past
years, there has always been a funding level of $398,000 and if worthwhile projects come
in, the Council tries to find money. Her preference was to keep the lower amount, see
what kinds of pro}ects come in, and when they need to make a decision as to what gets
fixnded or if they need to find more money, it can be done during the budget process.
Council President Bostrom said the language in lines 11 and 12 was added because
several years ago there were a number of projects that the Council wanted to fund and
they were trying to find a vehicle whereby there would be some extra money to fund
some of those programs.
Councilmember Blakey said they have to be mindful that there aze programs that have
been on the list far a long time and they may think they are locked in.
Coleman moved to delete Lines 7, 8, 11 and 12.
Adopted as amended Yeas - 5 Nays - 2(Blakey, Bosh�om)
August 8, 2001, City Council Summary Minutes Page 8
Gerry Stratl�man asked for guidance on the 10% rule.
Councilmember Blakey moved to include as a policy that at least 10% of the dollars will
be allocated to prograuis not receiving COPP funding in 2001.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
29. Resolution - O1-770 - Requesting the City Council to review and approve the 2002 Civic
Organizarions Parmerslup Program (COPP) guidelines and budget objectives. (tlmended
and laid over from August 1)
Counciimember Harris moved to add a No. 7- Emergency Shelter and No. 8- Literacy
to the guidelines. Councilmember Lantry accepted the amendment as friendly.
Councilmember Lantry noted that the two new items should also be added to the
guidelines as well as the resolution.
Councilmember Lantry moved approvai as amended
Adopted as amended Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
30. Resolufion - O1-786 - Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 1183
Arkwright Street within fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution. (Legislative
Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner 90 days to complete rehabilitation of the
property provided the vacant building fee is paid by noon on Augtxst 6, 2001). (Laad over
from August 1)
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer, reminded the Council that this is a home
that is supposed to be vacant. The owner testified before the Council that he had a
purchase agreement with Marathon Oil to buy the property and they would either
demolish or remove the building. Commander Marehead of the Property Code
Enforcement Office strongly felt the building was hazardous and a nuisance and that it
should be removed. The Council laid over the matter in order to allow the owner to pay
the vacant building fee and also for another inspection to be done. Mr. Strathman
reported that the vacant building fee was paid. An inspection was attempted on this date
but no entry was gained. There is still a lazge amount of clutter visible within the
structure and a strong stench is emanating from the structure which is believed to be in
part cat uriue. The inspector observed four cats through the windows and Mr. Drouin has
aclmowledged that he keeps a large number of cats in this building.
Councilmember Reiter said he felt Mr. Drouin has been given enough tnne to rectify the
situation. He moved approval to remove or repair the building within 15 days.
Adopted (remove or repair within 15 days) Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
August 8, 2001, City Council Sununary Minutes Page 9
31. Resolution O1-800 - Approving the proposed new polling locations for the 2001 Saint
Paui Primary and General Elections. (Laid over from August 1)
Fred Owusu, City Clerk, and 7oe Mansky, Ramsey County Elections Manger appeared.
Mr. Owusu requested the Council to remove lines 16 and 17 until Mr. Mansky finds a
suitable polling location for Wazd 2, Precinct 7. Councilmember Coleman said his
concern with the listed location was that it takes it out of the neighborhood and puts the
voting location across the freeway which creates a barrier. He wants to insure That
polling locations aze all fully accessible for everyone.
Mr. Mansky responded that all the new polling sites meet the State and Federal
accessibility requirements
In response to a question of Councilmember Benanav as to why all the changes, Mr.
Mansky said a lot of polling locations used in the past aze undergoing renovation
Councilmember Blakey moved approval as amended.
Adopted as amended Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
32. Update by the Admiiustration as to how they are keeping neighbors informed regazding
the Minnesota Brewing/Gopher State Ethanol issues. (Requested by City Council on
August 1)
Deputy Chief Alan Bataglia, Fire Department, reported on an incident that occurred at the
plant the evening of August 7, 2001, in which there was a release in the form of gas.
Councilmember Coleman stated that the problems continue and he expressed concern
about the safety of neighbors and workers. He distributed a copy of a letter he sent to
members of Congress asldng that OSHA and the EPA investigate the facility.
Eric Lazson, Assistant City Attomey and lead attorney assigned to pursue the civil suit
against Mivnesota Brewing/Gopher State Ethanol outlined the chronology of events that
have occurred.
Several Councilmembers expressed concem that the Council has not been a part of the
process with the City Attomey's Office and have not been kept informed.
Clayton Robinson, City Attorney, appeazed and said that typical litigarion is that the City
Attorney communicates with the Mayor's Office and report to the Council.
Extensive discussion ensued behveen the Council and Mr. Robinson regarding their
concern with the process.
Councilmember Coleman noted that the odor issue has been resolved for the larger
community and asked Eric Lazson if Dr. Shiffrnan has still been retained to conduct an
August 8, 2001, Ciry Council Snmmary Minutes
Page 10
analysis of emissions. Mr. Larson said Dr. Shiffman is an eapert with regazd to odor and
its effects on individuals. The effects aze based upon the nature chazacter and intensity of
the odor itself. There are two components to emissions which overlap with regard to the
odor aspect but there is also the chemical character aspect and that is not IJr. Shif�nan's
azea of eacpertise. As a municipality, Mr. Larson said they are almost exclusively
preempted with trying to impose different guidelines than those imposed by the MPA and
the MPCA with respect to chemicals. What has become very cleaz is that with ethanol
facilities, what haue been tested because they've been deemed to be basically a low-grade
facility not needing a high intensity of testing, is that throughout the nation, and even
within the State which has over 15 ethanol facilities, because they ha�e had a low level of
testing, there is not a high levei of understanding of the chemical emissions that are
coming out. Because of the great scrutiny at the facility, the MPCA has imposed and will
be imposing greater chemical analyses upon the emissions and those analyses will be
made available to the public and to the City. From that data, Mr. Lazson said they can
figure out if there has to be anytlung futther done. The MPCA can do that or it can be
looked at intemally.
From the chemical analysis that is lmown, there is no hazard. The question is whether
there are unknowns. Based upon the current conventional scientific understanding of
ethanol emissions, the answer to that is "no" as well, Larson said. That is based upon a
reasonable extrapolarion. The MPCA has decided to engage in further chemical analysis
over and above what as by law generally imposed upon ethanol facilities. Testing on the
thermal oacidizer stack should be available no later than October.
With regard to the noise, as of February 7 there had been no reduction in noise from the
facility since its operation in April of 2000 and that they had undertaken just two
mitigation efforts in August and December and it had no effect as far as a benefit to the
neighborhood. The lawsuit was commenced and they put into plan, something they had
in the plauning stage but expedited it to try to avoid any finther problems with the City,
an evaporated condenser which is three large fans that aze right off the CO2 facility
facing over West 7th Street into a neighbor. Those evaporated condensers were a lazge
and primary noise source that at times were peaking at 70 decibels. The evaporated
condenser was replaced with a shell 2 casing which was in place by Apri12000 and did
benefit the neighbors right neaz the CO2 facility. It dropped the decibel levels to near and
sometimes below the 55 dba night time standazds. They still need to reduce the decibel
levels slightiy. However, the residents that are outside of the imxnediate CO2 facility had
no relief, the decibel levels were the same.
Cruninal charges were initiated on May 3, 2001. As a result of those charges, they
immediately hired David Brazlow (sp) who is a recognized expert in acoustical
engineering. A comprehensive analysis was done of the facilities by him with respect to
origins of sound and sound abatement and he issued a noise mitigation report on June 28,
2001.
August 8, 2001, City Council Swnmary Minutes
Page 11
Councilmember Coleman noted that Item 5 on the list of noise sources is the bottling line
and he asked if that could be resolved at least partially by shutting the doors or windows.
Mr. Larson responded that merely closing the doors and windows is not going to be fiilly
sufficient unless the noise level can also be reduced internally.
Councilmember Coleman asked if there is an ability to come to an interim agreement to
have the doors shut while they aze trying to settle the ultimate issues in the final
conclusion of litigation. Also, to have some set time when the CO2 or the ethanol
production is in place or procedures under which they are required to report unusual
occurrences. Mr. Larson responded in the affinnative. The City Attorney's Office
received weekly reports on the oacidizer showing where they were in the consiruction
stage all along.
Council President Bostrom asked Mr. Larson to send weekly e-mail updates to the
Council as to where they aze in the process.
Councilmember Blakey requested that Gerry Strathman, Council Research Director, look
into the Council's ability to hire an outside attorney.
33. Resolution - O1-814 - Considering the recommendation of the Planning Comxnission
regazding Riverview Corridor transit alternatives.
Councilmember Harris distributed a substitute resolution.
Tony Schertler, Department of Planuing and Economic Development, presented
information on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor that runs from Highway 5(the
Riverview corridor) towazds the northeast and East Side to, ideally, the Hillcrest Center.
This is a project that the Metropolitan Council-Metro Transit specifically is putting
together on a transit comdor. They aze in the process of an EIS right now called the
scoping process. The City Council and the Mayor's Office appointed people to an EIS
Citizen Work Group. The scoping process has been about talang public comments on
some of the altematives that aze present before them such as exa,,,ining the BRT
altemative. There have been two public hearings - one in the West Seventh azea and one
at Metropolitan State University. Staff attended the public hearings and there is an
opportunity now for the City of St. Paul and the City Council as an entity to comment to
the Metro Transit-Metro Council about possible recommendations for this project.
City staff has been recomxnending that this project can be done a lot cheaper, less
invasively, and serve more people if it accommodates the infrastructure 'vnprovements
that aze being done now and some of the efforts underway and basically accomxnodate
"the rules of the road" that have been established. That recommendation was taken up by
the Planning Commission, they adopted it and forwarded it to the Mayor and to the City
Councii to comment on and send to Metro Transit. What the recommendation says is that
it does not have to go by railroad track. Seventh Street can be used but the speeds and
invasiveness of the BRT altemative has to be compromised to a diamond lane to preserve
August 8, 2001, City Councii Summary Minutes
Page 12
as much pazking as possible on West Seventh Street. Or, if the community chooses to
have wider sidewalks and doesn't want the pazlang, they can have the sidewalks as well.
PED does not want to mandate something that the community wants to step into
incrementaliy. Those aze corridor elements where a diamond lane would go in. There aze
significant parts of the corridor that will be in mixed ha£fic. Mr. Schertler dishibuted a
graphic illustrarion which he reviewed. �
Mr. Schertler said they will not accept alternafives that eliminate the pazking on Seventh
Street unless the community wants to do that. On the graphic illustration, he said they are
talldng about the B Altematives where there is community support. `Those altematives
are acceptable to the Plauuiug Commission and it is what they suggest be recouvnended
to Metro Transit-Me�o Council. The final alternative that is ok is D1 where there could
be pazking on one side of Seventh Street with wider sidewalks on the other side. The
alternative they are saying is not acceptable is the Canadian Pacific Raikoad.
There aze s611 issues where there is not 100 percent community consensus but more like
90 percent. 'I'he EIS and MIS and Metro Transit position is that this corridor stop at
Arcade Street. The City's belief is that the Riverview Corridor should continue to the
Hillcrest Shopping Center; that this effort should be one continuous transit line and
incorporate the efforts that aze already underway with Phalen Boulevard.
Mr. Schertler said they have taken a$160 million project, turned it into a$44 million
project and extended the service azea to add more riders. He said they thuflc iYs a wise
decision.
Councilmember Benanav said he wants to insure that the community continues to have a
voice in this issue and if it doesn't work that they will still have an opportunity to say
they don't like it and they don't want it. He asked if that was still an oprion.
Allen Lovejoy, Department of Planning and Economic Development, responded that it is
still an option until there is a final decision made somewhere along the line. More
unportant than this process to the community on West Seventh Street is a commitment to
a pazallel process, not anything that is going to be confusing or competing. They will
look at details - where there aze stations, they will go through a participatory pia.nning
process before getting to a point of total execution of all the unprovements that are going
in. If there is a decision on the part of Metro Transit to proceed with this altemarive
without completing the full EIS, then the staff and the community will begin to engage in
more specific conversations. There is still a chance for the City to say it doesn't want it
but in terms of the prescribed process, the decision comes out of scoping.
Council President Bosirom said both the Payne Avenue-Arcade Business Association and
Dishict 5 offered altematives which were not included in any of these discussions. He
said there was a preconceived route for this to go and it made no difference what the
citizens on the East Side said about it. That is unsatisfactory to him because everyone
else had an opportwuty to listen and to haue input. There were four or five proposed
August 8, 2001, City Council Smnmary Minutes
Page 13
routes on the West End and the neighbors were all included in the discussions and the
originai designs but on the East Side there was only one route proposed. There were
citizen proposals and input at Metro State but none of that is reflected.
Mr. Bostrom said there is aiso a major problem with the available money. He does not
feel it has been weli thought out. There is money to fund Phalen Boulevard from I35E to
Payne Avenue but there is no funding for Payne Avenue to Arcade Street.
Tony Schertler responded that Metro Transit has a problem in justifying spending the $44
million beyond Arcade because the EIS and the MIS limit the project to Earl Street. He
said he feels it is an open question and it is the City's position that this should be
examined legally. If the Council determines that this project does not require an EIS and
if the $44 million does not require any money from Washington, then staff does not
understand why, since it is a busway, the State appropriated money can't be spent on
Phalen Boulevard. Mr. Schertler said his conversations with Metro Council people is that
they would like to get this project to Hillcrest but they have a legitunate legal issue and if
the answer is no, staff wants them to go through the process of amending, extending, or
getting this project to Hillcrest.
Council President Bostrom noted that he has never heard anyone at Metro State or 3M
indicate that high speed bus service is needed.
Discussion ensued on areas where there was citizen input and those where there was not.
Substitute introduced and adopted Yeas - 6 Nays - 1(Bostrom)
ORDINANCES
NOTE: AN ORDINANCE IS A CITYLAW ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IT IS READ AT FOUR
SEPARATE COUNCIL MEET7NGS AND BECOMES EFFECTIVE AFTER PASSAGE BY THE
COUNCIL AND 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATIONINTHE SAZlVT PAUL LEGAL LEDGER.
34. Final Adoption - O1-739 - An ordinance finalizing City Council action g�anting the
application of W.R. Hezman to rezone property at 1812 Portland Avenue from RT-1 (two
family residential district) to RT-2 (townhouse residential district) to allow conversion of
a duplex to a triplex. (Public Hearing held June 27)
Councilmember Benanav moved approval.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
35. Third Reading - Oi-757 - An ordinance finalizing City Council action granting the
application of New York Bingo Palace, LLC to rezone property from P-1 to B-3 to
e�and the existing building on the lot and to rezone from RT-2 to P-1 to provide pazldng
for a new restaurant and bingo facility at 626 and 608 York Street. (Public hearing held
June 27)
Laid over to August 15 for final adoption
August 8, 2�01, City Council Stunmary Minutes
Page 14
36. Second Reading - O1-799 - An ordinance amending the Saint Paul Legislative Code
Chapter 376 to eliminate the controls on the number of taxicab vehicle licenses, the fares
taxicab companies may charge and establishing additional requirements for new vehicle
taxicab licenses.
Laid over to August 22 for third reading/public hearing
Susoension Items
Councilmember Benanav moved suspension of the rules and approval of the following
resolution:
Resolution - O1-816 - Appzoving the release of the Water Utility easement rights in the
azea of the West Side Flats development.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
Councilmember Coleman moved suspension of the rules and approval of the following
resolution:
Resolution - O1-817 - Authorizing and approving the finai plat for the U.S. Bank Project
as it has been submitted to the Depaztment of Planning and Economic Development and
the appropriate City officials aze authorized and directed to sign the piat and submit to
Ramsey County.
Adopted Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
Councilmember Reiter moved to adjourn the meeting. Yeas - 7 Nays - 0
ADJOURNED AT 6:43 P.M.
,���l;� c�e�
, e-�-_--.rr-
Daniel Bostrom, Council President
ATTEST:
Nancy An erson
Assistant Council Secretary
Minutes approved by Council
� `c� _TOO\
mce
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
�S.
Environmental Protection
Roger Curtis, Director
City of Saint Paul Animal Control
William R. Stephenson, Supervisor
Kelly Rowan, Officer
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
City of Saint Paul Office of License, Inspections and
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Council
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Reiter, Councilmember
City of Saint Paul Division of Code Enforcement
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
City of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Rimberly, Deputy Mayor
City of Saint Paul Citizen Service Of£ice
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
Respondents
TO: The Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota
�t�l�..
�cT '�����
�., o,�
The above named appellant hereby petitions the Court of Appeals
for a Writ of Certiorari to review a decision of the Saint Paul
City Council issued on '17 September 2001, upon the grounds of
the case of City of Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven
F. MELDAHL, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn,App, 2000).
At City Council meeting on Wednesday, 5 September 2001, Council
adopted Resolution No. 01-937, Green Sheet No. 104153; signed
on 17 September 2001, by the Mayor's representative, Susan
Rimbexly, demanding payment of vacant building fee. Further,
City Council resolution demands purchase of insurance policy
Page 1 of 2
naming the City of Saint Paul as a primary insured protecting
and indemnifying it to the extent of the statutory limit of
municipal tort liability of six hundred thousand dollars
($600,000.00) and raised to cover any future increase in such
limits which may later become law.
The aforementioned Resolution also demands payment of Vacant
Building fees within three business days following passage of
said resolution even though Appellant already remitted payment
of said fee on 3 August 2001, as demanded by Resolution 01-763.
These demands are arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable given
the fact that the Appellant presented the District Court's Order
for Proceeding in Forma Pauperis to the City Council at the
aforementioned meeting.
This Resolution also demands removal of
at the property. There is no provision
Paul code that supports this demand.
animals currently present
in the City of Saint
Also, the Appellant has not received as of this date, a copy
of Resolution 01-937 as passed, from any office in City Hall.
This is a quasi-judicial case and is based on case law: City
of Minneagolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven F. MELDAHL,
Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000), in the Court of
Appeals, 14 March 2000.
The only relief Appellant has is a Writ of Certiorari to the
Court of Appeals. Also, there is a claim of an inadequate record
of a quasi-judicial decision.
DATED: 9 October 2001
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Consulting Attorney:
55101-3621
Roxanne Heinrich, Esq. No. 171864
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, Minnesota
(651) 246-8545
(952) 920-1932
55343
page 2 of 2
Statement of the Case
State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals
R ��FI
d�T �`��
c, ��?�
C` ���f
Case Title:
,�,,
Statement of Case of the
Appellant
Donald_D. Drouin, Jr.
Appellant,
Appellate Court
Case No. C07-01-1452
Vs.
City of Saint Paul, et al.,
Respondents.
1. Agency of case origination and name of hearing officer.
Saint Paul City Council; Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Rieter, Councilmember
Saint Paul City Attorney: Meghan Riley, Esq.
2. Jurisdictional statement
Council File No. 01-937/Green Sheet No. 104153.
A. Certiorari appeal.
Statute, rule, or other authority authorizing appeal:
Appeals only available in the Court of Appeals. City of
Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Stephen F. MELDAHL,
Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000).
Authority fixing time for obtaining certiorari review:
City Council File No. 01-937. Green Sheet No. 104153.
Resolution signed by City of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
17 September 2001 on City Council decision. (see attached case).
Form 133 page 1 of 6
B. Finality of Order of Judgement.
Does the judgement or order to be reviewed dispose of
all claims by and against all parties, including attorney fees?
NO
Did the district court order entry of a final partial
judgement for immediate appeal pursuant to MINN. R. CIV.
P. 104.01? NO
Is the order or judgement appealed from reviewable under
any exception to the finality rule? NO
3. Type of litigation and statutes at issue.
Civil. Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapters 43 & 45 and any
other code(s) cited by Code Enforcement or Animal Control.
4. Brief description of claims, defenses, issues and result.
On 5 September 2001, Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution
01-937/Green Sheet 104153, as amended staying the enforcement
of its previous Resolution 01-786/Green Sheet 102342, orderinq
the repair or removal of property located at 1183 Arkwright
Street, Saint Paul; but with added conditions. Resolution
01-937 requires appellant to: 1. purchase an insurance policy
naming the City of Saint Paul as a primary insured protecting
and indemnifying it to the extent of the statutory limit of
and raised to cover any future increase in such limits which
may later become law. 2. must remove animals currently at the
property. 3. pay vacant building fees owinq on this property
within three(3) business days following passage of this
Form 133
paqe 2 of 6
a
resolution. 4. Item 1 and 2 above must be met within fifteen
days(15) days of the passage of this resolution. City Council
has made these demands requiring the exspendature of funds by
the Appellant even though it was presented with the District
Court's Order for Proceeding in Forma Pauperis at the very same
meeting that this Resolution was adopted: 5 September 2001.
Appellant has sought the information to acquire such insurance
demanded by this Resolution from four(4) different insurance
companies; Saint Paul Companies, Chubb Group, State Farm, and
Farmers. Without acception, the underwriters expressed confusion
and lack of knowledge and understanding as to the kind of
insurance that the City is demanding. The Appellant was told
by the Insurors that additional insurance would be unnecessary
because he already has homeowner's insurance.
As to the vacant building fee; the Appellant has paid a two
(200.00)hundred dollar fee on 3 August 2001 as a condition of
the Legislative xearing of 24 July 2001.
All but two of the animals have been relocated by the Appellant,
due to no permit being granted by Animal Control, in late August
2001; even though there is no supporting requirement in Saint
Paul Legislative Code, accordinq to City Council and its Staff.
As of 9 October 2001, the Appellant has yet to receive a copy
of the signed Resolution from any office in City Hall.
Form 133 page 3 of 6
5. Specific issues proposed to be raised on appeal:
Issue 1: Did the Saint Paul City Council make arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, and in bad faith decision to demand
vacant building fees even though District Court's Order for
Proceeding in Forma Pauperis was presented to Council by
Appellant at same meeting where decision was taken; given also
that City Attorney stated that fees had already been paid?
Issue 2: Did the Saint Paul City Council make arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, and in bad faith decision to demand
purchase of insurance policy protecting and indemnifying it
to the extent of the statutory limit of six hundred thousand
dollars($600,000.00) and raised to cover any future increase
in such limits which may later become law; despite being
presented with District Court's Order for Proceeding in Forma
Pauperis by the Appellant?
Issue 4: Does the City of Saint Paul have the right to force
indigent appellant to buy a six hundred thousand($600,000.00)
' policy when homeowner's insurance is already in place; and
knowing that Appellant has the District Court's Order for
.Proceeding in Forma Pauperis?
Isuue 5: Did the Saint Paul City Council make arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable, and bad faith decision to order removel
of animals currently present at the property despite there being
no such requirement in city code?
Form 133 page 4 of 6
Issue 6: Does City Council have obligation to properly serve
Appellant with amended, passed, and signed Resolution within
time limit for obtaining certiorari review?
Issue 7: Was the Saint Paul City Council and/or Saint Paul
City Attorney and/or City of Saint Paul Mayor's Office and/or
Saint Paul City Clerk arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and
in bad faith by not serving Appellant when amended and passed
Resolution was signed by the Mayor's Representative?
Issue 8: Did the Saint Paul City Council abuse their power
and/or authority?
6. Related Appeals. Prior or Pending Appeals arising from the
same action as this appeal: NONE
Known pending appeals in separate actions raising similar issues
to this appeal: Court of Appeals Case No. C7-01-1452.
7. Contents of Record.
Is a transcript necessary to review the issues on appeal? YES.
FULL TRANSCRIPT.
Has the transcript already been delivered to the parties and
filed with the trial court administrator? NO.
Has the transcript been ordered from the court reporter? NO.
