02-1040Council File # p�.. �O�{p
- �; ,-�p- : , ,
CITY
Presented
Referred To
Committee Date
1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the October 31,
2 2002, decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following
3 address:
4 Proneriv Appealed Ap ep Ilant
5
6 1235 Maztazet Street Ramon Espazolini, attorney
7 Decision: Appeal denied on the Norice of Condemnation as Unfit for Human Habitarion and Order to Vacate
8 dated October 23, 2002.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Yeas Na s Absent
Blakey �/
Coleman �
Harris �
Benanav �
Reiter �
Bostrom �
Lanhy �/
Co b 1
16 Adopted by Council: Date N__ d� � (�T 0 O��
17
18 Adopflon
19 By:
20 Approved
21 By:
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # 113838
S�
Requested by Depazhnent of:
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
�
Approved by Mavor for Submission to Council
oa-io+�o
City Council Offices
October 31,
GREEN SHEET
No 11 ��3$
Gerry Strathman, 266-8560
�7
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
oF,..�+r wECra.
ancan¢�
GIl'AiTOpEY ❑ tllYG.iMIt �
AI�IICI11LiFAVICFiGR ❑ N4NCI�LiFAV/�[C'fC
WYOAIORA54t6lAM1/ ❑
(Cl1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Approving the October 31, 2002, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code
Enforcement Appeals for 1235 Margaret Street.
PLANNING CAMMISSION
CIB CAMMITTEE
CNIL SE42VICE COMMISS{ON
Has this perswiffirtn ever xwked untler a coritrect tor this department7
VES NO
Has this P�rtn ever heen a cilY emPbYce?
YES NO
Does mis DersoNflrm G�%esc a sldll not nwmalND�%�d bY any wrrent ciry emWoyee?
VES NO
Is this pe�saUfirm a tarpeted �entloR
YES NO
�� ��$��"�O''S �����`��
��� � � � ��&�
TRANSACTION S
COS7/REVENUE BUDGETm (CIRCLE ON�
ACTNRY NUMBER
YES NO
INFORMAiION (EJ6�WI�
OZ \��tO
5f,.
NOTES OF THE SPECIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Room 330 Courthouse
Gerry Strathman, Legislative Hearing Officer
T1ae meeting was called to order at 10:02 am.
STAFF PRESENT: Harold Robinson, Code Enforcement
1235 Margaret Street
Ramon I. Esparolini, attorney, appeazed and stated he is here in the capacity of a receiver
appointed by the District Court. The owners signed a lease for 1235 Mazgaret on August 31,
2001, to expire the end of August 2003. On November 2, 2001, the District Court of Ramsey
appointed Mr. Esparolini to act as a receiver for all the property and assets for a couple. Because
this matter may come before the District Court again, he felt it was incumbent upon him to raise
certain issues. He has no objection in principle to the Notice of Condemnation as unfit for
human habitation provided that this tribunal is able to recommend certain changes in the ground
stated. He would like to address each item on the Notice of Condemnafion.
(He gave Mr. Strathman a copy of the lease and a copy of the contract with Orkin.)
Mr. Espazolini stated he informed Andy Dawkins and Craig Mashuga (both from Code
Enforcement) about that lease and provided Mr. Dawkins with a copy of it.
(Mr. Bspazol'uu went over each item on the Notice of Condemnation.)
1. Lack of water service - Mr. Esparolini stated he had no access to the premises. Whenever he
talked to the tenants, they told lum their attorney said he should not be let in.
2. Infestation of cockroaches - Mr. Esparolini stated they started that process before the order
was issued. Again, he has no access to the premises.
3. Interior sanitation - Mr. Espazolini stated he had a grievance with this one. When Mr.
Mashuga issued these orders, it was for extensive work. Mr. Esparolnu obtained services from a
contractor who wrote up estimates for things that needed to be done. They rebuilt the deck,
which was in a dangerous condition. This house had three children under five years of age. The
kitchen sink and all the plumbing was completely rebuilt. They had some safety corrections to
do on the bathroom because there was a danger to the children. There was vandalism at some
point. Within a few days of being norified, a contractor did the necessary framework to those
windows. The interior sanitafion was something ordered directly to the occupants. At that time,
there was no access to the premises.