If transcript is unavailable, is a statement of the proceedings
under Rule 110.03 necessary? YES.
In lieu of the record as defined by Rule 110.01, have the parties
agreed to prepare a statement of the record pursuant to
Rule 110.04? NO.
Form 133
page 5 of 6
8. Oral argument IS requested.
Oral argument NOT requested at a location other than that
provided in Rule 134.09, subd. 2.
9. Formal brief to be filed under Rule 128.02.
10. Names, addresses, zip codes, and telephone numbers.
Appellant
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101-3621
(651) 776-8388
Respondent
Megan Riley, Esq.
400 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651)266-8710
9 October 2001
Consulting Attorney:
Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(651) 246-8545
(952) 920-1932
No. 171864
� / .. _/i/�i - ��/�LL�/ • . . - � �
Form 133
page 6 Of 6
�.=
t,'���;��i�,��
R�('�.r��e�1- S��'�, S � Soo�
RESOLUTION
--
Presented By
Referred To
Council File # � �� q �
Green Sheet � ��3
�,�,��,� S3
��T �"��
.� � D,n.L
Committee: Date
i WHEREAS, the Court of Appeals has issued a writ of certiorari to the City Clerk of Saint
2 PauI regarding Council File No. 01-786 regarding the demolition of 1183 Arkwright Avenue and
3 has the authority to stay the enforcement of the council resolurion to protect the subject matter of
4 the appeal pursued by property owner ponald Druin; and
WHEREAS, property owner ponald Druin has filed a motion before the City Council
requesting a Stay of the Council Resolution pending an Appeal by the Minnesota Court of
Appeals; and
10
11
12
'3
.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
.21
' ' 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
,5
36
37
38
WF3EREAS, the Court of Appeals in the past has remanded a certiorari appeal back to the
City Council to impose reasonable terms and condiuons of a stay pending appeal and the City
wishes to avoid any further delays in the abatement action; and
WHEREAS, the vacant building registration fees are due and owing for the property; and
WHEREAS, vacant building inspectors have routinely encountered difficulty in obtaining
swift and appropriate response from the property owner to correct code violations found at the .
property, including accumulation of gazbage and animal fecesl; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is concemed about the reports of numerous animals present
inside the property and about the fire hazards associated with the accumulation of garbage inside
the property based upon the amount of gazbage observed upon the porch during a recent code
enforcement inspection ordered by the City Council on August 1, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City risks claims for damages arising out of this nuisance condirion; now
: �_. : - - _ �
therefote;'�e if � - - ' -�
RESOLVED, that the City Council will stay the enforcement of its resolution, Council
File No. O1-786, to demolish the building at 1183 Arkwright upon the following reasonable
terms and conditions which it finds wili adequately protect the health and safety of the City and
its citizens:
i) Property owner ponald Dmin shall be responsible for the exterior maintenance
and security of the property at 1183 Arkwright.
OF SAINT PAUL, NIINNESOTA
2) Property owner will obtain an insurance policy naming the City of St. Paul as a
primary insured protecting and indemnifying it to the extent of the statutory limit
of municipal tort liability of six hundred thousand dollars ($600,000.00) and
1�� i, �s.�-r ; t- ��\ � a sed to cover any future increase in such limits which may later become law.
2 ��-i\`:':.)11ti, �
O� -9��
3 3) Properiy owner must remove animals currently present at the property.
i 4) Property owner shall remove accumulation of garbage and any fuel in accordance
6 with state and local laws.
8 5) Property owner shall pay vacant building fees owing on this properry within three
9 (3) business days following passage of this resolution.
within three
witfi the
must
Requested by Department of�
r,� � �N��e,�'� o�'-��-e_
gy: '�/� p n� �w h,-�LQ �
Form Approved by City Attoraeyn
By:
Approved b�ayor for Submissioa to
ey: S � ay
Approved by Mayor: Date a/+ � Z �
ey: \_ . �
Adopted by Couacil: Date �...T. 5 r �'�Q�
�
Adoptioa Certified by Couacil Secretary
607 N. W.Zd 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. ?A00)
*168 607 N.W.2d 168
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
CITY OF MIlVNEAPOLIS, et aL, Respondents,
v,
Steven F. MELDAHL, Appellant
No. C6-99-1490.
March 14, 2000.
Iandowner brought ution against city, asserting
claims of inverse condemnation/due process,
intentional interference cvith business relations,
absence of process, azbitrary or capricious decision-
making, and negligent training and supervision in
connecuon with city's demolition of landowner's
building on ground thatit constituted nuisance. The
District Court, Hennepin County, Diana Eagon, J.,
dismissed action for lack of subject-matter
jurisdicrion, and owner appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Doris O. Huspeni, J., held that (1) district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review
city's quasi judicial decision to order demolition of
building, and (2) owner's failure to first challenge
city's determination that building was nuisance
requiring demolition by filing petition for writ of
certiorari to Court of Appeals precluded acfion in
district court for damages stemming from demolition.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Appealand Error a893(1)
30 ----
30XVI Review
30XVI(F) Trial De Novo
30k892 Trial De Novo
30k893 Cases Triable in Appellate Court
30k893(1) In General.
The esistence of subject-matter jurisdicaon is a
question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
[2] Administrative Law and Procedure G^r�659
15A ---
15AV Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
15AV(A) In General
15Ak657 Nature and Form of Remedy
15Ak659 Certiorari.
Unless there is statutory authority for a different
proceeding, a party may obtain review of a quasi-
judicial decision by an executive body that dces not
have statewide jurisdiction only by writ of certiorari;
in those circumstances, the court of appeals has
�C ���j(.+�P�e 1
� T � °zp�
exclusive certiorari ,���tion.
[3] Municipal Corporations f°�628 ���Rk
268 —
268X Police Power and Regulations
268X(A) Delegation, Er.tent, and Exercise of
Power
268k628 Destruction of or Injury to Properiy.
District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
review city's quasi judicial decision to order
demolition of building on ground that it constituted
nuisance, where ciry proceeded under its ordinance,
which did not provide for dishict court review of such
decision. M.S.A. § 463.26.
[4] Eminent Domain C.�70
148 ----
148II Compensation
148II(A) Necessity and S�fficiency in General
148k70 Constitutional Provisions.
Both the state and federal constimtions prohibit the
state from taldng property without just compensation.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §
13.
[5] Eminent Domain C=�266
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnafion
148k266 Nature and Grounds in General.
When the government has taken property without
formally using iu eminent domain powers, the
property owner has a cause of action for inverse
condemnaflon. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A.
Const. Art. 1, § 13.
[6] Eminent Domain C^.G�2(1.1)
148 --
148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power
148K2 What Constitutes a Taking; Police and
Other Powers Distinguished
148k2(1) In General; Interference with Property
Rights
1481C1.(1.1) Particulaz Acu and Regulations.
If a ciry council fails to follow the proper procedure
in razing property, the destruction of properry without
due process of law constimtes a taking, enticling the
plaintiff to a detem�ination of daznages by the district
court. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A. Const.
Art. 1, § 13.
[7] Eminent Domain G°�2(1.1)
148 ---
148I Narure, Extent, and Delega6on of Power
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
14SK2 What Consamtes a Taking; Police and
Other Powers Distinguished
148k2(1) In General; Inierference with Property
Righu
148K2(1.1) Particular Acts and Regulations.
When the state properly uses its police powers to
abate a nuisance by destroying property, no taking
occurs and ffie landowner is not entirled to
compensation_ U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A.
Const. Art. 1, § 13.
[8j Eminent Domain f^�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
Mandamus is the proper vehicle to assert a claim
forinverse condemnation.
[9J Eminent Domain G�:G�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemna6on
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
An inverse condemnaaon acaon may require two
sepazate facrual determinations; first, the mandamus
court must determine first whether ffiere has been a
takin or damage in the constitutional sense that it
may compel the state to initiate condemnation
proceedings, and if so, he matter gces before ffie
commissioners to set the dollaz amount of harm the
owner has sufFered. M.S.A. § 117.075.
[10] Eminent Domain <4�269
148 ----
148N Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensadon.
If appealed, an inverse condemnation claim again
goes to ihe district court fact-finder to address ffie
amount of damages.
{l l] Eminent Domain C� 269
148 ---
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
In a mandamus action for inverse condemnation, the
petitioner is not entitled [o move to the damages stage
unless ffie mandamus court deternunes there is a
taking.
[12] Eminent Domain C�= 277
148 —
P�e2
148IV Remedies of Owners of Properry; Inverse
Condemnarion
148K277 Conditions Precedentto Action.
Landowner who failed to first challenge ciry's
determinarion that building he owned was nuisance
requiring demolition by filing petition for writ of
certiorari to Court of Appeals could not bring action
in district court for damages stemming from
demolition; owner's takings claim was not sepazate
and distinct from city's quasi judicial decision to
demolish building. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5;
M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 13.
*170 Syllabus by the Court
1. A party may obtain review of a ciry's quasi-
judicial decision to demolish a building determined to
be a nuisance only through a writ of certiorari to the
court of appeals.
2. A claim of an inadequate record for a quasi-
judicial decision may be reviewed only through a writ
of certiorari to ihe court of appeals.
Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attomey, Henry
T. Reimer, Assistant City Attomey, Minneapolis, for
respondenu.
Robert K. Sheiquist, Bruce L. McLellan, Plunkett,
Schwartz, Peterson P.A., Minneapolis, for appellant.
Considered and decided by RANDALL, Presiding
Judge, TOUSSAINT, Clrief Judge, and HUSPENI,
(FN*) Judge.
OPINION
DORIS O. HUSPENI, Judge.
On appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, appellant Steven Meldahi contends
the district court erred because (1) appellant properly
brought his inverse condemnation claim in district
court and (2) the record was inadequate for certiorari
review. Because under the circumstances of this
matter, appellant could obtain review of the quasi-
judicial decision only through certiorari review by the
court of appeals, we affirm.
FACTS
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
6Q7 N.W.2d 168, Ciry of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
A Minneapolis housing inspector condemned the
building at issue after the owner failed to abate
housing code violations. The owner was then notified
of a May 14, 1997 hearing before the Public Safety
and Regutatory Services Committee of ffie
Minneapolis City Council, when consideration would
be given to the inspection division's recommendation
thaz the building be demolished. On April 20, 1997,
appellant purchased the building for $100, and the
inspection division notified him of the pending
hearing.
At the May 14 hearing, the committee received
conflicting estimates as to the cost of rehabilitating ffie
building as well as other evidence. It determined that
the properry constituted a nuisance and recommended
demolition. The city council rat�ed the
recommendation on May 23, 1997, and the mayor
signed it on May 29, 1997. The committee then
ordered the building razed, notifying appellant in a
June 2, 19971etter.
On June 23, 1997, appellant filed a pro se answer
and counterclaim with the district court, generally
alleging that the building should not be razed and
seeldng review of the city councIl's decision. The
building was subsequenfly demolished.
On September 15, 1997, appellant, represented by
an attomey, filed an amended answer and
counterclaim, raising a variety of issues including
condemnation/due process, intentional interference
with business relations, abuse of process, azbitrary or
capricious decision-maldng, and negligent training
and supervision. Respondent *171 City of
Minneapolis moved to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction or, in ffie alternative, for summary
judgment on appellant's counterclaims. The district
court dismissed the action, determining it did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction because the sole method
for obtaining review of the quasi judicial decision was
through a wri[ of certiorazi to the court of appeals.
ISSIJES
I. Did the district court have subject-matter
jurisdiction to review the quasi-judicial decision by
the city to demolish a nuisance building?
II. Dces an azgument that ffie record is inadequate
preclude certiorari review by ihis court and make
review by the district court proper?
ANALYSIS
I.
Page 3
[1] Tfie exiscence of subject maiter jurisdicrion is a
question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Shaw v.
Board of Regents of Univ. of Minrs., 594 N.W.2d
187, 190 (Minn.App.1999), review denied (Minn.
July 28 1999).
A city or town may enact and enforce ordinances to
address the problem of hazardous buildings.
Minn.Stat. 463.26 (1998). The Ciry of Minneapolis
enacted such an ordiaance pursuant to this stamtory
authoriry. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances
249.10 (1993). It proceeded under this ordinance to
order ffie demoliflon of the building at issue here.
Id. 249.40.
[2] The parties do not dispute that the city's
decision to order demolifion of the building was
quasi judicial. See Minnesota G7r. for Envt1.
Advocacy v. MetropoZitan Council, 587 N.W.2d 838,
842 (Minn.1999) (describing three indicia of a quasi-
judicial action). The authority of the district court to
review such a decision is jurisdictional. Mowry v.
Young, 565 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn.App.199n,
review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 199n. Unless there
is statutory authority for a different proceeding, a
party may obtain review of a quasi judicial decision
by an e�cufive body that does not have statewide
jurisdicuon only by writ of certiorari. �IZis v.
Cowuy of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277, 282
(Minn.1996). In those circumstances, the court of
appeals has exclusive certiorari jurisdiction.
Heideman v. Metropolitan Airpons Commn., 555
N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.App.1996).
[3] The ciry proceeded under its ordinance, which
dces not provide for district court review of the
decision. See Minneapolis, Minn., Code of
Qrdinances ch. 249 (no provision for district court
review). (FNl) Therefore, under applicable
caselaw, appellant could challenge the decision only
by writ of certiorazi to this court. WiZlis, 555
N.W.2d at 282; Heideman, 555 N.W.2d at 324.
Thus, the district court properiy dismissed the case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Minn. R.
Civ. P. 12.08(c) (providing district court shall dismiss
action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).
Appellant also azgues that because he brought an
inverse condemnarion claim as part of the district
court proceeding, dismissal was improper. He asserts
that lus inverse condemnadon claim did not arise unW
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claun to original U.S. Govt. works
' 607 N.W.2d 168, Ciry of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
rhe city razed the building, and seeks damages for ffie
alleged violation of his due process righu in the
nuisance proceeding. We note inivally that the
disffict court determined that appellant did not
properly plead inverse condemnarion. Appellant cites
Basich v. Board of Pe�uions, 493 N.W.Zd 293, 295
(Miffi.App.1992), to argue that courrs should
construe pleadings liberally and judge ihem by their
substance to determine if they give fair *172 notice
of the facu and legal theories. We conclude that even
liberal construction cannot save appellanY attempt to
bring an inverse condemnation claim here.
[4] [57 [6] [7] A brief review of the law regazding
inverse condemnation aids analysis of this issue. The
state and federal constitutions prolribit the state from
taking property without just compensation. U.S.
Const. amend. V; Minn. Const. art. I, 13. When
the government has taken property wirhout formally
using its eminent domain powers, the property owner
has a cause of action for inverse condemnation.
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airpons Comnrn., 298 Minn.
471, 477, 226 N. W.2d G52, 657 (1974) (Alevizos 1).
If a ciry council fails to follow the proper procedure
in razing properry, the destruction of property without
due process of law constimtes a taldng, entitling the
plaintiff to a determination of damages by ihe district
court. DePalma v. Rosen, 294 Minn. I1, I7, 199
N.W.2d 517, 520 (1972). But when rhe state
properly uses iu police powers to abate a nuisance by
desuoying property, no taking occurs and the
landowner is not entitled to compensation. State Fire
Marshal v. Shennan, 201 Minn. 594, 599, 277 N.W.
249, 251 (1938).
[8] [9] [10] "Mandamus is the proper vehicle to
assert a claim for inverse condemnation." Yern
Reynolds Constr., Inc. v. City of Champlin, 539
N.W.2d 614, 616-17 (Minn.App.1995) (citation
omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1995). An
inverse condemnation action may require two sepazate
factvat derernvnatious. AZevizos v. Metropolitan
Airports Commn., 317 N.W.2d 352, 360 (Minn.1982)
(Alevizos II ). The mandamus court must determine
first whether "there has been a ialdng or damage in
the constitudonai sense that it may compel the state to
initiate condemnation proceedings." Thomsen v.
Sta1e, 284 Minn. 468, 475, 170 N.W.2d 575, 580
(1969). If so, the matter gces before ffie
commissioners to set the dollaz aznount of harm ihe
owner has suffered. Alevizos II, 317 N.W.2d at 360;
see Minn.Stat. 117.075 (1998) (providing court shall
appoint commissioners to report amount of damages
sustained from taldng). If appealed, the matter again
Page 4
goes w the district court fut-finder to address the
amount of damages. AZevizos Il, 317 N.W.2d at 360.
[ll] In a mandamus action for inverse
condemnation, the petitioner is not entided to move to
the damages stage unless the mandamus court
determines there is a taldng. Id. AppellanYs
asser¢on that he is entiUed to a trial on damages for
the alleged taking is, at best, premature because there
has been no determination ffiat a taking, in fact,
occurred. Appellant may challenge the determination
that his building was a nuisance warranting
demolition, i,e., assert that a taking occurred, only
through petition for writ of certiorari to this court.
Heideman, 555 N.W.2d at 324. It is only after a
successiul challenge of the city's action that appellant
would be entided to prove a damages claim.
[12] Appellant's attempt to characterize his
complaint as one in inverse condemnation cannot
change the jurisdicrional analysis we must undertake.
See wllis, 555 N.W.2d at 282 (holding that
regazdless of fact that claim was "cloaked in the
manfle of breach of contract," when alleged breach
involved termination of claimant's employment by an
executive body without statewide jurisdicrion,
claimant may challenge the acrion by ceztiorari alone,
absent statutory authoriry for a different process).
The takings claim in this case is not separate and
distinct from the city's quasi judicial decision to
demolish the structure, because an inquiry into ihe
facts surrounding the takings claim would involve an
inquiry into the ciry's decision to demoIisfl the
structure. In such a case, jurisdiction is by writ of
certiorari alone. Id. Further, as already noted, an
inverse condemnation claim must be brought in
mandamus. Appellant did not bring a mandamus
claim. See Yern Reynoldr Constr., 539 N.VV.2d at
616-17 (holding *173. actions for inverse
condemnation must be brought through mandamus
action).
Appellant's reliance on severai inverse
condemnation cases that were brought in district court
is misplaced. None of the cases cited involve a quasi-
judicial decision that a properry is a nuisance. See,
e.g., Zeman v. GYry ofMinneapolis, 552 N. W.2d 548,
549, 555 (Minn.i996) (holding actions by city of
revoldng rental dwelling license did not constitute
taking requiring compensation because ordinance
served public harm prevention purpose); Fitger
Brewing Co. v. State, 416 N.W.2d 200, 205
(Minn.App.1987) (addressing inverse condemnation
claim brought in district court by brewery owner
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
� 6Q7 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
based on ciry's planning and precondemnation
proceedings, where state never acquired properry),
review denied (Minn. Feb. 23, 1988). In Zemm�, the
district court addressed the meriu of the city's
actions. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction was
never raised in that case, however, and appellant
cannot rely on Zemmt to establish district court
jurisdiction in this case. See Naegele OutdooT
Adver., Inc. v. MinneapoZis Commm:iry Dev.
Agenry, 551 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Minn.App.199�.
�
Finally, appellant azgues that because the ciry
violated chapter 249 by providing deficient notice and
by failing to make a record of the hearing, certiorari
review of the cirys decision was impossible. He
contends that with no administrative record for this
court to review, he properly sought review in the
district court. We disagree.
This court has previously rejected the azgument that
absence of a record prevents a writ of certiorari from
Page 5
being the approprlate metfiod of review. Shaw, 594
N.W2d at 192. If tfie record is incomplete, ihis
court may either determine ihat the agency failed to
prove substantial evidence supporting its decision or
remand for further fmdings. Id. The question of
whether the record is in fact inadequate is one that
should be addressed in the certiorari appeal and does
not affect jurisdicrion.
DECISION
The district court was correct in ruling that it did
not have subject-matter jurisdiction to heaz this
matter.
Affirmed.
(FN*) Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of
Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn.
Const. art. VI, § 10.
(FNl.) R'hen a city proceeds under the statute, the
building owner may contest the decision in district
court. Minn.Stat. § 463.20 (1998).
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
Case Number C7-01-1452
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
24 September-2001
DROUIN v. City of Saint Paul, et al.
Frederick K. Grittner
Office of Clerk of the Appellate Courts
305 Minnesota Judicial Center
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Mr. Grittner:
55�01
K` u�tEtE�
SEP 2 4 20a1
�:' v �LERK
In response to the letter from the Appellate Court dated 21
September 2001, attached please find Proof of Service for the
documents in question in the above entitled case dated 24 August
2001 puzsuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 125.02. Deputy City Clerk
Shari IKOOre accepted service for the Respondent. The documents:
Exparte Motion to Stay Decision of the City Council, Order to
Stay City Council Resolution, Statement of the Case of the
Appellant, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and Order to Deny
Mo#.ion to Stay from the District Court, et al., were indeed
served upon the Respondent at the City of Saint Paul City Cierk's
Office, the designated office to serve any/all city departments.
Additionally, Assistant City Attorney Meghan Riley was present
in chambers with Judge Connolly, the Appellant, and Consulting
Attorney. Ms. Riley stated that she had not read the documents
when asked by Judge Connolly about this case, so was given a
copy to read.
0109241tr2AC
page 1 of 2
- f u
If the documents in question are lost or mislaid, the Appellant
will provide another set the the Respondent.
Sincerely yours, cy to: City of Saint Paul Clerk's
� Office
City of Saint Paul
Attorney's Office
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
Attachments (2)
0109241tr2AC page 2 of 2
e
�tate of �fiMntgota,
County of `"""'
rmarn, on oath sayc; that
She uived � e tstachid....
_�
t/�ereirz
in ihe �aunty of
�_�y.... ...............------ _
true and co�rect cop ......
Sub ri d nd smorn /o b ose me t'
.._._�_�.��.----day o,....�v�.��ns�..--.. �aoo 1
_l s=:--..�.�.�...�J��c.�r.�� �.r�'�:
.._._. •_••__..�._d �
�....�.��� ' �._
��� -�'—�� �,�
:.�_�..:: w�_`v4� _ ��
__..„__, State of Min�eeryta, by haad�g t�
leaviag caish
c-�y��
.
_._....��������.._ .._.....»��c�
. �� �
........._��� :___ b�.....__�S?� :_.C�`l�t.xo:�y
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
----------------------------------
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
\��
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Defendants.
SEP 2 q 2001
�iTY CLERK
ORDER DENYING STAY
OF CITY COLTNCIL RESOLUTION
The above-entitled matter came on for hearin� before the undersi�ned judge of
the District Court of Ramsey County on A_ugust 24, 2001, pursuant to Petitioner's Motion
for a Stay of City Council Resolution No: 01-786, Crreen Sheet No: 102342, pendin�
review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Donald D. Drouin Jr., appeared on his own behal£ Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.,
appeared to consult with Appellant. Meghan Riley appeared for the City of St. Paul.
Upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
Donald D. Drouin's application for stay is denied. This Court lacks 7urisdiction.
BY THE COURT:
� S ��
John S. Connolly
Judge of District C
DISTRICT COURT
SECOND NDICIAL DISTRICT
FILE NU�ER:Co-01-785Q
R� Ct! iiF"�
Dated this 24` day of August, 2001
� �
� I ���-���
`� ` � ( -� � � ���'�
� � � �
� -ol- ���� �
�� �� ��
� c��'f-o� �a�a��
���� ` � r�'� ���
D
, Jr
� � �-����'( f S���c /
�- , ��l ����
0� r s r s��-e �c eS �a �
�
( � l�S' �!6' � (� �� OS f/1�l /lv� �t�-S
� v� � / � �
Gt I� 1/�1� ��l�t� �� ���� � G����
�� � � P
� ul �l J��
-� .
� � ' �
�� /� f S ( ��`� -es e� /� l �� �
� � �� Q�{ u ) ,
� � ����c� l � �c'� "�� C��
� � 5�
� , ��
e i�� r�e �.,�-�-- ��'r`�` � � `�`� ,
, � � �� �e l s 7, � � ���U t �C z5
� s �- �
�
� s �'� � � ��- �� � �� � l�,
� , �
�� � �� � ��' � � � 3 � a � �r e
�� , �� �---�� � �
��/� �77� _ � (� ��'�
�-�� �� z ���� ��,�
�, y ti -�rFo�� � ,�rN �
� S�r� �-�-�
Complaint / Oginion Form
City of Saint Paul, Citizen Service Office
15 KeIlogg Boulevard W est,170 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
'le Prin
1AME
iTREET ADDTtESS
:IT'I'
�OME PHONE
Telephone (651) 266-8989 Faa (651) 266-8689
DATE
STATE I ZIP
WORK PHONE
COMMENT / PROBLEM
•„ � Y
�
STATE OF NIINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
�.Cl /7ll �� �C.J • �� �'O i,l��
Relator, (your name)
vs.
C� � f �f �ccul ,
Respon�ent,
���Lc` � .
Respondent. (Agency or Body)
n
To: �9i r� �,�,� / (�c l � L�iirn �j
(Name of Agency or Body)
�����
WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COURT OF APPEALS #: �'1 _ � � _ � +�-� �
(AGENCY OR BODI� NUMBER:
�/ ' 7��
DATE OF DECISION: /G, i ��f/ �
l �
�
You are hereby ordered to return to the Court of Appeals within 10 days after the date
relator's brief is due the record, exhibits and proceedings in th� a�b_° ve-�3titled matter so that this
court may review the decision of the :`�in � /(�t /�j CD.,t/I�/'/,� (name of
agency or body) issued on the date noted above. l
Copies of this writ and accompanying petition sha11 be rved fo� th ither pers nally
or by mail upon the respondent (agency or body) .�in ����� //� �GO/9 G'i � and
upon the respondent or its attorney at:
/ "� Gr1 � �l G / Gt�h��rus� �7a
Sf /��� i'i 5�7b�
(address)
Proof of service shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate courts.
DATED: � 1 `� �
Clerk of Appellz.e Courts
By: � ks File S
nr�-��`�l
Assistant Clerk
�ri"II.0 oi'
APP_� i ar� COURTS
AUG 24 2D0�
RECEIVEC�
AuG z 7 zoo�
CITY CLERFS
-t
Petition for Writ of Certiorazi
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Donald D. Drouin, Jr., Appellant
vs.
Y
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Council
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Reiter, Councilmember
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
City of Saint Paul Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection
Roger Curtis, Director
City o£ Saint Paul Animal Control
William R. Stephenson, Supervisor
Relly Rowan, Officer
�����
�`,� �O�—'"1��
�a
City Of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor
City of Saint Paul Citizen Service Office
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
Cit of Saint Paul Division of Property Code Enforcement
Respondents
TO: The Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota
The above-named appellant hereby petitions the Court of Appeals
for a Writ of Certiorari to review a decision of the Saint Paul
City Council issued on 10 August 2001, upon the grounds of the
case of City of Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven
F. MELDAHL, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000).
OFFICE OF
AppE��,ATE COUftTS
��� 2 � 20ti1
�
page 1 0£ 2
.�,,_
At Public Hearing on Tuesday, 24 July 2001, Legislative
Officer recommended ninety (90) days to repair property;
fifteen ('IS) days as stated in City Council Resolution
No. 01-786, Green Sheet No. 102342; signed on 10 August
by the Mayor's representative, Susan Rimberly.
Hearing
not
2007
Decision made by City CounciZ £or fifteen (15) days to repair
was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; not based on facts
and law. The City Councii did not hear testimony and overturned
their own Hearing Officer's recommendation of ninety (90) days.
The decision of the City Council was not in conformity with
the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
As to nuisance and vacant buildings; there was no hearing for
Appellant on this decision.
This is a quasi-judicial case and is based on case law:
City of Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven F. MELDAHL,
Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000), in thje Court
of Appeals, 14 March 2000.
The only relief Appellant has
Court of Appeals. Also, there
doe a qusi-judicial decision.
DATED: 22 Augus 20531
� � Donald D. Drouin, Jr�.�
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
(651) 776-8388
Gonsulting Attorney:
Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(651) 246-8783
(952) 920-1932
is a Writ of Certiorari to the
is a claim of an inadequate record
55101-3621
`�2 �G `_'��. /�"'2���
No. 171864
page 2 of 2
����1���
'�� �!''-e c� � (�✓ �t S u �� `
� � �l
C /� r� c� � S� �,�,
�E�EtdED
pUG 2 4 2001
GI�Y GLERK
� � � 3 �� ��� j�f
c r �,
� i�eS�u �s
��i��/ �
, f��U� i�� ��".
���� �y
����5 �2�i r �S l�-��j/�fS�l�l�t� �
l ����
�� C - 'i I� �� t-f' �rCr � �'-C S'l��l��i�
�
� ,
���
� �� �
� � " � �� - �0��� P� � � -�� �
� � � ����c � �'e �sd'-� �
_ � � �-� � � ��/'-��L �S
� _
�
����' �t,v�� �1`�t �'� �-
��� �� �
6 s�' ��� � �-�
���,���(�3�
��l'l !'/r'0 �-f � � r
� �S r
�7 7� ���
�ECFIVEp
STATE OF MINNESOTA � z 4 zp01
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
Y ���RK
----------------------------------
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
DISTRICT COURT
SECOND NDICIAL DISTRICT
FILE NUY�ER: Co-O 1-7850
ORDER DENYING STAY
OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Defendants.
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned judge of
the District Court of Ramsey County on August 24, 2001, pursuant to Petitioner's Motion
for a Stay of City Council Resolution No: 01-786, Green Sheet No: 102342, pending
review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Donald D. Drouin 7r., appeared on his own behal£ Roxanne Heinrich, Esq,
appeared to consult with Appellant. Meghan Riley appeared for the City of St. Paul.
Upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
Donald D. Drouin's application for stay is denied. This Court lacks Jurisdiction.
BY THE COURT:
� S ��
John S. Connolly
Judge of District C
Dated this 24 day of August, 2001
State of Minnesota
REC�EiVED
AUG 2 4 2001
District Court 2nd Judicial District
County of Ramsey
GSTY ��ERK
Case No.
Case Type: Civil
In the Matter of:
Donald D. Drouin, Jr., Appellant
1�
Exparte Motion to Stay Decision of
City Council Pending Review by the
Minnesota Appeals Court
City of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor
City of Saint Paul Citizen Service Office
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
City of Saint Paul Division of Property Code Enforcement
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Council
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Reiter, Councilmenber
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
City o£ Saint Paul Office o£ License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection
Roger Curtis, Director
City of Saint Paul Animal Control
William R. Stephenson, Supervisor
Kelly Rowan, Officer
Respondents
MOTION
I am asking the Court for the £ollowing:
1. To stay a decision or resolution of the City of St. Paul City
Council to take any action pursuant to said resolution pending review
by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
2. I am asking the Court £or these requests because I believe
that what the City Council did was unreasonalble, arbitrary, and
capricious. I believe they abused their authority and/or power.
3. This appeal to the Minesota Court of Appeals is the only avenue
of relief for me. That is why I need the stay.
MOT 8/2000 page 1 Of 3
4. I am attaching the following documents that support my request:
Case Law: City of Minneapolis et al., Respondents, v.
Steven F. MELDAHL, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000).
Minutes of the Legislative Hearing, Tuesday, July 24, 2001;
Page 4, Paragraph 4.
Agenda of the Saint Paul City Council; Wednesday, August 1,
2001; Public Hearings, Discussion Item 44, Page 6
Council File No. 01-786 as adopted by the St. Paul City Council
on August 8, 2001 and approved by the Mayor on August 10, 2001.
page 1, line 44.
Proposed letter from Appellant to Gerry Strathman, Legislative
Hearing Officer, dated 25 July 2001, orally read to him via telephone
by Appellant because letter would be unaccepted by same after
Legislative Hearing of 24 JUly 2001.
Letter from Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor, dated
29 June 2001, Notice of Public Hearings.
Letter from Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor, dated
21 August 2001, ordering removal all personal property, fixtures,
or belongings prior to 27 August 2001; not consistent with City
Council Resolution No. 01-786.
5. Verification and Acknowledgements:
a. I have read this document. To the best o£ my knowledge,
information and belief the information contained in this document
is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law.
b. I have not been determined by any court in Minnesota or in
any other State to be a frivolous litigant or subject to an Order
precluding me from serving and filing this document.
c, I am not serving or filing this document for any inproper
purpose, such as to harass the other party or to cause delay or
needless increase in the cost of litigation or to commit a fraud
on the court.
d, I understand that if I am not telling the truth or if I am
misleading the court or if I am serving or £iling this docunment
for any improper purpose, the court can order me to pay money to
the other party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the
other party because of the serving or filing of this document such
as court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
MOT 8/2000 page 2 Of 3
� �
�� �fs
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-3621
(651) 776-8388
Consulting Attorney:
Roxane Heinrich, Esq. No. 171864
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(651) 246-8783
(952) 920-1932
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
� day of � , 2001
Notary Public/ Court Clerk: �'/��r
MICHAEL F. UPTON •
NOTARY PUBL�C•MINNESOTA �
� YyCanmis�mF�iiesJm.91.2005
Z t
MOT 8/2000 page 3 of 3
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
*168 607 N.W.2d 168
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
CIT'P OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Respondents,
v .
Steven F. MELDAHL, Appellant
No. C6-99-1490.
Mazch 14, 2000.
Landowner brought action against city, asserting
claims of inverse condemnation/due process,
intentional interference with business relations,
absence of process, azbivary or capricious decision-
making, and negligent training and supervision in
connection with city's demolition of landowner's
building on ground that it consrituted nuisance. The
District Court, Hennepin County, Diana Eagon, J.,
dismissed action for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, and owner appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Doris O. Huspeni, J., held that (1) district
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review
city's quasi judicial decision to order demolition of
building, and (2) owner's failure to first challenge
ciry's deternunation that building was nuisance
requiring demolition by filing petition for writ of
certiorari to Court of Appeals precluded action in
district court for damages stenuning from demolition.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Appeal and Error G�893(1)
30 ----
30XVI Review
30XVI(F) Trial De Novo
30k892 Trial De Novo
30k893 Cases Triable in Appellate Court
30k893(1) In General. '
The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a
question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
[2] Administrative Law and Procedure C°�659
15A ----
15AV Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
15AV(A) In General
15Ak657 Nature and Form of Remedy
15Ak659 Certiorazi.
Unless there is statutory authority for a different
exclusive certiorari jurisdiction.
P�el
[3j Municipal Corporations G.�628
268 ----
268X Police Power and Regulations
268X(A) Delegation, Extent, and Exercise of
Power
268k628 Destruction of or Injury to Property.
District court lacked subject matter jurisdicuon to
review city's quasijudicial decision to order
demolition of building on ground that it constiruted
nuisance, where city proceeded under its ordinance,
which did not provide for district court review of such
decision. M.S.A. § 463.26.
[4] Eminent Domain <°.`�70
148 ----
148II Compensation
148II(A) Necessity and Sufficiency in General
148k70 Constirutional Provisions.
Both the state and federal constirutions prohibit the
state from taking properry without just compensation.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §
13.
[5] Eminent Domain G'266
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
148k266 Nature and Grounds in General.
When the government has taken property without
formally using its eminent domain powers, the
property owner has a cause of action for inverse
condemnation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A.
Const. Art. 1, § 13.
[6] Eminent Domain C�2(1.1)
148 ----
148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power
1481C1 What Constitutes a Taking; Police and
Other Powers Distinguished
148KL(1) In General; InterFerence with Property
Rights
148k2(1.1) Particulaz Acts and Regulations.
If a city council fails to follow the proper procedure
in razing praperty, the desuvction of property without
due process of law constitutes a taldng, entitling the
plaintiff to a determination of damages by the district
court. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A. Consi.
Art. 1, § 13.
proceeding, a parry may obtain review of a quasi-
judicial decision by an execuGve body that does not [7] Eminent Domain C,G�2(1.1)
have statewide jurisdiction only by writ of certiorazi; 148 ----
in those circumstances, the court of appeals has 148I Nature, Extent, and Delegauon of Power
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
148k2 What Constitutes a Taking; Police and
Other Powers Distinguished
148kL(1) In General; Interference with Properry
Righzs
148KL(1.1) Particular Acts and Regulations.
When the state properly uses its police powers to
abate a nuisance by destroying property, no taldna
occurs and the landowner is not entifled to
compensarion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A.
Const. Art. 1, § 13.
(8] Eminent Domain G�.G�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnauon
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
Mandamus is the proper vehicle to assert a claun
for inverse condemnarion.
[9] Eminent Domain G�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
1481C269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
An inverse condemnation action may require two
sepazate factual determinations; first, the mandamus
court must determine fust whether there has been a
taking or daznage in the constitutional sense that it
may compel the state to initiate condemnation
proceedings, and if so, he matter goes before the
commissioners to set the dollaz aznount of hazm the
owner has suffered. M.S.A. § 117.075.
[10] Eminent Domain G;�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Prnperty; Inverse
Condemnation
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
If appealed, an inverse condemnation claim again
goes to the district court fact-fmder to address the
aznount of damages.
[l l] Eminent Domain �'269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Properry; Inverse
Condemnation
148kL69 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
In a mandaznus action for inverse condemnation, the
petitioner is not enutled to move to the damages stage
unless the mandamus court deternunes there is a
takin�.
Page 2
[127 Eminent Domain G°�277
148 ---
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnarion
148k277 Conditions Precedent to Action.
Landowner who failed to first challenge city's
determination that building he owned was nuisance
requiring demolition by filing peuuon for writ of
certiorari to Court of Appeals could not bring action
in district court for damages stemming from
demolition; owner's [aldngs claim was not sepazate
and distinct from city's quasi judicial decision to
demolish building. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5;
M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 13.
*170 Syllabus by the Court
1. A party may obtain review of a city's quasi-
judicial decision to demolish a building determined to
be a nuisance only through a writ of certiorazi to the
court of appeals.
2. A clann of an inadequate record for a quasi-
judicial decision may be reviewed only through a writ
of certiorari to the court of appeals.
Jay M. Heffem, Minneapolis Ciry Attorney, Henry
T. Reimer, Assistant City Attomey, Minneapolis, for
respondems,
Robert K. Shelquist, Bruce L. McLellan, Plunkett,
Schwartz, PeYerson P.A., Minneapolis, for appellant.
Considered and decided by RANDALL, Presiding
Iudge, TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, and HUSPENI,
(FN*) Judge.
OPINION
DORIS O. HUSPENI, Judge.
On appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, appellant Steven Meldahl contends
the district court erred because (1) appellant properly
brought his inverse condemnation claim in district
court and (2) the record was inadequate for certiorazi
review. Secause under the circumstances of this
matter, appellant could obtain review of the quasi-
judicial decision only through certiorari review by the
court of appeals, we affirm.
FACTS
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
A Minneapolis housing inspector condemned the
bui�ding at issue afrer the owner failed to abate
housing code violations. The owner was then notified
of a May 14, 1997 heazing before the Public Safery
and Regulatory Services Comuuttee of the
Minneapolis Ciry Council, when considerarion would
be given to the inspecrion division's recommendation
that the building be demolished. On Apffi 2Q 1997,
appellant purchased the building for $100, and the
inspection division notified fiim of the pending
hearing.
At the May 14 heazing, the committee received
conflicting estimates as to the cost of rehabilitating the
building as well as other evidence. It determined that
the proper[y constituted a nuisance and recommended
demolition. The city council ratified the
recommendation on May 23, 1997, and the mayor
signed it on May 29, 1997. The committee then
ordered the building razed, notifying appellant in a
June 2, 19971etter.
On June 23, 1997, appellant filed a pro se answer
and counterclaim with the disuict court, generally
alleging that the building should not be rued and
seeking review of the city council's decision. The
building was subsequently demolished.
On September 15, 1997, appellant, represerned by
an attomey, filed an amended answer and
counterclaun, raising a vaziety of issues including
condemnation/due process, intentional interference
with business relations, abnse of process, azbitrary or
capricious decision-making, and negligent uaining
and supervision. Respondent *171 City of
Minneapolis moved to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment on appellant's counterclaims. The district
court dismissed the action, determining it did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction because the sole method
for obtaining review of the quasi judicial decision was
through a writ of certiorazi to the court of appeals.
ISSUES
I. Did the district court have subject-matter
jurisdiction to review the quasi-judicial decision by
the city to demolish a nuisance building?
II. Does an argument that the record is inadequate
preclude certiorari review by this court and make
review by the district court proper?
ANALYSIS
I.
Page 3
(1] The eustence of subject-matter jurisdicuon is a
quesrion of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Shaw v.
Board of Regents of Univ. of Minn., 594 N.W.2d
187, 190 (Minn.App.1999), review denied (Minn.
July 28, 1999).
A ciry or town may enact and enforce ordiaances to
address the problem of hazardous buildings.
Minn.Stat. 463.26 (1998). The City of Minneapolis
enacted such an ordinance pursuant to tlus statutory
authority. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances
249.10 (1993). It proceeded under this ordinance to
order the demolition of the building at issue here.
Id. 249.40.
[2] The parties do not dispute that the ciry's
decision to order demolition of the building was
quasi-judicial. See Minnesota Ctr. for Envtl.
Advocacy v. MetropoZitan Council, 587 N.W.2d 838,
842 (Minn.1999) (desczibing three indicia of a quasi-
judicial action). The authority of the district court to
review such a decision is jurisdictional. Mowry v.
Young, 565 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn.App.1997),
review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 1997). Unless there
is statutory authority for a different proceeding, a
party may obtain review of a quasi judicial decision
by an executive body that does not have statewide
jurisdiction only by writ of certiorazi. �Ilis v.
County of Sherbume, 555 N.W.2d 277, 282
(Minn.1996j. In those circumstances, the couri of
appeals has exclusive certiorazi jurisdiction.
Heideman v. Metropolitan Airpons Commn., 555
N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.App.1996).
[3] The city proceeded under its ordinance, which
dces not provide for disuict court review of the
decision. See Minneapolis, Minn., Code of
Ordinances ch. 249 (no provision for distric[ court
review). (FNl) Therefore, under applicable
caselaw, appellant could challenge the decision only
by writ of certiorazi to this court. �llis, 555
N.W.2d at 282; Heideman, 555 N.W.2d at 324.
Thus, [he district court properly dismissed the case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Minn. R.
Civ. P. 12.08(c) (providing district court shall dismiss
action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).
Appellant also ugues that because he brought an
inverse condemnation claim as part of the disuict
court proceeding, dismissal was improper. He asserts
that his inverse condemnation claim did not arise until
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, Ciry of Mianeapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
the city razed the building, and seeks damages for the
alleged violation of his due process righu in the
nuisance proceeding. We note initially that the
district court determined that appellan[ did not
properly plead inverse condemnation. Appellant cites
Basich v. Board of Pensions, 493 N. W.2d 293, 295
(Minn.App.1992), to aze e that courrs should
construe pleadings liberally and judge them by their
substance to determine if they give fair *172 noflce
of the facu and legal theories. We conclude that even
liberal construction cannot save appellant' attempt to
bring an inverse condemnation claun here.
[4] [5] [6] [7] A brief review of the law regarding
inverse condemnation aids analysis of this issue. The
state and federal constitutions prohibit the state from
taking property without just compensation. U.S.
Const. amend. V; Minn. Const. art. I, 13. When
the government has taken property without formally
using iu eminent domain powers, the property owner
has a cause of action for inverse condemnation.
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airpons Commn., 298 Minn.
471, 477, 216 N.W.2d 651, 657 (1974) (Alevizos I).
If a ciry council fails to follow the proper procedure
in razing property, the deswction of properry without
due process of law consti[utes a taking, entitling the
plaintiff to a determination of daznages by the disuict
court. DePalma v. Rosen, 294 Minn. 11, 17, 199
N.W.2d 517, 520 (1972). But when the state
properly uses its police powers to abate a nuisance by
destroying property, no taking occurs and the
landowner is not entitled to compensation. State Fire
Marshal v. Sherman, 201 Minn. 594, 599, 277 N.W.
249, 251 (1938).
[8] [9] [10) "Mandamus is the proper vehicle to
assert a claim for inverse condemnation." Yem
Reynolds Constr., Inc. v. Ciry of Champlin, 539
N.W.2d 614, 616-17 (Minn.App1995) (citation
omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1995). An
inverse condemnation action may require two separate
factual deternvnations. AZevizos v. Metropolitan
Airpons Commn., 317 N.W.2d 352, 360 (Minn.1982)
(AZevizos II ). The mandamus court must deternvne
first whether "there has been a taking or damage in
the constitutional sense that it may compel the state to
inivate condemnation proceedings." Thomsen v.
State, 284 Minn. 468, 475, 170 N.W.2d 575, 580
(1969). If so, the matter goes before the
commissioners to set the doilaz amount of hazm the
owner has suffered. Alevizos 77, 317 N.W.2d at 360;
see Minn.Stat. 117.075 (1998) (providing court shall
appoint commissioners to report amount of damages
sustained from taking). If appealed, the matter again
Page 4
goes to the district court fact-fmder to address the
aznount of damages. Alevizos II, 317 N.W.2d at 360.
[ll] In a mandamus action for inverse
condemnation, the petitioner is not entided to move to
the damages stage unless the mandamus court
determines there is a taldn�. Id. Appellant's
assertion that he is enuded to a trial on damages for
the alleged taking is, at best, premature because ihere
has been no determination that a taking, in fact,
occurred. Appellant may challenge the detemrination
that his building was a nuisance warranting
demoliuon, i.e., assert that a taking occurred, only
through petition for writ of certiorazi to this court.
Heideman, 555 N.W.2d at 324. It is only after a
successful challenge of the city's action that appellant
would be entitled to prove a daznages claim.
[12] Appellant's attempt to chuacterize his
complaint as one in inverse condemnation cannot
change [he jurisdictional analysis we must undertake.
See Willis, 555 N.W.2d at 282 (holding that
regardless of fact that claim was "cloaked in the
manfle of breach of contract," when alleged breach
involved termination of claimant's employment by an
executive body without statewide jurisdicuon,
claimant may challenge the action by certiorazi alone,
absent statutory authority for a different process).
The takings clairn in this case is not sepazate and
disCmct from tfie city's quasi-judicial decision to
demolish the structure, because an inquiry into the
facts surrounding the takings claun would involve an
inquiry into the city's decisian to demolish the
structure. In such a case, jurisdiction is by writ of
certiorari alone. Id. Further, as already noted, an
inverse condemnation claun must be brought in
mandamus. Appellant did not bring a mandamus
claim. See Yem Reynolds Constr., 539 N.W.2d at
616-17 (holding *173. actions for inverse
condemnation must be brought through mandamus
action).
Appellant's reliance on several inverse
condemnation cases that were brought in district court
is misplaced. None of the cases cited involve a quasi-
judicial decision that a property is a nuisance. See,
e.g., Zeman v. GFty of Minneapolis, 552 N. W.2d 548,
549, 555 (Minn.1996) (holding actions by city of
revoking rental dwelling license did not constitute
taking requiring compensation because ordinance
served public hazm prevention purpose); Fitger
Brewing Co. v. State, 416 N.W.2d 200, 205
(Minn.App.1987) (addressing inverse condemnation
claim brought in district court by brewery owner
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
based on city's planning and precondemnation
proceedings, where state never acquired property),
review denied (Minn. Feb. 23, 1988). In Zeman, the
district court addressed the merits of the city's
actions. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction was
never raised in that case, however, and appellant
cannot rely on Zeman to establish district court
jurisdiction in this case. See Naegele Ouidoor
Adver., Inc. y. Minneapolis Comm��nity Dev.
Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Minn.App.199�.
�
Finally, appellant azgues that because ffie ciry
violated chapter 249 by providing deficient nouce and
by failing to make a record of the heazing, certiorazi
review of the citys decision was impossible. He
contends that with no adnunistrative record for this
court to review, he properly sought review in the
district court. We disagree.
This court has previously cejected the azgument that
absence of a record prevents a writ of certiorazi from
Page 5
being the appropriate method of review. Shaw, 594
N.W.2d at 192. If the record is incomplete, this
court may either determine that the agency failed to
prove substanrial evidence supporting its decision or
remand for fiuther £mdings. Id. The question of
whether the record is in fact inadequate is one that
should be addressed in the certiorari appeal and dces
not affectjurisdiction.
DECLSION
The district court was conect in ruling that it did
not have sub}ect-matter juzisdicuon to heaz this
matter.
Affirmed.
(FN*) Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of
Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn.
Const. azt. VI, § 10.
(FNl.) When a city proceeds under the statute, the
building ownei may contest the decision in district
coun. Minn.Stat. § 463.20 (1998).
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JULY 24, 2001
Page 4
City. His decision does not address any immediate hazards there may be to the surrounding
neighbors. It is a tolerable rislc_ This gives Mr. Drouin opportunity to recover the full value of
his pmperty.
Mr. Morehead suggested an amendment to Mr. Stathman's decision: bring the interior to the
bare wells in a certain amount of time and no animals in the properry. Mr. Strathman responded
he is willing to do the part about animals because this is a vacant building and should not have
any animals in it. He is ieluctant to put the burden on the owner to empty this properiy because
Mr. Strathman is not sure Mr. Drouin has the finances and the wherewithal to do it.
Mr. Drouin responded he cannot hire a mover until he closes on the property and gets a check.
Once the carpet is removed, there is little damage to the floors. Also, he would like the due date
to be August 3. Social security does not disperse until then. As for the animais, he needs titne to
place them. He was told he could not live in the house, but no one said anything about the
animals. He was told he could take caze of them. There are about 13. Mr. Morehead stated
there aze too many cats in the building. The ordinance is very cleaz. If the cats aze not gone by
August 1, they will go to Animal Control.
Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner 90 days to remove or repair the property on
condition that the vacant building fee is paid by noon of August 6, 2001. If the vacant building
fee is not paid by then, the resolution to remove or repair will revert to 15 days.
Resolntion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1003 Hudson Road. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(No one appeazed to represent the property. Photographs were presented.)
Steve Magner stated this building has been vacant since 11-18-97. Current owner is Lois
Harrington. Five summary abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, secure gazage
door, and cut tall grass. On 5-10-01, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken.
An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 5-21-01 with a compliance date of 6-20-01.
As of tlus date, this properry remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
legislative code. Vacant building fees are due. Real taxes aze unpaid in the amount of
$1,557.15. Estimated mazket value is $64,900; estimated cost to repair, $45,000; estimated cost
to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. A code compliance has not been applied for.
Mr. Magner stated he received a phone call from a Don Lazson, who claims to be Lois
Harrington's son. Mr. Lazson at one time filled out the vacant building registration form
indicating he would 6e the one responsible for rehabilitating the property. He now denies he
filled out the document, but asked for a layover. Mr. Magner referred him to Mr. Strathman.
Mr. Strathman stated that Mr. Lazson calied Mr. Strathman's secretary this morning, indicated he
could not find his mother, and asked for additional time.
August 1, 2001, City Council Agenda
pUBLIC HEARINGS (public hearings wiil begin at 5:30 p.m.)
Page 6
43. Resolution - O1-760 - Ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 790
Selby Avenue within 15 days from adoption of resolution. (Legislative Hearing
Officer recommends granting the owner siz months to complete
rehabilitation of the property provided the owner applies for a code
compliance inspection by noon on July 25, 2001.) (Laid over from July 25)
44. Resolution - O1-786 - Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 1183
prkwright Street within fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution.
(Legislative Aearing Officer recommends granting the owner 90 days to
complete rehabilitation of the property provided the vacant building fee is
paid by noon on August 6, 2001).
45. Resolution - O1-787 - Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building at 1003
Hudson Road within fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution. (Legislative
Hearing O�cer recommends approval)
46. Resolution Ratifying Assessment - O1-788 - In the matter of demolition of the
building at 1317 Arkwright Street (70102CC); and summary abatement (snow
and/or ice removal) &om property at 1016 Beech Avenue (JOl SNOW2). (Laid
over from June 27) (Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approving the
assessment for 1317 Arkwright Street and deleting the assessment for 1016
Beech Avenue)
47. Resolution Ratifying Assessment - O1-789 - In the matter of summary abatement
(properiy cleanup) at 1075 Portland Avenue. (Legislative Hearing O�cer
recommends laying over to the August 7 Legislative Hearing and the August
22 City Council meeting) (Laid over from 7uly 25)
48. Resolution Ratifying Assessment - 01-790 - In the matter of the assessment of
benefits, cost and expenses for the Public Works sewer repair program for sanitary
and/or storm sewer conuections as requested by property owners. (File
#SWRREPAIR)
49. Resolution Ratifying Assessment - O1-791 - In the matter of 2001 replacement of
lead water service connections as requested by properry owners. (File
#OILDSCRPL)
�
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) ss.
CIN OF ST. PAUL )
:
I, Shari Moore, Deputy City Clerk ofthe City of Saint Paul, Minnesota,
do hereby certify that I have compared the attached copy of Council File No.
01-786 as adopted by the City Council on August 8, 2001 and approved by
the Mayor on August 10, 2001 with the original thereof on file in my office.
i further certify that said copy is a true and correct copy of said
original and the whole thereof.
WITNESS, my hand and the seal of the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
this 20th day of August, 2001.
d �u- ��-
SHARI MOORE
DEPUIY CITY CLERK
�,ouncurue� O\—`18G
Green Sheet # ( p.'�3 y �
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
RefeRed To
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 ��
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Committee: Date
�
WF�REAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council
to hoid public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering 1he repair or wrecldng and
removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and metal shed located on property hereinafter
refesed to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lmown as 1183 Arkwright Street. This properry is
legally described as follows, to wit:
Lot 3, Eidsmo Addition.
WF�REAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and informarion
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before March 22, 2001, the following are the now lrnown
interested or responsible parties for the Subject Properry:Depar�ent of Verterans Affairs, Regional Office
Fort Snelling, St. Paul, MN 55211; Doaal@ Dumais Drouia Jr., 1183 Arkwright Street, St. Paul, MN
55101; Miles Jeffrey Hecht, 1183 Arkwright Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; Bankers Trust of CA Trustee,
c/o Nation, 4041 Knight Amold Road, Memphis, TN 38118 �
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated May 22, 2001; and •
WHEREAS, this order informed the then lrnown interested or responsible parties that the sh�ucture
located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chaptet 45;.and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolisfi the structure Iocated on the Subject Property by June 21, 2001; and
WF�REAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property deciaring this
building(sj to consritute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and �'
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested thaY the City Clerk schedule pubIic hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and -
WI�REAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the
public hearings; and
WF�REAS, a hearing was held before the Legslative Iiearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendation to appmve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to
make the Subject Property safe and not dehimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the altemarive by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinaaces. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and
�
O 1 �'�dG
1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul Ciry Council on Wednesday, August O1, 2Q01
2 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was
3 considered by the Council; now therefore
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 �
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidenca presented at the above referenced
public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findings and Order conceming
the SubjectProperry at 1183 Arkwright Street:
That the Subject Properry comprises a nuisance condirion as d�efined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the costs of demolition and removai of ttris building(s) is estimated to exceed three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s).
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condirion have not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the CiUzen Service Offices, Division of
Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. •
•t
8. That the Imown interested parties and owners aze as previousiy stated in this resolution and
that the norification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
ORDER
The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and weifare and remove its tilighting influence on the
community by rehabilitating this structure and cosecting all de$ciencies as prescribed in the above
referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and :
ordinances, or in the altemarive by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all`
applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure
must be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Councii Hearing.
2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of time the Cirizen Seivice Office,
Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to
demolish and remove this struchue, fili the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject
Property p��*��ant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
a�.�86
1
2
3
4
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paui, all personal
properry or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed
from rhe property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If alI personal property
is not removed, it shali be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and
dispose of such property as provided by law.
4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owaers and interested parties in
accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. ,
a
Requested by Department of:
Cirizen Service Office: Co_de Enforcement
Adopted by Council: Date ��c c�
Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary
�
.�
g -
� ��>
Form Approved by City Attomey
Approved by Mayor: Date �� �1,
i . % � /�i i/
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
B � ✓l.d�—i.
1�83 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
25 July 2001
Mr. Gerry Strathman
Legislative Hearing Officer
Room 310 Courthouse
15 West Kellohgg Boulevard
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Mr. Strathman:
Per your request, please find enclosed a copy of the Land
Purchase Agreement for 1183 Arkwright Street. It shows the
time frame to which I referre� at yesterday's hearing; which
will end on 20 January 2002.
Also attached is the Activity Summary for case #62-T5-01-000036,
Vacant Building; showing that the case was dismissed via motion
of the city attorney(Penland) on 4 June 2001 and closed the
following day. Accordingly, I believe I am not obligated to
remit the fee.
Further please find copies of notices and other correspondence
from the Property Code Enforcement Division. Highlighted are
some of the many misstatements and errors of fact, etc., that
riddle this documentation as staff has built a case against
me. Since the legislative hearing process only allows a limited
view of the case, I thought it helpful to fill in a more comglete
picture.
I have complied with the Department's demands in as much as
the limited resources available allow and the often missing
or vague standards. This continued and particular scutiny
has been very stressful for my household, disruptive to living, �
and damaging to my health. I would appreciate a complete and
thorouqh review of the history before any conclusions are made.
Thank you for your time and assistance in these matters.
Sincerely yours,
�� . i�
�i�.fl� ..
Donald D. Drouin, Jr. Attachments
CITY OF SAI�IT' PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
June 29, 2001
CITIZEN SERV[CE OFF[CE
Fred Owvsu, Ciry Clerk
DMSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
Michael R Morehead. Psogram Manager
Nuisance Building Code Enforcement
IS W. KellaggBh�d. Rm- !90 Tel: 651-266-8440
SaintPau[,MN55101 Fas:65l-266-8426
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
To all Known Responsible and/or Interested Parties
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Saint Paui City Council and the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City Council have scheduled
public hearings to consider a Council Resolution ordering the repair or removal of the building(s) located
at 1183 Arkwright Street.
' In accordance with the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 45, all owners of record and
other interested parties with a known interest in this building(s) are hereby norified of these hearings. At
these hearings testimony will be heazd from the Citizen Service Office Enforcement Officer and any other
parties who wish to be heard. The Council will adopt a resolution describing what acrion, if any, the
Council deems appropriate.
Please be advised the Public Hearing before the Legislarive Hearing Officer is scheduled for:
Tuesday, July 24, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 330, City Ha11,15 West
Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN 55102
The Legislative Hearing Officer will heaz the evidence and make a recommendation for action to the fuil
City Council:
August Ol, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, Cih•
Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, MN 55102
All costs incurred by the City, including inspecrion costs, administrative costs, title searches, filing fees
and, if necessary, demolition and removal expenses, will be assessed against the real estate as a special
assessment to be collected in the same manner as real estate taxes. If you have any questions conceming
this matter please call the VacantlNuisance Buildings Code Enforcement O�cer Steve Magner at
(651)266-8428, or you may leave a voice mail message.
Sincerely,
�teve �a�ner
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:mI
CITIZEN SERV ICE OEFICE
Fred Owusu, Ciry C[uk
DIVLSION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENl'
Michae[ R- Morehead Pro am Mart¢ er
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Colemcn, Mayor
Nuisyjc¢ Bmildrrsg Code Enjorcrment
I S W. Ke!logg Blvd. Rm. 190 Tel: 65l-266-8440
Saint Paul, MN 55102 Faz: 65/-166-8426
August 21, 2001
Donald Druoin
1183 Arkwright Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Bankers Trust of CA Trustee
c% Nation
4041 Knight Amold Road
A/emphis, Ttv 38118
Re: 1183 Arkwright Street
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please remove all personal property, fixtures, or belongings from the property within five (5)
days. Any items that are left on the properiy will be considered to be abandoned, and to have no
appreciative value. These items will be removed and disposed of as part of the demolition
process.
Ifyou have any quesrions regazding this matter please call Steve Magner at (651) 266-8428, or
you may leave a voice mail message.
Sincerely,
�teve �a�rcer
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Sezvice Office
SM:mI
� _ {
i2�C�iVE�
�UG 2 4 2041
clTV �L�R�
Petition £or Writ o£ Certiorari
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Donald D. Drouin, Jr., Appellant
vs.
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Council
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Reiter, Councilmember
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing O££icer
City of Saint Paul Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection
Roger Curtis, Director
City o£ Saint Paul Animal Control
William R. Stephenson, Supervisor
Kelly Rowan, Officer
City Of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor
City of Saint Paul Citizen Service Office
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
City of Saint Paul Division of Property Code En£orcement
Respondents
TO: The Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota
The above-named appellant hereby petitions the Court of Appeals
for a Writ of Certiorari to review a decision of the Saint Paul
City Council issued on 10 August 2001, upon the grounds of the
case of City of Minneapolis, et al., Responnents, v. Steven
F. MELDAAL, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000).
page 1 of 2
�.,-5
At Public Hearing on Tuesday, 24 July 2001, Legislative
Officer recommended ninety (90) days to repair property;
fifteen {15) days as stated in City Council Resolution
No. 01-786, Green Sheet No. 102342; signed on 10 August
by the Mayor's representative, Susan Kimberly.
Hearing
not
2001
Decision made by City Council for fifteen (15) days to repair
was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; not based on facts
and law. The City Council did not hear testimony and overturned
their own Hearing Officer's recommendation of ninety (90) days.
The decision of the City Council was not in conformity with
the provisions of Chapter 45 0£ the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
As to nuisance and vacant buildings; there was no hearing for
Appellant on this decision.
This is a quasi-judicial case and is based on case law:
City of Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven F. MELDAHL,
Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 SMinn.App. 2000), in thje Court
of Appeals, 14 March 2000.
The only relief Appellant has is a Writ of Certiorari to the
Court of Appeals. Also, there is a claim of an inadequate record
doe a qusi-judicial decision.
DATED: 22 Augu 2001
Don D.� ui�r.��
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
(651) 776-8388
Consulting Attorney:
Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN
(651) 246-8783
(952) 920-1932
page 2 0£ 2
55343
55101-3621
�
i / � y
No. 1 71864 �L' !� ���
�
��
. ,�
Form 133. Statement of the Case
State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals
���� ����
�'�' sr �p�
���
Case title:
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
Appellant,
Vs.
Statement of Case of the
Appellant
Appellate Court
Case No.
City o£ Saint Paul Mayor's Of£ice
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor
City Of Saint Paul Citizen Service O£fice
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
City o£ Saint Paul Division of Property Code Enforcement
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Council
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Rieter, Councilmember
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
City of Saint Paul Office of Licence, Inspections and
Environmental Protection
Ftoger Curtis, Director
City of Saint Paul Animal Control
William R, Stephenson, Supervisor
Kelly Rowan, Officer
Respondents
1. Agency of case origination and name of hearing officer.
Saint Paul City Council; Dan Bostrom, President
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing
O£ficer
2. Jurisdictional statement.
Council File No. 01-786/ Green Sheet No. 102342.
page 1 of 6
,�
A. Certiorari appeal.
Statute, rule or other authority authorizing appeal:
Appeals only available in the Court of Appeals.
City of Minneapolss, et al., Respondants, v. Stephen F.
Meldahl, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn. App. 2000).
Authority fixing time for obtaining certiorari review.
City Council File No. 01-786. Green Sheet No. 102342.
Resolution signed by City of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
10 August 2001 on City Council decision.
B. Finality of order or judgement.
(see attached case).
Does the judqement or order to be reviewed dispose of all
claims by and against all parties, including attorney fees?
�
Did the district court order entry of a final partial
judgement for immediate appeal pursuant to MINN. R. CIV.
P.104.01? NO
Is the order or judgement appealed fram reviewble under
any exception to the finality rule? NO
3. Type of litigation and statutes at issue.
Civil. Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapters 43 & 45 and any
other code(s) cited by Code Enforcement or Animal Control.
4. Brief description of claims, defenses, issues and result.
Code Enforcement initially provided five (5) items via Correction
Notice, dated 17 December 1999; which were acomplished in that
page 2 of 6
month. After repeated requests from appellant since March 2000
and inquiry from Asst City Attorney William Brown and later
through City Clerk Owusu, neither Code Enforcement nor Animal
Control personnel would state specific criteria or Code by/for
which inspection is made. No specific criteria were offered
by Code Enforcement in response to Asst City Attorney William
Brown's written request. Code Enforcement declared
Appellant's property Vacant in response to requests for criteria
and without Public Hearinq. All matters set through the District
Court by Animal Control and Vacant Buildings were dismissed
in the interest of justice. The property was sold in April
2001 then was inspected again on 7 May under new requirements.
Vacant/NUisance Buildings declared the property a nuisance
without Notice of Public Hearings. Animal Control would not
respond to October 1999 application for Four (4) or More Animals
until specifically asked by Appellant via telephone in July
2001. Neither Animal Control nor Vacant/Nuisance Buildings
personnel would not make prior communication with Appellant
to arrange mutually agreeable inspection dates and times.
Saint Paul City Council disregarded recommendation o£ Legislative
Hearing Officer of ninety (90) days for Appellant to complete
rehabilitation of property. Tort claim for intentional inter-
ference with Appellant's contract rights. Marathon Ashland
Petroleum (MAP1 purchased option to close before 23 October
2001. MAP will demolish building a£ter the closing. Why should
present owner then pay for demolition? The new owner, MAP,
page 3 0£ 6
will pay for the removal.
Code Enforcement Officer singled-out Appellant's portion of
sidewalk for Abatement inspite of no visible difference from
sidewalk of adjoining properties to corners of parcel. Appellant
was required to pay Special Assessment due to this action.
Vacant Buildings Unit Supervisor acted prematurely; prior to
Council Resolution deadline of fifteen (15) days after date
of Hearing, sending letter to Appellant reguiring removal of
household goods and personal property from premises prior to
27 August 2001.
All Code Enforcement and Animal Control matters heard through
the District Court have been dismissed in the interest of justice.
5. Specific issues proposed to be raised on appeal.
Issue 1: Did Saint Paul City Council make arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonahle, and in bad faith decision of fifteen (15) days;
disregarding the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer
of ninety (90) days after testimony and hearing in front of
Legislative Hearing Officer?
Issue 2: Does the City Council have a duty to inform indegent
individuals of the procedures, directions, and/or advise as to
the proper procedures?
Issue 3: Does City Council have duty to inform indegent
individuals of the procedures, directions, and/or advice to
page 4 of 6
properly stay their decisions?
Issue 4: Why should the City of Saint Paul demolish this house
when Marathon Ashland Oil (MAP) has already agreed to do so per
executed Purchase Agreement?
Issue S: Is Code Enforcement Department required to give a Public
Hearing to make residential building vacant or a nuisance
property?
Issue 6: Did Vacant/Nuisance Buildings and or Code Enforcement
Division personnel abuse their power and/or authority?
6. Related Appeals. Prior or Pendinq Appeals arising from
the same action as this appeal: NONE
Known pending appeals in separate actions raising similar issues
to this appeal: NONE
7. Contents of Record.
Is a transcript necessary to review the issues on appeal? YES
FULL TRANSCRIPT.
Has the trascript already been delivered to the parties and filed
with the trial court administrator? NO
Has the transcript been ordered from the court reporter? NO
If transcript is unavailable, is a statement of the proceedings
under Rule 110.03 necessary? YES
In lieu of the record as defined by Rule 110.01, have the parties
agreed to prepare a statement of the record pursuant to
Rule 110.04? NO
page 5 of 6
8. Oral argument IS requested.
Oral argument NOT requested at a location other than that provided
in Rule 134.09, subd. 2.
9. Formal brief to be filed under Rule 128.02.
10. Names, addreses, zip codes, and telephone numbers.
Appellant
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101-3621
(651)776-8388
Respondent
Megan Riley, Esq.
400 City Hall
15 West Kelogg Boulevard
Saint Paul, MN 55102
(651)266-8710
_� - 23 August 2001
Consulting Attorney�
,���, /�� �.
Roxa n`ne Heinrich, Esq. Nc. 171864
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(651) 246-8783
(952) 920-1932
page 6 of 6
607 N.W.2d 168, Ciry of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
*168 607 N.W.2d 168
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et aL, Respondents,
v .
Ste�en F. MELDAHL, Appellant
No. C6-99-1490.
Mazch 14, 2000.
Iandowner brought action against city, asserting
claims of inverse condemnation/due process,
intentional interference with business relations,
absence of process, azbitrary or capricious decision-
making, and negligent training and supervision in
connection with ciry's demoliuon of landowner's
building on ground that it constituted nuisance. The
District Court, Hennepin Counry, Diana Eagon, J.,
dismissed action for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, and owner appealed. The Court of
Appeals, Doris O. Huspeni, J., held that (1) disuict
court lacked subject matter jurisdicfion to review
city's quasi-judicial decision to order demolition of
building, and (2) owner's failure to first challenge
city's detemunation that building was nuisance
requiring demolition by filing petition for writ of
certiorari to Court of Appeals precluded action in
district court for damages stemming from demolition.
Affirmed.
West Headnotes
[1] Appeal and Error G;; �893(1)
30 ----
30XVI Review
30XVI(F� Trial De Novo
30k892 Trial De Novo
30k893 Cases Triable in Appellate Court
30k893(1) In General.
The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a
question of law reviewed de novo on appeal.
[2] Adniinistrative Law and Procedure G'659
15A ----
15AV Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions
15AV(A) In General
15Ak657 Nature and Form of Remedy
15Ak659 Certiorazi.
Unless there is statutory autharity for a different
proceeding, a party may obtain review of a quasi-
judicial decision by an executive body that does not
have statewide jurisdiction only by writ of certiorazi;
in those circumstances, the court of appeals has
exclusive certiorari jurisdiction.
Page 1
[3] Municipal Corporations G>628
268 ----
268X Police Power and R awlations
268R(A) Delegarion, Extent, and Exercise of
Power
268k628 DestrucGon of or Injury to Property.
District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
review city's quasi-judicial decision to order
demoliuon of building on ground that it constituted
nuisance, where city proceeded under its ordinance,
wluch did not provide for district court review of such
decision. M.S.A. § 463.26.
[4] Eminent Domain G�70
148 ----
148II Compensation
148II(A) Necessiry and Su�ciency in General
148k70 Constitutional Provisions.
Both the state and federal constitutions prohibit the
state from taldng property without just compensation.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, §
13.
[5] Eminent Domain °�266
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
148k266 Nature and Grounds in General.
When the government has taken property without
formally using its eminent domain powers, the
property owner has a cause of action for inverse
condemnation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A.
Const. Ar[. 1, § 13.
(6] Eminent Domain °f�2(1.1)
148 ----
148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power
148k2 What Constitutes a Taking; Police and
Other Powers Distinguished
148KL(1) In General; Interference with Properry
Rights
148k2(1.1) Particulaz Acts and Regulations.