Mr. Strathman stated landlords do have access to the properry upon norice and reasonable tune.
He assumes that Mr. Esparolini gave them reasonable notice and approached them at a
0"2._: OO4C�
1235 Mazgaret Street, Special Properry Code Enforcement Meeting 1031-2002, Page 2
reasonable time. Mr. Espazolini responded the reason given to him was that their attorney had
told them not to provide access. He had the poor choice of forcing his way in and exposing the
estate to civil liability. This was an ongoing condirion. He obiained additional funds to have
work done on the upstairs windows.
Mr. Stratlunan asked was it his judgement that it was not wise to exercise the right to access. Mr.
Espazolini responded the direction relative to exterior citation was directed to the occupant.
4. The windows andlor storm windows are in a state of disrepair - Mr. Espazolini stated he
agrees with tlus. Now that the premises is vacant, this is one of the targets.
5. The window and/or door screens are missing, defective or in a state of disrepair - Mr.
Esparolini stated he is awaze of this. Ttris is no matter.
6. G.F.C.I.: The bathroom is lacking an electrical G.F.C.I. outlet. Permit may be required
- Mr. Espazolini stated he was not awaze of that requirement. Again, this is no matter.
7. F`URNACE: Have a licensed heating contractor service and clean the furnace or boiler
and make any necessary repair. Perform a C/O test on the heating plant - There was no
suggestion by the occupants and the inspector that there was anything wrong with the furnace. If
there is, they will attend to it.
8. The bathroom and kitchen floor covering is deteriorated or inadequate - They were
aware of this. He was denied access. The kitchen was filled with all kinds of personal
possession: clothing hanging on the line, clothing on the floor, boxes. All of these needed to be
removed. He contacted someone that does carpeting.
9. The interior walls are defective. Repair all wall defects and finish in a professional
manner - He was aware of this. He had someone lined up to do it.
10. SANITATION: Immediately remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse - Mr.
Esparolini received notice of improperly stored or accumulated refuse, and he an•anged far
American Refuse to remove branches and refuse. The azea was completely cleaned except for
children's riding toys. After that time, people brought more things in and deposited them on the
deck. They needed to be removed, but they did what was needed at that time.
11. Smoke Detector - Mr. Mashuga ordered that. They were again faced with the problem of
fist fights. There were a number of reports to the police of possible criminal acrivity, care of
children, fights, azgiunents, yelling, and other antisocial behavior. He was not about to engage
Mr. Sinn in any kind of confrontation.
Mr. Strathman asked what is the situaiion today. Mr. Esparol'uu responded Mr. Dawlcins left a
message for him yesterday: according to the neighbors, the occupants have removed some of
oz �o�,o
1235 Mazgazet Street, Special Property Code Enforcement Meeting 10-31-2002, Page 3
their personal belongings. When Mr. Esparolini went there a few days before, he could see
through the windows that no fumiture and household goods had been removed.
Hazold Robinson reported he was there last week and yesterday. Some items ha�e been
removed. The tenants aze gone. The building is secure and locked. The water is still off: The
neighbors say the tenanis aze gone. Debris still remaias in the yard. The police are checking it at
night, and they have not found any evidence.
Mr. Strathman stated he understands that Mr. Espazolini needs to make a record and he has
successfully created one. The fundamental issue is did the Code Enforcement Officers err in
issuing this norice of condemnation. The water is shui off. The smoke detectors aze not working
properly. Either of these things is sufficient grounds to support an Order of Condemnafion. The
inspector has operated within the law.
Mr. Stratlunan denied the appeai on the Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate dated
October 23, 2002. This will go to the City Council next Wednesday, November 6, for a Public
Hearing. It is not required for Mr. Esparolini to appear, and it is unlikely the tenants will show
up. It is almost a sure thing that the City Council will ratify Mr. Strathman's finding. If at that
tnne, the tenants are still there, the City will take measures to remove them.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:23 a.m.
[ii�l