If a city council fails to follow the proper procedure
in razing property, the destruction of property without
due process of law constitutes a taking, entitling the
plaintiff to a determination of damages by the district
court. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A. Const.
Art. 1, § 13.
[7] Eminent Domain G�2(1.1)
148 ----
148I Nature, Extent, and Delegation of Power
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claun to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.VJ.Zd 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
148K2 R'hat Consurutes a Taking; Police and
Other Powers Distinguished
14S1C2(1) In General; Interference with Properry
Righu
148K2(1.1) Particulaz Acu and Regulations.
When the state properly uses its police powers to
abate a nuisance by destroying properry, no taking
occurs and the landowner is not entifled to
compensauon. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5; M.S.A.
Consi. Art. 1, § 13.
[8] Eminent Domain G°�269
148 ----
148N Remedies of Owners of Properry; Inverse
Condemnation
1481CZ69 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensauon.
Mandamus is the proper velricle to assert a claim
for inverse condemnation.
[9] Eminent Domain C=�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnauon
148K269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compeasation.
An inverse condemnation action may requue two
separate factual determinations; first, the mandaznus
court must determine first whether there has been a
taking or daznage in the constitutional sense that it
may compel the state to initiate condemnation
proceedings, and if so, he matter goes before the
commissioners to set the dollar aznount of harm the
ownerhassuffered. M.S.A. § 117.075.
[10] Eminent Domain G�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Property; Inverse
Condemnation
148k269 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensation.
If appealed, an inverse condemnation claim again
goes to the district court fact-finder to address the
amount of damages.
[ll) Eminent Domain G�269
148 ----
148IV Remedies of Owners of Properry; Inverse
Condemnation
148kL69 Compelling Proceedings to Assess
Compensauon.
In a mandamus acuon for inverse condemnation, the
petiuoner is not entifled to move to the damages stage
unless the mandamus court deternunes there is a
taking.
P�e2
[12] Eminent Domain G°�277
148 --
148N Remedies of Owners of Properry; Inverse
Condemnarion
148k277 Conditions Precedent to Action.
Landowner who failed to first challenge city's
determination that building he owned was nuisance
requiring demolition by filing petition for writ of
certiorari to Court of Appeals could not bring acuon
in disuict court for damages stemming from
demolition; owner's takings claim was not sepazate
and distinct from ciry's quasi judicial decision to
demolish building. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5;
M.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 13.
*170 Syllabus by the Court
1. A party may obtain review of a ciry's quasi-
judicial decision to demolish a building detemvned to
be a nuisance only through a writ of certiorari to the
court of appeals.
2. A claim of an inadequate record for a quasi-
judicial decision may be reviewed only through a writ
of certiorui to the court of appeals.
Jay M. Heffern, Minneapolis City Attorney, Henry
T. Reimer, Assistant Ciry Attorney, Minneapolis, for
respondenu.
Robert K. Shelquist, Bruce L. McLellan, Plunkett,
Schwartz, Peterson P.A., Mioneapolis, for appellant.
Considered and decided by RANDALL, Presiding
Judge, TOUSSAINT, Chief Judge, and HUSPENI,
(FN*) Judge.
OPINION
DORIS O. HUSPENI, Judge.
On appeal from a dismissal for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, appellant Steven Meldahl contends
the district court erred because (1) appellant properly
brought his inverse condemnation claim in district
court and (2) the record was inadequate for certiorazi
review. Because under the circumstances of this
matter, appellant could obtain review of the quasi-
judicial decision only fluough certiorazi review by the
court of appeals, we affirm.
FACTS
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claun to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
A Minneapolis housing inspector condemned the
building at issue after the owner failed to abate
housing code violations. The owner was then notified
of a May 14, 1997 hearing before the Public Safety
and Regulatory Services Committee of the
Minneapolis City CouncIl, when consideradon would
be given to ihe inspection division's recommendarion
that the building be demolished. On April 20, 1997,
appellant purchased the building for $100, and the
inspection division notified him of the pending
heazing.
At ihe May 14 heuing, the committee received
conflicting estimates as to the cost of rehabilitating the
building as well as other evidence. It determined that
the property constituted a nuisance and recommended
demolirion. The city council ratified the
recommendation on May 23, 1997, and the mayor
signed it on May 29, 1997. The committee then
ordered the building razed, notifying appellant in a
June 2, 19971etter.
On June 23, 1997, appellant fled a pro se answer
and counterclaim with the district court, generally
alleging that the buIlding should not be razed and
seeking review of the city council's decision. The
building was subsequemly demolished.
On September 15, 1997, appellant, represented by
an attomey, filed an amended answer and
counterclaim, raising a variety of issues inciuding
condemnation/due process, intentional interference
with business relations, abuse of process, arbitrazy or
capricious decision-making, and negligent training
and supervision. Respondent *171 Ciry of
Minneapolis moved to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary
judgment on appellant's counterclaims. The district
court dismissed the action, detemuning it did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction because the sole method
for obtaining review of Ihe quasi-judicial decision was
through a writ of certiorari to the court of appeals.
ISSLIES
I. Did the disuict court have subject-matter
jurisdiction to review the quasi judicial decision by
the city to demolish a nuisance building?
II. Does an argument that the record is inadequate
preclude certiorari review by this court and make
review by the district court proper?
ANALYSIS
I.
Page 3
[1] The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a
question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Shaw v.
Board of Regents of Univ. of Minn., 594 N.W.2d
187, 190 (Minn.App.1999), review denied (Minn.
July 28, 1999).
A city or town may enact and enforce ordinances to
address the problem of hazazdous buildings.
Minn.Stat. 463.26 (1998). The Ciry of Minneapolis
enacted such an ordinance pursuant to this statutory
authoriry. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances
249.10 (1993). It proceeded under this ordinance to
order the demolition of the building at issue here.
Id. 249.40.
[2] The parties do not dispute fhat the city's
decision to order demolition of the building was
quasi-judicial. See Minnesota Ctr, for Envtl.
Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council, 587 N.W.2d 838,
842 (Minn.1999) (describing three indicia of a quasi-
judicial action). The authority of the disuict court to
review such a decision is jurisdictional. Mowry v.
Young, 565 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn.App.1997),
review denied (Minn. Sept. 18, 1997). Unless there
is statutory authority for a different proceeding, a
party may obtain review of a quasi judicial decision
by an executive body that does not have statewide
jurisdiction onty by writ of certiorari. Willis v.
County of Sherburne, 555 N.W.2d 277, 282
(Minn.1996). In those circumstances, the court of
appeats has exclusive certiorazi jurisdiction.
Heideman v. Metropolitan A%rports Commn., 555
N.W.2d 322, 324 (Minn.App.1996).
[3] The city proceeded under its ordinance, which
does not provide for disuict court review of the
decision. See Minneapolis, Minn., Code of
Ordinances ch. 249 (no provision for district court
review). (FNl) Therefore, under applicable
caselaw, appellant could challenge the decision only
by writ of certiorazi to this court. Willis, 555
N.W.2d at 282; Heideman, 555 N.W.2d at 324.
Thus, the district court properly dismissed the case
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Minn. R.
Civ. P. 12.08(c) (providing district court shall dismiss
action when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction).
Appellant also azgues that because he brought an
inverse condemnation claim as part of the disuict
court proceeding, dismissal was improper. Ae asserts
that his inverse condemnation claim did not azise until
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claun to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, Ciry of Minneapolis v. Me1daL1, (Minn.App. 2000)
the city razed ffie building, and seeks damages for the
alleged violation of his due process rights in the
nuisance proceeding. We note initially that the
district court determined that appellant did not
properly plead inverse condemnation. Appellant cites
Basich v. Board of Pensions, 493 N.W.Zd 293, 295
(Minn.App.1992), to azgue that courts should
construe pleadings liberally and judge them by the'u
substance to determine if they give fair *172 norice
of the facis and legal theories. We conclude tha[ even
liberal construction cannot save appellant' attempt to
bring an inverse condemnation claim here.
[4] [5] [6] [7] A brief review of the law regazding
inverse condemnation aids analysis of this issue. The
state and federal constimtions prolubit the state from
taldng property without just compensation. U.S.
Const. amend. V; Minn. Const. azt. I, 13. When
the government has taken properry without formally
using its eminent domain powers, the property owner
has a cause of action for inverse condemnation.
Alevizos v. Metropolitan Airports Commn., 298 Minn.
471, 477, 216 N.W.2d 651, 657 (1974) (Alevizos 1).
If a city council fails to follow the proper procedure
in razing pcopesty, the destruction of property without
due process of law constitutes a taking, enUtling the
plaintiff to a deternvnauon of damages by the district
court. DePalma v. Rosen, 294 Minn. 11, 17, 199
N.W.2d 517, 520 (1972). But when the state
properly uses its police powers to abate a nuisance by
destroying property, no taking occurs and the
landowner is not entitled to compensation. State Fire
MarshaI v. Sherman, 201 Minn. 594, 599, 277 N. W.
249, 251 (1938).
[8] [9] [10] "Mandamus is the proper vehicle to
assert a claim for inverse condemnation." Vern
Reynolds Constr., Inc. v. City of Champlin, 539
N.W.2d 614, 616-17 (Minn.App.1995) (citation
omitted), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20, 1995). An
inverse condemnafion action may require two sepazate
factual determinations. Alevizos v. Metropolitan
Airports Commn., 317 N.W.2d 352, 360 (Minn.1982)
(AZevizos II ). The mandamus court must deternilne
first whether "there has been a taking or damage in
the constitutional sense that it may compel the state to
initiate condemnaaon proceedings." Thomsen v.
State, 284 Minn. 468, 475, 170 N.W.2d 575, 580
(1969). If so, the matter goes before the
commissioners to set [he dollaz amount of hazm the
owner has suffered. AZevizos II, 317 N. W.2d at 360;
see Minn.Stat. 117.075 (1998) (providing court shall
appoint commissioners to report aznount of damages
sustained from taking). If appealed, the matter again
Page 4
goes to the disu`ict court fact-Fmder to address the
amount of daznages. Alevizos II, 317 N. W.2d at 360.
[ll] In a mandamus action for inverse
condemnauon, the petiuoner is not entided to move to
the damages s[age unless the mandamus court
determines there is a taking. Id. Appellant's
assertion that he is entitled to a trial on damages for
the alleged taking is, at best, premanue because there
has been no determination that a taking, in fact,
occurred. Appellant may challenge the determination
that his building was a nuisance wazranting
demolition, i.e., assert that a taking occurred, only
through petition for writ of certiorazi to this court.
Heideman, 555 N.W.2d a[ 324. It is only after a
successful challenge of the city's action ffiat appellant
would be entitled to prove a damages claim.
[12] Appellant's attempt to characterize his
complaint as one in inverse condemnation cannot
change the jurisdictional analysis we must undertake.
See Willis, 555 N.W.2d at 282 (holding that
regardless of fact that claim was "cloaked in the
mantle of_breach of contract," when alleged breach
involved temunation of claimant's employment by an
executive body without statewide jurisdiction,
claimant may challenge the action by certiorazi alone,
absent statutory authority for a different process).
The takings claim in this case is not sepazate and
distinct from the city's quasi-judicial decision to
demolish the struccure, because an inquiry into ffie
facts surrounding the takings claim would involve an
inquiry into the city's decision to demolish the
structure. In such a case, jurisdiction is by writ of
certiorari alone. Id. Further, as already noted, an
inverse condemnation claim must be brought in
mandamus. Appellant did not bring a mandaznus
claun. See Uern Reynolds Constr., 539 N.W.2d at
616-17 (holding *173. actions for inverse
condemnation must be brought through mandamus
acvon).
Appellant's reliance on several inverse
condemnation cases that were brought in district court
is misplaced. None of the cases cited involve a quasi-
judicial decision that a property is a nuisance. See,
e.g., Zeman v. City ofMinneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 548,
549, 555 (Minn.1996) (holding actions by city of
revoking remal dwelling license did not consfitute
taking requiring compensation because ordinance
served public harm prevention purpose); Fitger
Brewing Co. v. State, 416 N.W.2d 200, 205
(Minn.App.1987) (addressing inverse condemnation
claim brought in district court by brewery owner
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claun to original U.S. Govt. works
607 N.W.2d 168, City of Minneapolis v. Meldahl, (Minn.App. 2000)
based on city's planning and precondemnation
proceedings, where state never acquired properry),
review denied (Minn. Feb. 23, 1988). In Zeman, the
district court addressed the merits of ffie city's
actions. The issue of subject-matter jurisdiction was
never raised in that case, however, and appellant
cannot rely on Zeman to establish district court
jurisdiction in tlus case. See Naegele Outdoor
Adver., Inc. v. Minneapolis Comm�sniry Dev.
Agency, 551 N.W.2d 235, 237 (Minn.App.199�.
�
Finally, appellant azgues that because the ciry
violated chapter 249 by providing deficient notice and
by failing to make a record of ihe heazing, certiorazi
review of the cirys decision was impossible. He
contends that with no administrative record for flus
court to review, he properly sought review in the
district court. We disagree.
This court has previously rejected the azgument ihat
absence of a record prevents a writ of certiorazi from
Page 5
being the appropriate method of review. Shmv, 594
N.W.2d at 192. If the record is incomplete, this
court may either determine ffiat the agency failed to
prove substantial evidence supporting iu decision or
remand for further findings. Id. The question of
whether the record is in fact inadequate is one that
should be addressed in the certiorari appeal and dces
not affect jurisdiction.
DECISION
The distdct court was correct in nilling that it did
not have subjecUmatter jurisdiction to heaz Uris
matter.
Aft3rmed.
(FN*) Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of
Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn.
Const. art. VI, § 10.
(FNl.) When a city proceeds under the statute, the
building owner may contest the decision in district
court. Minn.Stat. § 463.20 (1998).
Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
RESOLUTiON
� C
Presented By
Refesed To
�,uunciirite� p�=�'.1RC>
Green Sheet � jp�y �
ot-ga� �
Committee: Date
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
�
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
WI�REAS, Citizen Service Ofnce, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council
to hold public hearin�s to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering fhe repair or wrec'mng and
removal of a rivo-story, wood frame, sin�le family dweilin� and metal shed located on property hereinafter
referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly l�own as 1183 Arkwright Street. This property is
legally described as follows, to wit:
Lot 3, Eidsmo Addition.
W E�REt1S, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and informarion
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before Mazch 22, 2001, the following are the now lmown
interested or responsibie parties for the Subject Property:Depar�ent of Verterans Affairs, Regional Ofnce
Fort Snelling, St. Paul, M1V SS 11 I; Donald Dumais Drouin 7r., 1183 Arkwright StreeY, St. Paul, MN
55101; Miles Jeffrey Hecht, 1183 Atkvrright Street, St. Paul, �I 551�1; Bankers Trust of CA Trustee,
c/o Nation, 404I Knight Amold Road, Memphis, TN 38118 "
WF�REAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
� Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated May 22, 2001; and .
WHEREAS, this order informed the then Imown interested or responsible parties that the structure
located on the SubjecT Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45;.and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by June 2I, 2001; and
WF�REt1S, the enforcement of&cer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this
building(sj to consutute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and �'
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearin�s before the Legislative Hearing Officer of tfie City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and -
,
WHEREAS, the interested and responsible pardes have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and purpose of the
public hearings; and
WF�EREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, 7uly 24, 2001 ta hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to
make the Subject Properry safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and
remove its blighting influence on the commuaity by rehabilitating this structure in accordance with ail
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the structure in
aecordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearino, and
0l-�37
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14 �
15
16
17
18
19
20 -
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
o �-'� � R _o ti�;����
Wf�REAS, a hearin� was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, August Ol, 2001
and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was �
considered by the Council; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced
public hearings, the Saint Paul City Council hereby adopts the following Findin�s and Order concemi.n�
the SubjectProperty at 1183 Arkwiiight Street: �
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
That the Subject Properiy comprises a nuisance condition as d'efined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45. �
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code vioIations at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then lmown responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s).
That the deficiencies causing tius nuisance condition have not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placazd on the Subj ect Property which
declazes it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Of'�nces, Division of
Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. •
•t
That the lmown interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resoiution and
that the notificarion requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
••� '
The Saint Paul City Council hereby ma�es the following order:
"I'he above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the SubjecY Property safe and not
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and remove its blighting influence on the
community by rehabifitating this structure and correcIIng all deficiencies as prescribed in the above
referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and :
ordinances, or in ihe alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with aIl'
applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the strucrise
must be compieted within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Eiearing:
2. If the above correcrive action is not completed within this period of time the Citizen Service Offce,
Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authoriZed to take whatever steps aze necessary to
demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject
Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul LegisIative Code.
1
2
4
5
6
7
o� °I�`l
a � . ��'�
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all peisonal
property or fixtures of any kind wiuch interfere with the demolition and removal shall be removed
from the property by the responsible parties by the end of tfiis time period. If alI pezsonal property
is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City oi Saint Paul shall remove and
dispose of such property as provided by law. _
4. It is fiuther ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested pasties in
accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code.
a
e
Adopted by Council: Date _R_,�,�,�, �, �
o U ,
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: \ \ _ � �-�- �
Approved by Mayor: Date j� ?�
% �' " /_��i_/i /
Requested by Depar�nent of:
Cifizen Service Offrce: Code_Enforcement
•�
B -
w:.�.-.>
Form Approved by Citp Attomey
0
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Couucil
B ✓(fiu.
M e�Q� �� 1 e�
o ► -°l'3� �
STATE OF MINNESOTA n ��"�� ��
'� � �TE COURTS
IN COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 2 4 2D0?
CASE TITLE:
�{��C�
�nal� J� -� �'O i.li� V� WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Relator, (your name)
vs.
�� � � �� ���;
Respon ent,
�� ������,` l
Responden gency or Body)
TO: SCl/ /� � �/�I,/,� � � � �/r1 ��
(Name of Agency or Body)
COURT OF APPEALS #: �.''� _ 6 l_ y�
(AGENCY OR BODI� NUMBER:
O/ - 7�,(
DATE OF DECISION: �/, / ��q f
v (� 7�/
/
You are hereby ordered to return to the Court of Appeals within 10 days after the date
relator's brief is due the record, exhibits and proceedings in th ab ve- titled matter so that this
court may review the decision of the :�i� ���/ ��� ,j �p�G (name of
agency or body) issued on the date noted above. `
Copies of this writ and accompanying petition shall be rved fo th ither pers nally
or by mail upon the r�spondent (agency or body) �j� ���j������ �' � and
upon the respondent or its attomey at:
/�� ��� /,�Q � o � ��` �CIF�z�7,�St? f 7C7
sf /��� �/.//(.,' S�7C�
(address)
Proof of service shall be filed with the clerk of the appellate courts.
DATED: � I °� �
Cleck of Appellz.e Courts
BY� � ks File S
N�� �� ,�
Assistant Clerk �
RECEIVED
AUG 2 7 2001
ClTY CLERK
f
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
CASE TITLE:
Donald D. Drouin, Jr., Appellant
vs.
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Counci.l
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Reiter, Councilmember
Gerry Strathman, I,egislative Hearing Officer
City of Saint Paul O£fice of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection
Roger Curtis, Director
City of Saint Paul Animal Control
William R. Stephenson, Supervisor
Re11y Rowan, Officer
�UG 2 '�- ZO��
�IL�Q
�,'� - p � - j �I 5 2--
City Of Saint Paul Mayor's Office
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor
City of Saint Paul Citizen Service Of£ice
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
City o£ Saint Paul Division of Property Code En£orcement
Respondents
TO: The Court of Appeals of the State of Minnesota
The above-named appellant hereby petitions the Court o£ Appeals
for a Writ o£ Certiorari to review a decision of the Saint Paul
City Council issued on 10 August 2�01, upon the grounds of the
case of City o£ Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven
F. MELDAHL, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000).
01-q17
OFFIGc OF �
AppE�Lp,TE COURTS
page 1 of 2
-.,�-
At Public Hearing on Tuesday, 24 July 2001, Legislative
Officer recommended ninety (90) days to repair property;
fifteen (15) days as stated in City Council Resolution
No. 01-786, Green Sheet No. 102342; signed on 10 August
by the Mayor's representative, Susan Rimberly.
c�_t��
Hearing
not
2001
Decision made by City Council for fifteen (l5) days to repair
was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; not based on facts
and law. The City Council did not hear testimony and overturned
their own Aearing Officer's recommendation of ninety (90) days.
The decision of the City Council was not in con£ormity with
the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code_
As to nuisance and vacant buildings; there was no hearing for
Appeilant on this decision.
This is a quasi-judicial case and is based on case law:
City of Minneapolis, et al., Respondents, v. Steven F. MELDAHL,
Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000), in thje Court
of Appeais, 14 March 2000.
The only relief Appeilant has
Court of Appeals. Also, there
doe a qusi-judicial decision.
DATED: 22.Augus�t
Donald D. Drouin, J�,�
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota
(651) 776-8388
Consulting Attorney:
Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN
(651) 246-8783 °
(952) 920-1932
page 2 of 2
55343
is a Writ of Certiorari to the
is a claim of an inadequate record
55101-3621
��2"���(-`.X �7--�'v.��
No. 171864
�ECEIVEp
STATE OF MINNESOTA AUG z 4zODl
Clty ���
COUNLY OF RAMSEI'
----------------------------------
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
Vs.
City of St. Paul, et al.,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
SECOND NDICIAL DISTRICT
FTLE N
ORDER DENYING STAY
OF CITY COLTNCIL RESOLUTION
The above-entitled matter came on for heazing before the undersigned judge of
the District Court of Ramsey County on August 24, 2001, pursuant to Petitioner's Motion
for a Stay of City Council Resolution No: O1-786, Green Sheet No: 102342, pendin�
review by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
Donald D. Drouin Jr., appeared on his own behalf. Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.,
appeared to consult with Appellant. Meghan Riley appeared for the City of St. Paul.
Upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
Donald D. Drouin's application for stay is denied. This Court lacks 7urisdiction.
BY THE COURT:
ti S ��
Jonn s. co�ony
Judge of District C
e � -47�1
Dated this 24` day of August, 2001
����1���
� ��''� � � (�! �c S u , C r' �, o � - ���►
l � �.� u �s
C �r�-C� c��S�—_ �c�,� S
� _�a�
al �
� 3�� �✓�'r�/,c� �y' o Lf i� ��d'.
REGEIVED � � � I
AUG 2 4 20�1 U�� �
CETY CLERK A�� 2 7 200i
CfTY ATTORNEY
��l�`� �`y
���15 �2_�r �s ���l�t PS����S �i.
�
� � � ��' �� �-P S��GC
S � / ���
� -1 � P � ( � � �C� - ��--P P ,�
, �.s� -��
� ( � Z � �{ Z �1;�� � v� �'� Z/r �-2 �v
/
� . ,�� �f v .� ��-�a�S
�
� 0�� �c, � � �r` �, r< �--
��� �� �
���,������
a ����� �(��z
l
,��1� �r'a t-r ����� r
� �S (
7 7� ���
State of Minnesota
RECEIVED
AllG � 4 2D�1
District Court 2nd Judicial District
G1TY C1,�RK
County of Ramsey Case No.
Case Type: Civil
In the Matter of: `-
Donald D. Drouin, Jr „ Appellant
u
Exparte Motion to Stay Decision of
City Council Pending Review by the
Minnesota Appeals Court
City of Saint Paul Mayor's Of£ice
Norm Coleman, Mayor
Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor
City of Saint Pau1 Citizen Service Office
Fred Owusu, City Clerk
City of Saint Pau1 Division of Property Code Enforcement
Cdr. Michael D. Moorehead, Director
Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Rich Singerhouse, Inspector
City of Saint Paul City Council
Dan Bostrom, President
Jim Reiter, Councilmenber
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
City o£ Saint Pau1 Office of License, Inspections and Environmental
Protection
Roger Curtis, Director
City o£ Saint Paul Animal Control
William R. Stephenson, Supervisor
Kelly Rowan, Officer
Respondents
MOTION
I am asking the Court for the following:
1. To stay a decision or resolution o£ the City of St. Paul City
Council to take any action pursuant to said resolution pending review
by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
2. I am asking the Court for these requests because I believe
that what the City Council did was unreasonalble, arbitrary, and
capricious. I believe they abused their authority and/or power. �
3. This appeal to the Minesota Court of Appeals is the only avenue
of relief for me. That is why I need the stay.
o t -9�1
MOT 8/2000 page 1 Of 3
o � -1�'t
4, 2 am attaching the following documents that support my request:
Case Law: City of Minneapolis et a1., Respondents, v.
Steven F. MELDAHL, Appellant. 607 N.W. 2d 168 (Minn.App. 2000).
Minutes of the Legislative Hearing, Tuesday, July 24, 2001;
Page 4, Paragraph 4.
Agenda of the Saint Paul City Council; Wednesday, August 1,
2001; Public Hearings, Discussion Item 44, Page 6
Council Fi1e No. 01-786 as adopted by the St. Paul City Council
on August 8, 2001 and approved by the Mayor on August 10, 200'i.
page 1, line 44.
Proposed letter from Appellant to Gerry Strathman, Legislative
Hearing Officer, dated 25 July 2001, orally read to him via telephone
by Appellant because letter would be unaccepted by same after
Legislative Hearing of 24 JU1y 2001.
Letter from Steve Magner, Vacant Buildings Supervisor, dated
29 June 2001, Notice oP Public Hearings.
Letter from Steve Magner� Vacant Buildings Supervisor, dated
21 August 2001, ordering removal all personal property, fixtures,
or belongings prior to 27 August 2001; not consistent with City
Council Resolution No. 01-786.
5. Verification and Acknowledgements:
a. I have zead this document. To the best of my knowledge,
information and belief the information contained in this document
is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing 1aw.
b. I have not been determined by any court in Minneso�a or in
any other State to be a£rivolous litigant or subject to an Order
precluding me from serving and filing this document.
c. I am not serving or filing this document for any inproper
purpose, such as to harass the other party or to cause delay or
needless increase in the cost of litigation or to commit a fraud
on the court.
d, I understand that i£ I am not telling the truth or if I am
misleading the court or if I am sesving or filing this docunment
for any improper purpose, the court can order me to pay money to
the other party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the
other party because of the serving or filing of this document such
as court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.
MOT 8/2000 page 2 Of 3
o i -� _.
,�:�� - �-
Donald D. Drouin, Jr.
1183 Arkwright Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-3621
(651) 776-8388
Consulting Attorney:
Roxane Heinrich, Esq. No. 171864
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
(651) 246-8783
(952) 920-1932 '
Subscribed and sworn to be£ore me this
� day of �,�,J� , 2001
Notary Public/ Court Clerk: �v
MiCHAEL F. UPTON •
NO7AAYPUBLIC•MINNESOTA �
� YyGommissimEzpiesJ+n.11.2005
r •
MOT 8/2000 page 3 of 3
OFFIC" �F THE CITY ATTOIL�IEY
Cla�xon, .:abinsort,Jt,CityAnorney
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Colen�¢n, hfayor
civil Division
400 Ciry Hrslf
I S iYes1 Ke!lo,;g B(vd.
Snint Pnul, bfinnesata 5� IOZ
Teleplione: 651266-87/0
Fncsimi(e: 651298-5619
October 24, 2001
Clerk of Appellate Court
305 Minnesot� Judicial Center
25 Constitution Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55155-6102
Re: Donald Druin v. City of St. Paul
Court File No. C7-01-1452
Dear Clerk of Court:
I am in receipt of an Order dated October 19, 2001. The Order indicates that it was filed on
October 22, 2001 and my office received it today. The Order grants an extension to allo�v a
Certificate of Transcript to be filed with the Court or a letter filed indicating why a transcript has
not been filed.
It is my understanding that Relator requested transcripts of all proceedings in the City of St. Paul
dealing with Donald Druin. Relator's Statement of the Case that indicates he �vould like the
decision of the St. Paul City Council as reflected in resolution number 01-786 reviewed. The
legislative hearing officer considered the resolution on July 24, 2001 and the Council considered
the resolution on August 1, 2001 and again on August 8, 2001. There are audio and video tapes
of the above proceedings in need of transcription. Relator has requested and received audio tapes
for at least some of the proceedin�s listed above. The City did not charge for the cost of copying
the tape. However, the City does require a charge for transcription.
The City of St. Paul does not have an individual who completes transcription �o•ork. Instead, the
City relies upon private court reporters for the preparation of transcripts. The City has
designated Nancy Meyer from Caption MN, Inc. to prepare the transcript. Relator was informed
of this in a letter—a copy of which is attached to this letter.
The City believes that the responsibility to pay for the transcription lies «�ith the Relator. To
date, Mr. Druin has not made financial arrangements with the City or directly �vith Ms. Meyer to
pay for the cost of the transcription. Because no financial arrangemencs have been made, the
City has not directed Ms. - �yer to prepare the transcripts.
The City believes it has fulfilled its obligations under Rule 115.04, subd. 2. The City will not
requesf that the transcription work be completed until appropriate financial arran�ements have
been made unless directed to do so by the Court.
�
Truly yours,
� �
Megh . Riley � �
Assist City Attomey
OF" ` �F THE CITY ATI'ORNEY
C��y. . dobinsort, Ja, Citp A�torney
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Nornr Caleman, bfayor
Ciri7 Division
400 Ciry Hr.fl
IS lY'estKet/oggBfvd.
Snim Pnu{ blir.r.esotn 55l0?
Telepliorte: 65! 266-S7I0
Fr.csimile: 6i 12gS-5619
October 16, 2001
Donald Druin
1183 Ark�vri�ht Stree[
St. Paut, MN 55101-3621
Re: Donald Druin, Jr. v. City of St. Paul
Court File No. C7-01-1452
Dear Mr. Druin:
I�vrite to clarify the status of your appeal to the Court of Appeais by Writ of Certiorari.
In your statement of the case, you indicate that a full transcript of thz proceedin�s is necessary
for revietiv. You reference the hearing in front of Jerry Strathman on July 24, 2001. You also
reference the hearing involving the August 10, 2001 City Council Resolution. The Council
considered this resolution on August 1, 2001 and Au�ust 8, 2001.
The rules of appellate procedure make you—the person appealin� responsible for
ordering the transcripts for the above-referenced dates and making financial arranoements to pay
for the cost of the transcription. See 1Vlinn. R. Civ. App. P. 110.02, subd. 1; 115.0". There
appears to be some confusion as to whether you have ordered transcripts for the above-referenced
hearings. My understanding is that you requested audio tapes of the proceedings in mid-
September. The city did not treat this request for audio tapes as a request for transcription. To
request transcripts, you �vill need to contact the Council Secretary and make financial
arrangements for transcription. The City uses Nancy Meyer from Caption NIN, Inc. for
transcription. Pursuant to Minn. R. App. P. 115.02, subd. 2, the City designates I�zncy Meyer
for transcription of the audio tape. Her telephone number is 952-322-2113.
As' I mentioned earlier, you have not made financial arrangements with the City. I
understand that you left a messa;e �vith E1eni Skevas yesterday indicatin� that yoe zre
proceeding In Forma Pauperis. I refer you to Rule 109.02 of the Rul�; of Appellz:� Procedure.
Beczuse the `Vri[ of Certiorari involves the decision of the City Council, the Councit operates
like the district court for the purposes of Rule 109.02. If the City reczi� es and approc�es a Motion
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, it �vill make arrangements for transcrip;ion znd the transcription
ceRificate. As you know from eariier discussions, you can file the bfotion ��: ith th� City Clerk.
Truly yours,
UV�- � �
Megha . Riley
Assistan City Attomey
October 16, 2001
Druin letter pa�e t�vo
cc: Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.
Clerk ofAppellate Court
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF RAMSEY )
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
Rita M. Bossard, being first duly swom, deposes and says that on the 24t day of October,
2001, at the City of Saint Paul, county and state aforementioned, (s)he served the attached Letter
to Clerk of Appeilate Court dated October 24, 2001 with attachments by depositing copies
of same in the United States mail at the City of Saint Paul, true and correct copies thereof,
properly enveloped, with first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the following
individuaUindividuals.
Donald Druin
1183 Arkwright Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-3621
Roxanne Heinrich, Esq.
3932 Auburn Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55343
---, � ,
' i . _-,
, � �� / �i ���-��'-t-?'
Rita M. Bossard
Subscribed and swom to before me
.,a.... ._
� • � � CLEMENTS
�, �- �:�UC-MINNESOTA
��Jt�aMISSION
.���
=- ; ,�E:; JAN 37, 2005
�r•.;..�-w
� f 1C.�,Y �
- Re: Transcript for ponald Druin
Page 1 of 1
From: Meghan Riley
To: Johnson, Lucille
Date: 1/2/2002 ll:20 AM
Subje Re: Trans cript for ponald Druin
Keep both—those should go to Shari Moore as part of the record for appeal. I received my own copy from the court
reporter.
Meghan
»> Lucille Johnson 01/02/02 11:17AM »>
Meghan, I received an orignal and a copy from Caption Minnesota, Inc., of ffie Tmnsciipflon of Legilation FIeazing Ju(y 24, 2001. Should I keep the original
and send the copy to your office?
file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00OO1.HTM 1/2/2002
Council File # O \ — �$G�
Green Sheet # ( p."1.3 �"( 7•
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
�
1 WE�IEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council
2 to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and
3 removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and metal shed located on properiy hereinafter
4 referred to as the "Subject Properiy" and commonly l�own as 1183 Arkwright Street. This property is
5 legally described as foilows, to wit:
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Lot 3, Eidsmo Addition.
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before March 22, 2001, the following are the now lrnown
interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property:Deparhnent of Verterans Affairs, Regional Office
Fort Snelling, St. Paul, MN 55111; Donald Dumais Drouin Jr., 1183 Arkwright Street, St. Paul, MN
55101; Miles Jeffrey Hecht, 1183 Arkwright Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; Bankers Trust of CA Trustee,
c/o Nation, 4041 Knight Arnold Road, Memphis, TN 38118
WI3ER.EAS, Division of Code Enfarcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated May 22, 2001; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then laiown interested or responsible parties that the structure
located on the Subj ect Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the structure located on the Subject Property by June 21, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condirion; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condirion has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings befare the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the time, date, piace and purpose of the
public hearings; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, July 24, 2001 to hear testunony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendarion to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties to
make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitaring this structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to be
completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and
o ► -'1d�
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
WFIEREAS, a hearina was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, August Ol, 2001
and the testimony and evidence including the acrion taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer was
considered by the Council; now therefore
BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the above referenced
public hearings, the Saint Paul City Councii hereby adopts the following Findings and Order concerning
the Subject Property at 1183 Arkwright Street:
1. That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislarive Code, Chapter 45.
2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the
Subject Property.
4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible parties
to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s).
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected.
CQ
7
�
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placazd on the Subj ect Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of
Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution and
that the norification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled.
••� •
The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following order:
The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Property safe and not
detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the
community by rehabilitating this structure and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above
referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and
ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure
must be completed within fifteen (15} days after the date of the Council Hearing.
2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of tune the Citizen Service Office,
Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary to
demolish and remove tfiis structure, fill the site and charge the costs incurred against the Subject
Froperty pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
0�.�86
3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal
property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolirion and removal shall be removed
from the property by the responsible parties by the end of this time period. If all personal property
is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint Paul shall remove and
dispose of such property as provided by law.
4. It is fiirther ordered, that a copy of this resolurion be mailed to the owners and interested parties in
accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
Adopted by Council: Date ��� �, `
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�
Requested by Department of:
Citizen Service Office; Code Enforcement
ByC�� .
��i
Form Approved by City Attorney
Approved by Mayor: Date �� `.�
: /� , v � /�L%/
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By: r/�"r/
OEPAFtTMH�IT/OFFICECOUNGYL ,. DATEMITWim _ '�
Division of Code Enforcement 06/29/Ol -.- -- -
corrracr aezsotr a at+or� -
Michael R. Morehead 266-8439 _ „r„n ��
sE aa ��aceaon ar co�aq
dnesday, Au�ust Ol, 2001 ,-. . - - .
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE
-- � , 3w:. �s �ti
o�=�1d6 = _
, ��
GREEN SHEET � No��102342 �_`
wuauoie: � -' , '6u�u�. ' .. _ _ _
��� ��.o. _
� /�/� /
�wx � - �arv�nouar 1 � lL� - ��arcaauc
- :._
- � °- - -
— --
nwnwc �— - --- � -
ortGet - - - " rww�tmeueF2eR. . _ . . - nWCU�iFInnliCrc
�MYOR(ORI1i.9R1111i) - ❑ � �
ES- -� - (CLIP ALL LOCA SIGNATUR� -- .
City Council to pass this resolution which will`order tlie owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s).� If
the owner fails to comply with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered
to remove the building. The subject property is located at 1183 Arkwright Street. -- "� CF?'ct?;
Go�� R
� � = _ : � JUL��I � 26Q1
7ECAMMENDATION Approve (A) or Rejed (R) _ . _ . _ _ _ ___ _ ������ ��� Musruaswea Txe wu.owu+e Quesnoxs:
- - _ 1. Has thie P�rm e�efMwked undera mritract far Mie departmenl7
- PLANNING COMMISSION - YES No -- .. -. ,
CIBCOMMfTTEE -- � -._ - _ -_ 2�FiasM"sce��me�etheenaa'tyanpbyee9 - - ,
, .._ _ _
. .-_ _.- . ..� .,.. . . -.
CML SERVICE COMMISSION , . , . . � " `" � ` - ' _ ""'
._-. _ ,r;:.YES NO; _ ;..�_ _._.--�
:�,-..,.= , .. . � . _ ..�....,—.,.,--
... ., . � .. 3 Dces tfis P�� D� a sidN nof namalyP� M' �Y ��R�� �Y �PbY�T
_. . . , - - YES NO . . .
<
- ". 4. k thin pareduH`m a Wpeted vendoYt . .
.- ' . .. -. _ , � ,
. _. . _._:__.. .__,.._,.' '__ .,
. - �VES . , 'NO` -_ . , . .
. _ __ ' _ ' ' __ _' '. _ _, — _ _._ - �in aIl Yes ansv.ets an separate sheet and attac� W Dreen aheet�
"P1'$���('�s °�gft�`I��`"$6�� ��ed in Chapter 45 and a vacant building.as,defined in Chapter 43 of
the Saint Paul Legislarive Code: The owners, interested parties and responsible parties l�own to.tlie Enforcement
Officer were given an order to xepair or remove the building at 1183 Arkwright Street by June 21, 2001, and have
failed to comply with those orders. � ` ' � � -� � � �
, , . - �.
.i�.
4DVANTAGESIFAPPROVED '-- -
The City will eliminate a nuisance. � _ � . ; -� � G � `���� 1 � 2� ��
T �
_ - � y � �T�R/11
. . . Fs
31SADVANTAGESIFAPPROVm - - - -- �
The City wiIl spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s)._ These costs will be.assessed to the property,
collected as a special assessment against tYie property ta�ces. --=° -� -°
JISADVANTAGESIFNOTAPPROVED ,- _ "__.,__ _ - _ _"' ' �"' " „ .>.. _. _ _. . - ,
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the.City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community.
°�::- . _ .�'} - _
AOUNTOFTRANSACTIONf '��b�VVV-�7�vvV_ _
sauece NnisanceTfiousingAbatement
- COST/REVENUE BUD6ETED (pRCLE ON� 4'. YE6 :. NO .
� �rmrr�s�c =� 33261 �.� �=��� :� -
D 1-'1d6
�Z.7c7'�ii
Date: July 24, 2001
Time: 10:00 am.
Piace: Room 330 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Gerry Sirathman
Legisiafive Hearing Officer
1. Laid Over Summary Abatements:
J0102CC Demolition of 1317 Arkwrieht Street
JOl SNOVJ2 Snow and/or ice removal from 1016 Beech Street.
1317 Arkwri t Street
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
1016 Beech Street
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends deleting the assessment.
2. Laid Over Summary Abatement:
J0104A Properry cleanup at 1075 Portland Avenue.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the August 7, 2001, Legislative
Hearing.
3. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1183 Arkwright Street.
If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends granting the owner 90 days to remove or repair
the property on condition that the vacant building fee is paid by noon of August 6, 2001.
4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1003 Hudson Road. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Iiearing Officer recommends approval.
�
CITIZEN SERVICE OFFICE
Fred Ovnaea, Ciry C(erk
DIVISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT
A-tichael R Marehead, Program Manager
L J NuisanceBuildingCadeEnforcement
Norm Coleman. Mayor IS IY. KelloggBlvd. Rm. 190 Tel: 65I-266-8440
SaintPau1,�55703 Fax:6i1-266-&426
7une 29, 20�1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
,Citizen Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division has requested
the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or
removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: ,
1183 Arkwright Street
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as foliows:
Legisiative Hearing - Tuesday, July 24, 2001
City Council Hearing - Wednesday, August Oi, ?001
The owners and responsible parties of record are:
Name and Last Kno�m Address
Department of Verterans Affairs
Regional Office
Fort Sneliing
St. Paul, MN 55111
Donald Dumais �rouin Jr.
1183 Arlcwright Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Miles 7effrey Hecht
1183 Arkwri�ht Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Bankers Trust of CA Trustee
c/o Nafion
4041 Knight Arnold Road
Memphis, TN 38118
Interest
Fee Owner
Equitable Title
Equitable Tifle
Mortgagee
01—'1r6
1183 Arkwright Street.
June 29, 2001
Page 2
The legal description of this properiy is:
Lot 3, Eidsmo Addition.
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this building(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as
defined by Legislative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an
order to the then lrnown responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by
correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s).
o�-��'
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition
remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this
property. It is the recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City
Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and
remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Division of Code
Enforcement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred '
against the real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as tases.
Sincerely,
�teve �a�h.er
Steve Ma�ner
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:mI
cc: Frank Berg, Buildin� Inspection and Desia
Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Paul Mordorski, PED-Housin� Division
cCnph
c�` -��
yy_
MINUTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Tuesday, July 24, 2001
Room 330 Courthouse
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
The meeting was called to on�er at 10:05 am.
STAFF PRESENT: 7ohn Betz, Code Enforcement; Roxanna Flink, Real Estate; Steve Magner,
Code Enforcement; Mike Morehead, Code Enforcement
Laid Over Summary Abatements:
J0102CC Demolition of 1317 Arkwright Street
JOISNOR'2 3aaw and/or ice removai from 1016 Beech Street
1317 Arkwright Street
(No one appeared to represent the properry.)
Gerry Strathman recommends appmval of the assessment.
1016 Beech Street
(A videotape was shown.)
Moira Gaidzanwa, owner, appeazed. Her sidewalk has less snow than the adjacent property. It
looked like it was plowed the previous day and was snowed over in the mosning.
John Betz reported that upon receipt of a complaint, a letter was mailed on 1-19-0 i to the
property owner at 451 Lynnhurst Avenue East. An inspection was conducted on 1-24-01. The
inspector noted there was snow and ice built vg on the sidewalk. A handwritten notice was sent
to the property owner at fhe same address. It was reinspected on 1-31-01. It read that the snow
and iee remained and the sidewalk was hazardous.
Ms. Gaidzanwa stated she did not receive the notice. Mr. Betz responded the first notice was
generated &om the Citizen Service Office. Several notices were sent out from his office for
rental registration, correction notices. None of these have been returned as undeliverable.
Mr. Strathman stated that the City send notices through the U.S. mail system, and that is
considered delivered under the 2aw. Ms. Gaidzanwa responded she would not choose to ignore
this notice when she responds #o all other getters the City sends her. She has someone that takes
care of the snow. It iooks like less than an inch of accumulation. John Betz responded that City
ordinance reads that snow is to be removed within 24 hours.
Mr. Strathman recommends deleting the assessment. Technically, the City has met its burden of
proof. From the videotape, it does not seem a case of serious neglect. The owner assures him
that she did not receive notice, and he will take her word for it this time.
�t ��
LEGISLATTVE HEARING MINUTES OF NLY 24, 2001
Laid Over summary Abatement:
J0104A Property cleannp at 1075 Portiand Avenue.
(No one appeared to represent the property.)
Page 2
John Betz reported tlus was iaid over because the owner was out of town due to a tragedy in the
family. She was suppose to call Mr. Betz back, but did not do so. He suggested that this be laid
over again.
Gerry Strathman laid over to the August 7, 2001, Legislative Hearing.
� Resolation ordering tLe owner to remove or repair the property at 1183 Arkwright Street.
If the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(Photograplvs were presented.)
Steve Magner reported this property has been condemned since 12-10-99 and has been vacant
since 5-8-00. There haue been four summary abatement notices issued to remove vehicles, cut
tall grass, remove refuse. On 5-9-01, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken.
As of today, the properiy remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
legislative code. Vacant building fees aze due. Rea1 estate taxes aze paid. Estimated mazket
value is $52,9�0, estimated cost to repair, $20,000 to $50,000; cost to demolish, $8,000 to
$9,000. The lazge gap for repair is due to Code Enforcement's inability to completely inspect the
properiy.
Donald Drouin, owner, appeazed and stated he has a signed purchase agreement from the
adjacenY properiy. Within six months, the house will be moved or demolished. He does not
understand the rush.
Gerry Strathman asked about the closing date on the purchase agreement. Mr. Drouin responded
no more than 180 days from April 25, which may be September 23. He would like an eatension
of time to cover the period of the purchase agreement.
Mr. Strathman asked does the purchase agreement ca11 for the closing to occur by the September
date. Mr. Drouin responded yes.
Mr. Magner stated there is a gas starion called Marathon Oil adjaceat to 1183 Arkwright Street.
They are purchasing the property, perhaps to expand the operarion there. Mr. Magner concern is
the time limit He has not seen the purchase agreement and would like some finality with the
whole issue.
Mr. Drouin stated that several meetings ago, he gave whoever was here the name and phone
number of the person in the regional real estate office of Mazathon Oil. Mr. Magner responded
that Mr. Drouin could have brought with him a copy of the ageement.
C�\ �lo
LEGISLATIVE F3EARING MINUTES OF JLTLY 24, 2001 Page 3
Mike Morehead reported there is a long history with this house. It is considered a trash house.
Over a year ago, Mr. Morehead found 17 cats in the house, storage in the basement up to the
raftezs, storage on the main floor shoulder height. The house was littered with cat feces. Fie
talked to someone m tfie Cify Attomey's Office to prosecute the owner for faiIure to pay ttie
vacant building fee. The case was originaliy dismissed on assurances that the owner was going
to pay the vacant building fee. There is a history here of noncompiiance and no follow through.
A couple of weeks ago, the porch was packed full of stuff. Mr. Morehead would like the
following: 1) Follow through on the vacant building fee, 2) A bond posted, 3) a determination as
to whether the house is marketable. The only way to determine that is to get the contents and
animals out. No one is supposedly living in there. The properry should be emptied to the baze
walls so a prospective purchaser may determine its worth. The house is so permeated with cat
urine that no one will want it. 4) The fuel in the house is dangerous.
Mr. Drouin stated he objects to the demand for a bond. He is a disabled vet living on a fvYed
income. He does not have bond fimds. There are no feces in the house. The house is not full of
junk. He hied to get the property cleaned up. As of a yeaz ago May, he could not get specific
criteria of what was required beyond cleaning up the trash in the house. Mr. Morehead saw the
dumpster at the properry, said Mr. Drouin, so his office knows the work is being done. They
cannot say he is being noncompliant when he is working on this.
Mr. Strathman asked is Mr. Drouin unable or unwilling to post a bond. Mr. Drouin responded he
is unable to post a bond. The money went to rent a dumpster.
Since the prospective buyer is Mazathon oil, stated Mr. Strathman, it seems they have no
intention of occupying this house. He asked what difference it makes if the house is demolished
by the City. Mr. Drouin responded he does not want to pay for the demolition. That is a cost that
the buyer is to incur as per the purchase agreement.
Mr. Strathman stated he would like to see the purcbase agreement to understand its terms. Mr.
Magner stated if the owner is going to go ahead with the purchase agreement, by the time the
house is demolished aud the assessment ratified, it would be in the hands of Mazathon Oil, who
woutd receive the bill.
Mr. Morehead stated he wouid like to see Mr. Drouin get the full value of his property. At the
same time, Mr. Morehead would like to protect neighboring properiy and to have Mr. Drouin
follow the law. If the City demolishes the building, all thaY would be left is a vacant lot. Mr.
Morehead is lookiag for a solution so thaY neighbors aren't in auy danger, and the house is in
compliance. He would like the purchase agreeme� acceleraced.
Mr. Magner stated landfilis do not accept mtmicipal waste mixed in with the construction
landfill. The property will have to be cleaned out before the demolition.
Mr. Strathman stated he will recommend approval of ihe order on condition that the vacant
building fee is paid by August 1. The order will be amended from 15 days to 90 days, which
allows for the transfer of ownership and for the new buyer to demolish the properiy before the
�� � o�a
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLTLY 24, 2001 Page 4
City. His decision does not address any immediate hazards there may be to the surrounding
neighbors. It is a tolerable risk. This gives Mr_ Drouin opportunity to recover the full value of
lus property.
Mr. Morehead suggested an amendment to Mr. Stathman's decision: bring the interior to the
baze weIIs in a certain amount of time and no animals in the property. Mr. Strathman responded
he is willing to do the part about animats because this is a vacant building and should not have
any animals in it. He is reluctant to put tbe burden on the owner to empty this property because
Mr. Strathman is not sure Mr. Drouin has the finances and the wherewithal to do it.
� Mr. Drouin responded he cannot hire a mover until he closes on the properry and gets a check.
Once the cacpet is removed, there is little damage to the floors. Also, he would like the due date
to be August 3. Social seciuiiy does not disperse until then. As for the animals, he needs time to
place them. He was told he could not live in the house, but no one said anything about the
animals. He was told he could take care of them. There aze about 13. Mr. Morehead stated
there are too many cats in the building. The ordinance is very cleaz. If the cats are not gone by
August 1, they wiIl go to Animal Control.
Gerry Strathman recommends granting the owner 90 days to remove or repair the property on
condition that the vacant building fee is paid by noon of August 6, 2001. If the vacant building
fee is not paid by thea, the resolution to remove or repair will revert to 15 days.
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 1003 Hudson Road. If
the owner fails to comply, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building.
(No one appeared Yo represent the property. Photographs were presented.)
Steve Magner stated this bu3lidimg has been vacant since 11-18-97. Current owner is Lois
Harrington. Five summazy abatement notices have been issued to remove refuse, secure garage
door, and cut tall grass. On 5-10-01, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed, and photographs were taken.
An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on 5-21-01 with a compliance date of 6-20-01.
As of this date, this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
legislative code. Vacant bailding fees are due. Reai taxes are impaid in the amount of
$1,557.15. Fslinoated market vatne is $b4,9p0; estimated cost to repair, $45,000; estimated cost
to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. A code compiiance has not been applied for.
Mr. Magner stated he received a phone rall frt>m a Don Larson, who ciaims to be Lois
Harrington's son. Mr. L,arson at one time filled out tlie vacant buiiding registration form
indicating he wouid be the one responsible for rehabilitating the property. He now denies he
filled out the document, but asked for a layover. Mr. Magner refeaed him to Mr. Strathman.
Mr. Strathman stated that Mr. Lazson called Mr. Strathman's secretary this moming, indicated he
could not find his mother, and asked for additional time.
o � �t �t�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINTJT'ES OF NLY 24, 2001
Page 5
Mr. Strathman asked about the mazket value. Mr. Magner responded that amount is too high
based on the condition of the property. He does not believe there is much value listed to the
property. Sometimes, the assessor is not looking that close. Thaf amount also includes land.
C - Q�..l. ir.. � u . � -. .. .� �� -., . .t.�. ..
The meeting was adjoumed at 10:50 am.
�
Page 1
�
��
�.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
--------------------------------------------------
Donald Druin, Jr., ORICINAL
Relator,
vs. Court of Appeals No. C7-01-1452
City of Saint Paul,
Respondent.
TRANSCRIPTION OF
LEGISLATION HEARING - JULY 24, 2001
Nancy J. Meyer
Registered Professional Reporter
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
14286 Dulcimer Way
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124-5954
(952) 322-2113
Fax: (952) 322-2110
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
`J
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2
MR. STRATHMAN: Now we have an order to
remove or repair 1183 Arkwright. Is there anyone
here on this? Looking for somebody here on 1183
Arkwright. Your name, sir?
MR. DRUIN: Donald Druin.
MR. STRATHMAN: Are you the owner of this
property, Mr. Druin?
MR. DRUIN: Yes.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. Let's start with a
staff report. Mr. Magner.
MR. MAGNER: Steve Magner for code
enforcement. 1183 Arkwriqht Street was a
two-story wood-frame single-family dwelling.
According to our files it's been (inaudible) on
December lOth, 1999.
MR. STRATHMAN: Excuse me. December lOth,
1999? Okay.
MR. MAGNER: By code enforcement, and it's
been vacant since May 8th, 2000. Current property
owner is listed by Ramsey County as Donald Druin
as well as Banker's Trust California. There have
been four summary abatement notices issued to
remove vehicles from unimproved surfaces, remove
inoperable vehicles, cut tall grass and weeds,
remove various vehicle parts, scrap wood,
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 3
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
recycling materials, et cetera.
On May 9, 2001, an inspection of the building
was conducted. A list of deficiencies, which
constitutes a nuisance condition, was developed.
Photographs were taken. In order to abate,
nuisance building was issued on May 22nd, 2001,
with a compliance date of June lst, 2001.
As of this date, the property remains in a
condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by
the legislative code. The vacant building fees
are due and owing. A citation was issued charging
the owner with failure to pay the vacant building
fees. Real estate taxes have been paid. Taxation
was placed at an estimated market value of 52,900.
As of July 24th, 2001, a code compliance
inspection has not been applied for, bond has not
been posted. We estimate the repairs of the
structure to be 20- to 50,000. The large gap is
because of the inability to completely inspect the
property at the time that we did, and we estimate
the demolition to be between 8 and 9.
We are seeking a resolution to repair
within -- remove or repair within 15 days. The
owner is here, and he does have some negotiations
that have been ongoing with the adjacent property
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
{952) 322-2113
�
�
u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4
owner, and I'11 let him explain what he's doing.
MR. STRATHMAN: Mr. Druin.
MR. DRUIN: Needless to say, I don't agree
with a lot of the statement, at least what I could
hear. The last correspondence I had from code
enforcement was a notice of this public hearing,
and I think it's the -- the May letter. I called
the inspector. He was on vacation that week_
Called back the following week after the 20th of
June, told me that there was -- the only thing on
the property was a summary abatement from
February, which we were here about last month.
The -- aside from all that and this -- this
notice is that, as we've said, I've got a signed
purchase agreement with the adjacent property
owner. So within six months the house is either
going to be moved or demolished anyway. I don't
understand what the rush is.
MR. STRATHMAN: The purchase agreement
that you have with the owner, does it specify --
do you have a closing date? Do you have a--
MR. DRUIN: The closing is no more than
180 days from the 25th of April.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay.
MR. DRUIN: Which -- what is that? The
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 5
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23rd of September.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. At which time you
expect the ownership to transfer to another
person?
MR. DRUIN: Right.
MR. STRATHMAN: And then your
understanding is that they're either going to
rehab it or remove it, one of the two?
MR. DRUIN: Right. Well, no, they're not
going to rehab it. It will be moved or
demolished.
Okay.
MR. STRATHMAN: Oh, moved or demolished.
MR. DRUIN: The -- I'm sorry. The reason
why I bring this up is I would like to get an
extension to cover the period of the purchase
agreement.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. I understand.
MR. DRUIN: There doesn't seem to be a
bunch of point in rushinq this, the inevitable,
anyway.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. And the purchase
agreement calls for the closing to be by or before
September 21st?
MR. DRUIN: Yes.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 6
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. Which is
approximately two months from now; right?
Mr. Magner, do you have any information or
points of view you'd like to provide?
MR. MAGNER: Just what Mr_ Druin has
indicated to us. Adjacent to his property is a
gas station, and apparently -- I don't know if
it's the corporate -- Marathon Oil is apparently
purchasing this property, and one would assume
they're doing this to expand their operation.
They're kind of in a confined area. I suppose
they're qoing to have to go to a bigger
development. And Mr. Druin has informed us that
he has the signed purchase agreement. He has not
closed, but it was his plan to keep the dwelling
and relocate it or give it to someone who could
relocate the dwelling.
Our concern is it's just that we kind of have
some time limit on this. I've never seen a
purchase agreement. I don't know that I-- I
don't know one way or the other. I would like to
just have some finality with the whole issue.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. Well -- and this is
currently a vacant building?
MR. DRUIN: Now, several meetings ago we
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 7
gave whomever was here the name and phone number
of the person in the regional real estate office
of Marathon/Ashland Petroleum, so they could have
verified all this.
MR. MAGNER: You could have also brought a
copy today.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. Well --
MR. DRUIN: I'm not going to release that
information.
MR. STRATHMAN:
Certainly,
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: We have a long
history with this house.
MR, STRATHMAN: Excuse me?
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: We have a long
history with this house.
MR. STRATHMAN: I gathered that.
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: For lack of a better
term, it's a trash house. The initial inspection
was well over a year aqo, at which point there was
17 cats in the house and garbaqe in the basement.
There was storage in the basement up to the
rafters, storage in the main floor shoulder
height. The house was littered with cat £eces.
We have had ongoing problems with getting
follow-through from the owner of the house, I've
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
s
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 8
asked my staff to put down and -- (inaudible). I
just left Mr. John Pennon's (phonetic) office, one
of the city attorneys who prosecuted the owner
(inaudible) for a building (inaudible)_ He had
received assurances that -- originally dismissed
the case on the basis of assurances that the $200
vacant building fee was going to be paid by the
owner and the owner's lawyer. The money has still
not been paid.
There is a history of noncompliance and no
follow-through. The last time I was by the house
within the last couple of weeks, the front porch
is still packed with stuff. We haven't been
inside. We don't know if there's cats inside. I
don't want the animal control people or the humane
society on my staff's case. I don't know what --
what's left in there? Animals?
Whatever your decision is going to be, I-- I
offer the following recommendations: One, we'd
like some follow-throuqh, a formal vacant building
fee posted. Two, we want a bond posted. Three,
the issue of whether the house is even -- even
marketable, whether it's going to be moved or
demolished has to be determined. The only way you
can determine that is to get the contents out and
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 9
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the animals out. I want the animals removed,
every single one of them. I want the building, if
it's going to be sold anyway, since nobody
supposedly is living there, which we haven't been
able to determine whether anybody living's in it
or not -- since nobody's supposedly living in it,
I want it empty to the bare walls so that a
prospective purchaser who may wish to acquire it
to move it in determining whether it's worth it.
My staff -- and I have my own personal
opinion -- is the house is so permeated with the
smell of cat urine that nobody's going to want it.
If that's the issue, it's not going to be moved,
then there's the case of demolition. (Inaudible)
lived in the house the last time I was in it. It
represents a danger in the case of the gas station
and danger to the house on the south. It's just
full of junk. It's a danger to firefighters.
Those are some issues I would ask that you
consider when you make your decision in this
particular matter, among other things, but a long
history of noncompliance, noncooperation with the
owner and the owner's attorney, so -- Steve, do
you have anything else to add?
MR. MAGNER: No, I think that sums it up.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 10
�
i
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CQMMANDER MOREHEAD_ A11 right.
MR. STRATHMAN: Response?
MR. DRUIN: Yes. I object to the demand
for a bond because when this-all started with
the -- a complaint about the backyard, what, three
years ago -- I lost track here -- I was very open
with the inspector and told him what the situation
was. And I have to keep repeating this like
somehow -- it's bad enough that I have to say it.
I'm a disabled vet living on a fixed income. I do
not have bond funds.
There's no feces in the house. You're really
overstating the case, and it's really irritating.
There -- the basement is not filled to the joists.
The house is not full of junk. I've been trying
to -- to get this situation cleared up, but as of
a year ago May, I believe, we could not qet any
specific criteria what was required beyond
cleaning up the -- the trash in the house, which
was done. And I believe if the commander was the
one that le£t these notices at the house, he saw
the Dumpster there, and it was full, so you know
that work is being done. You can't say I'm not
noncompliant when I've been working on this.
MR. STRATHMAN: Let's -- let's go through
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page Il
�
1
2
some of these issues one at a time. Vacant
building fee, is it correct that it's still un --
�
�
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unpaid?
MR. MAGNER: That is correct, sir.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. And -- and I guess
from your comments that you're unable or unwilling
to post the bond; is that correct?
MR. DRUIN: I'm not able to. Went to rent
a Dumpster.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. The -- I would like
to understand if -- the difference, if this -- in
respect to -- since the buyer is Marathon Oil,
prospective buyer is Marathon Oil, and everything
I gather is they have no intention of occupying
this house?
MR. DRUIN: Right.
MR. STRATHMAN: What -- what difference
does it make if the house is removed by the city?
They're going to have to remove it. What's the
difference whether the city removes it or they
remove it?
MR. DRUIN: Because I don't want to pay
for the demolition. That's -- that's a cost that
the buyer is to incur as per the purchase
agreement.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 12
MR. STRATHMAN: I would like to see the
purchase agreement to understand what the terms of
it are, and -- but it does seem to me if this
is -- if this is scheduled to change ownership in
the next couple of months, I understand there's
some hazards involved here, but --
MR. MAGNER: 3ust one point of interest.
If he is going to go ahead with this purchase
agreement, by the time the house would actually be
demolished and the assessment would be -- would be
ratified, it would be in the hands of Marathon Oil
by then anyway, so they would end up having to pay
the special assessment on the taxes or they would
receive the bill. They have the right to field
that as the property owners.
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: Mr. Strathman.
MR. STRATHMAN: Mr. Morehead.
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: I would like to see
Mr. Druin get the full value out of his market,
but at the same time, it's -- it's -- yeah, we're
getting complaints in my office to protect the
neighborhood property and to have Mr. Druin comply
with the law.
I think there's been a long history of
noncompliance here, you know. This is the way I
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 13
think it could happen that would hurt Mr. Druin,
that the city comes in and demos this building.
All he's going to have left is a vacant lot with a
pending assessment on it. Marathon Oil, I don't
know if they have the ability to allow their
purchase agreement then or not. I don't know.
One of the sticking points, I think, is
Mr. Druin insists that the house be moved. I
don't know that he can find a willing buyer who
would be willing to -- who lives in the house to
move it because of its conditions. We're lookinq
for a crafted solution here so that the neighbors
aren't in any danger, the house is in temporary
compliance until something happens here. This
hearing is to force those issues.
Again, I want to repeat, nothing's going to
be (inaudible). We evaluate the house (inaudible)
until it's empty to the four walls. With respect
to (inaudible), there might be room to move it and
come in and assess it and see how much damage, the
odor and the cat urine and everything else, has
been done to the house.
So whatever orders you come up with should
include emptying the house. We do want our vacant
building fee. It's only 200 bucks. And I want to
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
` J
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 14
make sure there's not a large fuel (inaudible)
that would jeopardize firefighters. They can
accelerate the purchase agreement, whatnot, that's
fine --
MR. MAGNER: One -- one addendum to what
Mr. Morehead said is that the dwelling will have
to be completely cleaned out prior to demolition
because the way the demolition occurs, whether the
city did it or Marathon hired a contractor,
Mr. Druin, whoever would do that, the landfills do
not accept mixed municipal waste in with the
construction landfill, so the actual -- it
actually has to be cleaned out prior to the actual
demo.
MR. STRATHMAN: I understand. I'm -- I'm
considering doing something a bit unorthodox here
but I think which might resolve the problem. I'm
going to recommend approving the order to remove
or repair on the condition that the vacant
building fee be paid, but I'm going to recommend
amending the order from -- instead of 15 days to
be 90 days. And that would a11ow the proposed
transfer of ownership to take place before the
city's demolition order would be in effect, and it
would allow the new buyer an opportunity to remove
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 15
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it themselves before the city would become
involved.
So that -- and I think that will get us to
where we need to be. The only thing it doesn't do
is it doesn't address any of the hazards there may
be to the surrounding neighbors, but I-- I think
it's a-- a tolerable risk, and I think to the
extent possible, this does give Mr. Druin an
opportunity to recover the full value of his
property, whatever that might be. Commander
Morehead.
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: Would you consider an
amendment to that order requiring him to bring the
property to bare walls within a certain number of
days and no animals in there, no cats, no animals
whatsoever, in the property within a certain
number of days?
MR. STRATHMAN: I'd certainly willing to
do the part about animals. This is a vacant
building. It's not supposed to have any animals
in it. So it would have to be free of animals,
and it would be the responsibility to keep it like
that. I --
SPEAKER: Ninety days --
MR. STRATHMAN: I'm a little reluctant --
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
��
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 16
and perhaps Mr. Druin and others can comment on
this_ I'm a little reluctant to put the burden on
him of -- of emptying this property, frankly,
because I'm not sure he has the financial or other
wherewithal to do it. Comment, Mr. Druin.
MR. DRUIN: Well, that was going to be my
point is that until we close and I get a check, I
can't hire a mover, but -- and as far as the --
the house goes, you know, I lived in that house
long enough, and I've got a background in
construction. I know what I'm looking at. Once
the carpeting is removed, there's very little
damage to the floors or anything else in that
house. It's not in the sorry state that one might
lead you to believe.
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, let -- let it be the
new owner's problem. They have to know what
they -- well, there's the buyer beware situation.
If they're buying it, it's their responsibility to
know what they're buying. And they're buying it,
as it happens, full of trash, and they'l1 be
responsible for it once they take possession.
And, therefore, that's what I'm going to
recommend to the city council. I'm going to
recommend approval of the order on the condition
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 17
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the vacant building fees be paid by noon
on -- when would that be?
SPEAKER: Prepare for council on --
MR. STRATHMAN: Vacant building fees be
paid by noon on August lst, and I'm further
recommending that the order be amended to say 90
days instead of 15 for removal or repair.
MR. DRUIN: The only thing with that,
could the due date be after the 3rd of August?
MR. STRATHMAN: The city council meets on
the lst of August, and they -- they need to know
that the vacant building fees have been paid
before they do this, before they approve this.
MR. DRUIN: I realize that, but social
security doesn't disperse until the 3rd.
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, we can do it on the
3rd. If -- and if that isn't paid, then the order
will revert to 15 days.
MR. DRUIN: Okay. And the other thing I
wanted to mention --
MR. STRATHMAN: Mr. Druin, let's be clear
about this. I'm recommending that you be given 90
days and you pay the vacant building fee by
August -- shall we say 4th?
MR. DRUIN: Uh-huh.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
� J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 18
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. Do you know what
day of the week that is? What day o£ the week is
that?
MR. DRUIN: Thursday, I believe.
SPEAKER: It's on a Saturday.
MR. STRATHMAN: No. Well, let's make it
the following Monday. What is that?
SPEAKER: August 6th.
MR. STRATHMAN: August 6th. Vacant
building fee be paid by August 6th.
MR. DRUIN: All right.
MR. STRATHMAN: If you don't pay the
vacant building fee, then the order will revert to
15 days. Okay?
MR. DRUIN: All right.
MR. STRATHMAN: And this will be before
the city council on August 1st.
SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. STRATHMAN: And that's a public
hearing. August the 6th to pay the vacant
building fee. That will be continued. That will
be a contingency in the city council's approval in
my decision if they approve it.
SPEAKER: Sure.
MR. STRATHMAN: August 6th to pay the
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�.J
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Paqe 19
vacant building fee. But they'11 actually do the
action on August lst, and that will just be a
contingency in the action. I'll explain it to
them at the meeting, and Mr. Druin, if he's there.
I think he already understands it. Okay.
MR. DRUIN: I did want to mention, though,
as far as the animals go, I did apply for a
permit, but I've never heard £rom whomever it goes
to.
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, this is supposed to
be a vacant building anyway.
MR. DRUIN: I'm talking about October '99.
MR. STRATHMAN: Oh. I don't know about
that.
MR. DRUIN: Yeah. Well, this is what
precipitated this whole thing, and I never heard
from whomever is supposed to be administrating
these permits. I paid my fee and applied for a
permit, and that's the last I've heard from -- I
don't know -- animal control, code enforcement,
something.
MR. STRATHMAN: I don't know. I don't
have anything before me on that so I can't help
you with that.
MR. MAGNER: LIEP is the division of the
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 20
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
city that administrates permits_
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. Mr. Druin,
apparently that is Licensing, Inspection,
Environmental Protection, LIEP office.
MR. DRUIN: Oh.
MR. STRATHMAN: They're across the street
if you want to go and talk to them.
MR. DRIIIN: I know where they're at. I
want to make sure you understand this completely;
that I need time to place the animals.
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, you got --
MR. DRUIN; They're not --
MR. STRATHMAN: They're going to have to
be out of there by August lst.
MR_ DRUIN: That's hardly enough time to
find homes £or that many --
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, I'm --
MR. DRUIN: They're not parcels.
MR. STRATHMAN: They're not supposed to be
in this vacant buildinq anyway.
MR. DRUIN: Well, this is the first time
that anyone ever mentioned it. They told me I
couldn't live in my house. They never said
anything about the animals. They said I could
take care of them, which is kind of okay.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
►._.1
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 21
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: May I ask him? How
many are you talking about, please? How many are
you talking about, please?
MR. DRUIN: Thirteen or 14.
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: The agreement we had
way back when, probably over a year ago, was that
you'd bring the number of animals in the house
down to three, which was the legal limit, so --
SPEAKER: Let me interject.
COMMANDER MOREHEAD: I understand you're
having some problems with them. My agency doesn't
give the permits for having more than three cats.
I haven't been in the house lately. I would
ask one deadline to remain the deadline. There's
just so many cats in that building. I want to be
clear on this. The ordinance is very clear. The
living conditions in the building the last time I
was in the building were very minimal for cats.
They're not out of there on August lst, they're
going to animal control.
MR. DRUIN: Well, I'm sorry. I object.
It's not fair because I never discussed -- it's
like if you read the documentation -- I have it
all here since October of '99. I never discussed
emptying out the basement, and I never discussed
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 22
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
placing the animals to get down to three because I
already applied for the permit.
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, applying for it and
having it are not the same thing, sir, and I think
it's very unlikely you would have gotten a permit
to keep 13 cats.
MR. DRUIN: Well, they didn't respond at
all.
MR. STRATHMAN: Well, but in any case, you
don't have a permit, and so it is in violation.
So the animals are going to have to go.
MR. DRUIN: Well, I'll see about getting a
permit.
MR. STRATHMAN: Okay. So I think we're
concluded with this matter.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 23
� 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
� 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
)
� 24
25
)
ss CERTIFICATE
I, Nancy 3. Meyer, Registered
Professional Reporter, a Notary Public in and for
the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, certify
that the foregoing is a true transcription of the
legislation hearing on July 24, 2001, concerning
Donald Druin; reduced to writing in accordance
with my stenographic notes;
I further certify that I am not a
relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any
of the parties or a relative or employee of such
attorney or counsel;
That I am not financially interested in
the action and have no contract with the parties,
attorneys, or persons with an interest in the
action that affects or has a substantial tendency
to affect my impartiality;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand and affixed my seal of office at Apple
Valley, Minnesota, this lst day of January, 2002.
—`�—` --- ------ --
NANCY J. ME R
Registered o sional orter
Notary Public
Dakota County, Minnesota
, NANCYJ.MEYER
Notary Pub�ic
�� Minnesata
My CommissiQn 6cpires 3an. 31, 2��5
��--
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 1
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
--------------------------------------------------
Donald Druin, Jr., ,��11�1�I�l�
Relator,
vs. Court of Appeals No. C7-01-1452
City of Saint Paul,
Respondent.
TRANSCRIPTION OF
ST. PAUL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 8, 2001
ITEM 30
Nancy J. Meyer
Registered Professional Reporter
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
14286 Dulcimer Way
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124-5954
(952) 322-2113
Fax: (952) 322-2110.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC_
(952) 322-2113
Page 2
\�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKER: Item 30, Resclution O1-786,
ordering the owner to remove or repair the
building at 1183 Arkwright Street within 15 days
from adoption of resolution. Legislative Hearing
Officer recommends granting the owner 90 days to
complete rehabilitation of the property provided
the vacant buildinq fee is paid by noon on August
6th, 2001.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM
yes. Mr. Strathman.
Mr. Reiter,
MR. STRATHMAN: Council President Bostrom,
members of the council, there have been some
developments on this matter that I should update
you on. For those of you who may not remember,
this is a house which is supposed to be vacant.
The owner testified at the public hearing
last week that he had a purchase agreement with
Marathon Oil to buy the property and that they
intend to either demolish or remove it. We
also -- I also provided a report in -- from
Commander Morehead in which he felt strongly that
this building needed to be removed; that it was a
hazard, a nuisance, and also there were issues
Commander Morehead raised about the number of
animals that are being kept in this vacant
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 3
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building.
After -- after hearing that information, the
city council laid it over for today for two things
to happen. One is at that time the owner had not
yet paid the vacant building fee, and you wanted
to qive him an opportunity to do that. I can
report to you that he did, in fact, pay the vacant
building fee. The second matter that came up
was -- I believe it was Council Member Lantry
requested that there be an inspection of this
property prior to the council meeting today. That
request was communicated to code enforcement, and
the report I received from them this morning is
very brief.
I'l1 just read it to you. Steve Magner, Bill
Stephenson from Animal Control went out to 1183
Arkwright this morning. They did not gain entry.
They believe Donald Druin to be within. There's
still a large amount of clutter within the
structure. There's a strong stench emanating from
the structure which we believe to be in part cat
urine. Mx. Stephenson identified four different
cats while he observed in the windows. The cats
did not come up in the hearing last week because
they were not included in the resolution. The
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4
reason the cats are relevant is that Mr. Druin has
acknowledged that he keeps a large number of cats
in this building. I believe at the hearing he
identified that he had 12 or 13 cats in this
building. He had applied for a permit from Animal
Control to allow him to keep more than three cats
at this property. He never received that permit,
and that's the reason Mr. Stephenson went out
there this morning was to determine the condition
of these animals. However, since they did not
gain entry, they don't have any firsthand
information as to, one, the interior condition of
the building or, two, the number of animals that
are there nor their condition.
That's about all I can tell you. The
resolution before you is to remove or repair
within 15 days. I had proposed as an alternative
extending it to 90 days, as I recall, to allow the
proposed sale to Marathon Oil to go forward. With
that, I'll leave it to you.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Mr. Reiter.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Even though I-- I
think we went overboard to accommodate this
gentleman and based on Morehead and -- and
Magner's recommendation, I think he's had enough
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 5
�
1
2
3
time and --
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAKEY: How many cats are
there?
�
` J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Too many.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: We're not sure.
We haven't got a count. But --
MR. STRATHMAN: Twelve to 13 headed by
Mr. Druin'S count.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Part of the
problem and the good news is if Marathon does buy
the property, the house is going to come down
anyway, so the value doesn't change whether the
house is there or not. I mean, it's not a
financial hardship on this gentleman, so I'm going
to move to remove or repair within 15 days.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Ms. Lantry.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Can I just amend
that slightly? Let's refund his $200. We're not
going to be monitoring it.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: No, but we have in
the past, I think.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRX: Oh.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: I think we've been
monitorinq the house for a long time, and he was
in arrears as far as the $200 is concerning.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Oh, that's right.
Okay. Can I-- can I just ask one more question?
I don't know if this is something the city
attorney wants to address or not, but you know,
when S found out from animal control this morning
that they went in there and they weren't allowed
to gain entry, and I said, "Well, isn't the
building condemned?" And the answer was yes. I
said, "Well then, you know, it's not supposed to
be occupied." But pets -- it's seems to me the
building is supposed to be vacant. It means
vacant. It means, you know, you can't store
animals there. I mean -- and I realize it's not
in any way in code a vacant house means nobody's
personal pets are living there, but it just seems
like kind of a common sense thing. Do we actually
have to write it in code that it means you can't
leave your dogs or cats there alone?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Protection.
They're protecting the property against intruders.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Well, the guard
cat is such a rare breed these days that I just --
I mean, it -- it seems to me that animals should
not be left in vacant condemned (inaudible) -- we
really have to have it in code?
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Paqe 7
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: I think that's
a good point for another day.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Well --
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: I really think
it's a qood point, and it's something maybe we
should talk to code enforcement about.
COUNCIL MEMBER BENANAV: Should we have a
policy session on that? Let's have a policy
session on cat houses.
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAKEY: What's going to
happen to the cats anyway? They're going -- I
mean, what happens, humane society --
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Humane society is
going to take over.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: I don't think so.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Okay. The
motion is before us by Mr. Reiter. Roll call.
SPEAKER: Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Lantry,
Reiter, Benanav, Council President Bostrom. The
resolution is adopted. Seven in favor; none
opposed.
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAKEY: The one thing is
that the taxpayers know their money is being well
spent on us down here, you know, take care of the
cats.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 8
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Well, also
take care of the neighborhood when they start
smelling that. You got to do something about it.
You can't just sit here and wring your hands.
SPEAKER: Council President Bostrom,
Council Member Lantry, if you want the answer to
that question, we can certainly get it for you and
let you know, but I don't have it at my
fingerprints.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: No. And I
absolutely do because this has come up before
where there are animals left in a vacant condemned
building.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: And people
have used the excuse of dogs, particularly,
they're to guard the property. So that's --
that's a reason that I kind of stretched --
SPEAKER: I really can't -- maybe it does
mean animals. Maybe when they talk about
occupation, they can say it's only pertaining to
the safety of humans, not of animals. S don't
know the answer, but I'l1 get it to you.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Okay. Thank
you.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 9
� 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
� 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
ss CERTIFICATE
� 24
25
)
)
I, Nancy J. Meyer, Registered
Professional Reporter, a Notary Public in and for
the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, certify
that the foregoing is a transcription of Item 30
before the St. Paul City Council on August 8,
2001, and reduced to writing in accordance with my
stenographic notes;
I further certify that I am not a
relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any
of the parties or a relative or employee of such
attorney or counsel;
That I am not financially interested in
the action and have no contract with the parties,
attorneys, or persons with an interest in the
action that affects or has a substantial tendency
to affect my impartiality;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand and af£ixed my seal of office at Apple
Valley, Minnesota, this lst day of January, 2002_
NA�NCY J. ME R
Registered rofe ional Reporter
Notary Public
Dakota County, Minnesota
NANCYJ.MEYER
� � Notary Public
Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
��
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
--------------------------------------------------
Donald Druin, Jr., QR'�'�L
Relator,
vs. Court of Appeals No. C7-01-1452
City of Saint Paul,
Respondent.
TRANSCRIPTION OF
ST. PAUI, CITY COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST 1, 2001
ITEM 44
Nancy J. Meyer
Registered Professional Reporter
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
14286 Dulcimer Way
Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124-5954
(952) 322-2113
Fax: (952) 322-2110
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 2
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKER: Item 44, Resolution 01-786
ordering the owner to remove or repair the
building at 1183 Arkwright Street within 15 days
from adoption of resolution. Legislative Hearing
Officer recommends granting the owner 90 days to
complete rehabilitation of the property provided
the vacant building fee is paid by noon on August
6th, 2001.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Mr. Strathman.
MR_ STRATHMAN: Council President Bostrom,
members of the council, the owner of this property
is here to testify, so prior to his testimony,
I-- I will give you what I think is the necessary
background for you to understand the issues here.
I held a legislative hearing on this on
July 24th at which time testimony was given by
city staff, primarily code enforcement officials,
and also by Mr. Druin, who is here this evening.
The building is officially a vacant building, and
it has been vacant in the city's eyes since May of
last year, so it's been vacant about 14 or 15
months.
The -- Commander Morehead appeared and gave
very force£u1 testimony regarding this property,
indicated they consider it to be a trash house,
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3
that they -- that they had had continuing problems
in his perspective with the owner being
uncooperative, and that it was his request that
the building be removed immediately as per this
order. Failing that, he at least requested that
the city require the owner to immediately empty
the house to the bare walls, post a bond, and --
and pay the vacant building fee.
The owner testified then as he will again
tonight, I'm sure, that he considered the request
of code enforcement to be unreasonable and perhaps
vindictive in his mind. More importantly, he
testified that he had entered into an agreement
with the adjoining property owner, Marathon Oil,
to purchase his property and that it was their
intent that once they got possession of it that
they would either demolish or move the property to
another location.
He has showed me a copy of that purchase
agreement, and he testified that this transfer of
ownership is scheduled to occur 180 days after it
was entered into, which would be, I believe, late
September of this year. So he asked that the city
not take any action against his property
whatsoever; rather, we allow the closing to take
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4
place so he could get full value for his property
as per the purchase agreement he has with Marathon
Oil, at which time the problem would be Marathon
Oil's. And since our understanding -- his
understanding is that they intend to use the lot
for another purpose, they would remove the
building rather than the city and that this would
serve his financial interests far better than the
city sort of preempting this action by moving it
as requested by this order.
Having heard testimony from both sides, I was
greatly concerned about the condition of this
property and the blighting effect it has on the
neighborhood, and Commander Morehead testified
that he thought there may be some health hazards
as well related to animals being kept in this
vacant building.
In trying to balance these things, I decided
that I would recommend to you that you approve
this order to remove or repair as its written
rather than the 15 days as it currently says, that
you amend it to be 90 days. That way this -- the
decision would be made that the building has to be
removed. However, it would a11ow time for this
proposed transaction to close and for Marathon
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 5
�J
s
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Oil, the perspective buyer, to have 30 days or so
to remove the building themselves or whatever they
intend to do with it.
The code inspectors indicated that while they
weren't necessarily happy with my recommendation,
at the very least they wanted the vacant building
fee paid. This matter has been a source of
aggravation for them for some time. It's even
been in litigation. They claim the matter was
dismissed in court when Mr. Druin agreed to pay
the fee, but according to them, he still has not
paid it. So in order to address their vehemence
about the vacant building fee, I thought that it
should indeed be collected.
Finally, the property owner indicated that
he -- if that was the council's decision, he
didn't have the financial resources to pay the
vacant building fee until at least next Monday
when he gets money from some other source that
would allow him to pay it. So trying to
accommodate that, again I suggested that, okay,
we'd give him until Monday to pay the vacant
building fee, which -- which I knew created some
complications because you would be acting tonight
but yet wouldn't know if he paid the vacant
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6
building fee because we're giving him till Monday
to do that.
So after hearing the testimony here, you can
make whatever decision you want, of course. If
you should decide to follow my recommendation,
then I would ask that -- I think procedurally the
best thing to do would be to lay this over for one
week, see if he pays the vacant building fee, and
then if he does, make the final decision next
week.
But there are other courses of action
available to you, and you might want to consider
them after hearing the testimony from the owner.
So if that's enough background, maybe you want to
hear from the owners.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Al1 right.
Any questions? Yes, Ms. Lantry.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: I'm wondering if
you have pictures.
MR. STRATHMAN: I do have pictures, and I
will -- maybe it's best to pass them around
because they're confusing. The photographs of the
building were taken in May of this year.
Mr. Druin claims that he has cleaned up the trash
and so on in this photograph. I don't know
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 7
whether he has or not. It's just his contention
that he has_
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Ms. Lantry.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: The other question
I have, I know that we had an issue about an
assessment last week on this same address, and
then I recall having this building come before us
within the last few months or something. What was
that one about? I mean, I'm -- do you remember
the history?
MR. STRATHMAN: Part of it. Council
President Bost�om, Council Member Lantry, the
assessment last week had to do with snow removal.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Right.
MR. STRATHMAN: And we've had other
assessments in -- other disputes about this
property going back some years having to do with
abandoned vehicles and contentions about whether
they were abandoned or not. So I think it would
be fair to say that -- that Mr. Druin has a
colorful history with code enforcement going back
at least a year. He characterizes it as -- as
persecution. The city code enforcement officers
characterize it as his being uncooperative and
unresponsive to their efforts to enforce the city
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 8
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building codes. So that's -- that's all I can
tell you about that.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Mr. Reiter.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Mr_ Strathman, is
there a purchase agreement between Marathon and --
MR. STRATHMAN: Council President Bostrom,
Council Member Reiter, just before this meeting
Mr. Druin showed me a copy of the purchase
agreement. It was a photocopy, but I have no
reason to believe it's not true. And the purchase
agreement apparently does stipulate -- the
purchase agreement was signed about four months
ago, and it stipulates that the closing would
occur within 180 days. So if -- unless Marathon
Oil were to somehow back out of the agreement, I
would assume that it will close as planned and
they will take possession of it sometime in late
September.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Mr. Coleman.
COUNCIL MEMBER COLEMAN: How much is the
vacant building fee?
MR. STRATHMAN: Council President Bostrom,
Council Member Coleman, it's $200.
COUNCIL MEMBER COLEMAN: Do you have -- my
concern would be somehow that we get to this point
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
��
��
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 9
where -- where the purchase is made and then the
subsequent purchaser, they weren't given notice
and we've got to start through this whole thing
again. How do we know that that -- that our
actions today would carry over to the purchaser?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Mr. Strathman.
MR. STRATHMAN: Council President Bostrom,
Council Member Coleman, I believe under the law,
Mr. Druin is required to disclose at the time of
sale if there are pending assessments or pending
actions against the property, and if they don't
already know, which I suspect they do, he would
have to disclose it to them as part of the closing
process. I-- I have reason to believe, though I
can't -- I can't be certain, that Marathon Oil
is -- is reasonably well informed as to the
situation here.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: It would also
seem to me that -- not knowing for sure that this
property probably is not zoned to handle a gas
station, which Marathon Oil is to be in that
business. And as -- even if Marathon purchased
this, there's no guarantee that they're going to
be able to accomplish what they would potentially
like to accomplish. I suspect this must be at
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 10
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Arkwright and Maryland?
MR. STRATHMAN: Yes_
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: And it's
probably zoned residential, as far as I can tell.
Mr. Strathman, do you know what the zoning is?
MR. STRATHMAN: Council President Bostrom,
I do not. I don't know what this property is
zoned.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Okay. With an
address on Arkwright, it probably is residential.
Okay. This is a public hearing. We'll hear
from anyone who is in opposition to the
recommendations.
Yes, sir. Give you five minutes to kind of
explain what's going on here, sir. Please state
your name for the record.
MR. DRUIN: I'm Donald Druin, owner of the
property. Not so much in -- in opposition is --
as much as anyone would like to have a firm
schedule, so to speak, so Mr. President, council
members, I wanted you -- you asked a question
about zoning, and in the purchase agreement, zone
change is one of the requirements that Marathon
Oil stipulated before we can close. And as far as
I know, what they told me is this is already in
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 11
.
�
s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the works with planning and economic development
or the zoning commission. These things are moving
along, sort of like a multichannel process. I
have a copy of the purchase agreement which shows
the -- the date it was signed was April 25th, and
then the obligation to complete the transaction,
no more than 180 days from that date. I'm
obligated to vacate no more than 90 days after the
closing date.
The difficulty right now is we don't have a
closing date, and that is the fixed point where
everything else comes. So I was hoping that the
council would allow me a little leeway here that
the -- the extension of time to cover the vacate
period as well, not just until the closing date.
I mean, it seems to me to be more practical and
would allow this whole process just to come to its
eventual end anyway.
Marathon doesn't have use -- any interest in
the building obviously because they want the land
and the next property over to expand their
situation. So again, the house will be moved
or -- or demolished anyway. So no later than the
21st of December would all this happen, and I've
already told them a year ago when all this started
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
s
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 12
that I had no intention of moving in the winter.
I've done that once, and I don't want to do it
again.
So as soon as we get a closing date, then
things can start moving a lot faster. I
understand within the next two weeks they're going
to have a-- a proposal in District 5 council, so
hopefully it will be heard in August and then
quickly after by this body, and then we can set a
closing date and complete this whole process.
Let's see. The other thing I wanted to
mention, here's the -- the activity summary for
that case that was referred to earlier, referenced
the vacant building fee, and the case was
dismissed -- I hope the type's not too small -- on
the 15th of June.
And even -- even being that as it is, it
would be a lot easier cash flowwise, for instance,
that I pay the fee after the closing date rather
than Monday because it -- the fee is actually
25 percent of my income for August, not knowing
anythinq else right now, and it would make it
di£ficult to hire any -- any needs so far as
moving or cleanup or -- or hauling. It would just
work a lot easier if the assessment and fees could
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 13
be paid after closing because I obviously would
have the cash to do so.
The other item was that the photograghs, if
someone still has that, were taken in May. That
was before I rented a Dumpster and basically
cleaned the house out. Now, what we don't
understand is whomever came to the location to
post the documents -- they weren't sent through
the mail. The -- the last notices for public
hearing were -- were stuck -- or taped to the
door. They had been inserted in the screen door.
The Dumpster was still there because the
contractor hadn't picked it up yet. So it should
have been obvious to anyone that stuff was being
removed. So there's -- there's no trash in the
house. There's no animal feces or any of the
other complaints because I've been keeping tabs on
it very closely in the last couple months. I
don't want it to get out of hand.
Now, at this point I'm packing things up to
move, so it's -- it's like reversing a process
that started a long time ago. But the house is
clean, and I apologize I didn't take any
photographs of the interior, but as far as the
exterior of the house, it looks no different, and
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 14
sometimes even better, than other houses in the
neighborhood. So no one is going to know, you
know, that it's -- it is allegedly a problem
house.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. Druin_
MR. DRUIN: Thank you.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Is there
anyone else that wants to testify? Hearing none,
a motion to close the public hearing by
Mr. Reiter. Roll call.
SPEAKER: Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Lantry,
Reiter, Benanav, Council President Bostrom.
Public hearing closed. Seven in favor; none
opposed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Mr. Reiter.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Do I go east of
35?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Today you
still do, yes.
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: I guess I'm going
to agree with -- as to what we should do here.
You know, the circumstances are the house is going
to come down no matter what, whether he continues
to own it or if Marathon purchases the property.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 15
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So rather than get into a lot of things here, I
guess I'm going to move approval of
Mr. Strathman's recommendations.
The 5200, I feel, he -- he should pay by
August 6th, and if he doesn't, the house comes
down. I have sympathy for his financial
situation. I think that somebody has to show some
good faith here what's going to happen. I go
along with your recommendations. Move approval of
Strathman's recommendation.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: All right.
And -- and in this, what -- what I'm picking up
and hearing on this is that there isn't a closing
date that's -- that's set on this, so we have --
unless we do something here today that establishes
a day certain, this could go on for years.
MR. DRUIN: No, it could go on for --
MR. STRATHMAN: I£ I understand -- Council
President Bostrom, if I understand Council Member
Reiter's motion, if -- if you approve this order,
there will be an order to remove or repair it
within 90 days. So if 90 days elapses, then code
enforcement would be authorized to remove the
building.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM_ Okay.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 16
MR. STRATHMAN: But no further action by
the city council_
COUNCIL PRESIDENT SOSTROM: And then would
you then move to lay this over for a week which at
that point --
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Yes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: -- we would
find out if it has been paid by August 6th. If it
hasn't, then what are you --
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Then we take
action next week.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Take action
next week. Okay. Ms. Lantry.
COUNCIL MEMBER LANTRY: Can I make a
recommendation? So you're going to lay it over
until next week to make sure the vacant building
fee is paid.
Can we also get a reinspection before next
Wednesday to find out if there's been a cure to
those issues that we saw pictures of? Because if
it's in that current state, any -- and he's not
living there, then it seems to me all that junk --
there's no way for it to re-accumulate, so I think
we better make sure those conditions are cleaned
up. So I would -- I would also request that we
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 17
have code enforcement go back and get inside the
property before next Wednesday and report back to
us as to its condition.
MR. STRATHMAN: Council President
Bostrom --
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Yes.
MR. STRATHMAN: -- Council Member Lantry,
we can certainly ask code enforcement to do that.
Recognize that I don't forecast it, but it is
possible that the owner will deny them access, if
that's -- but that will be --
COUNCIL MEMBER BLAKEY: That wouldn't be a
good move on his part.
MR. STRATHMAN: But I will convey to code
enforcement your request, and I'm sure they will
seek to go out and determine the condition of the
property.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: So in other
words, Mr. Reiter, what you're suggesting is that
you move to reconsider this next week if there's a
problem there and then put the 15-day demo into
effect?
COUNCIL MEMBER REITER: Yes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: All right.
Hearing that, the recommendation is before us.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113
Page 18
�
�
�
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Roll call.
SPEAKER: Blakey, Coleman, Harris, Lantry,
Reiter, Benanav, Council President Bostrom. Seven
in favor; none opposed.
Do I understand it correctly then it was
actually laid over one week?
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Right.
SPEAKER: Okay.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: Public hearing
is closed. It's laid over one week.
SPEAKER: One week.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: In that period
of time --
SPEAKER: He'll report back.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BOSTROM: -- we want
code inspection out there to get a report on it
and also that they have to pay the vacant building
fee by next -- by August 6th.
SPEAKER: Thank you.
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC_
(952) 322-2113
Page 19
� 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
� 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF DAKOTA
ss CERTIFICATE
� 24
25
)
)
I, Nancy J. Meyer, Registered
Professional Reporter, a Notary Public in and for
the County of Dakota, State of Minnesota, certify
that the foregoing is a true transcription of Item
44 before the St. Paul City Council meeting on
August 1, 2�01; reduced to writing in accordance
with my stenographic notes;
I further certify that I am not a
relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any
of the parties or a relative or employee of such
attorney or counsel;
That I am not financially interested in
the action and have no contract with the parties,
attorneys, or persons with an interest in the
action that affects or has a substantial tendency
to affect my impartiality;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my hand and a£fixed my seal of office at Apple
Valley, Minnesota, this lst day of January, 2002.
-------- — ------ — —
N NCY J. ME R
Registered Pro essional Reporter
Notary Public
Dakota County, Minnesota
NANCYJ. MEYER
� Notary Pubiic
Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2005
CAPTION MINNESOTA, INC.
(952) 322-2113