The URL can be used to link to this page

02-1130Council File # C'�• ��0 Green Sheet # �O".1��1� Presented By xeferred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �, Committee: Date WFIEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking and removal of a two-story, brick, masonry and wood frame commercial structure located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly known as 1066 7` Street EasY. This property is legally described as follows, to wit: Lot 12, EXCEPT the West 40 feet and all of Lot 1 l, Block 7, Terry's Addition to the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and State of Minnesota. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Off ce and information obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before May 29, 2002, the following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subj ect Property:Mary Jo A Jensen-Carter, 444 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55101; Spanky's Bar d/b/a E& K Corp., 1066 7�' St. East, St. Paul, MN 551063953; John J. DuerscherUIrene R. Duerscherl, 269 Bernard Street W., West St. Paul, MN SSll8-1235; Ashley's Gallary d/b/a E& K Corp., 4610 Drexel Avenue, Edina, MN 55424; Walt Engelhazdt, 194 S. Iwalco Rd., River Falls, WI 54022; State of Minnesota, Department of TaYation, Centennial Office Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55145; Ramsey County Treasurer, Ramsey County Government Ctr., 14 W. Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55101; Ramsey County Sheriff, Ramsey County Courthouse, 15 W Kellogg Blvd, St. Paul, MN 55102; Property Records and Revenue, Attn: Judith Bolman, 50 W. Kellogg Blvd suite 824, St. Paul, MN 55102; Minnesota Dept of Revenue, P.O. Box 64447, 551 Banluuptcy Section, St. Paul, MN 55164-4622; IRS District Counsel, 175 E. 5`� Street suite 650, St. Paul, MN 55101; MN Dept of Economic Security, UI Ta�c Assistance, PO Box 75278, St. Paul, MN 55175; United State Trustee, Office of the US Trustee, 300 S 4`� Street suite 1015, Minneapolis, MN 55415; Securities & Exchange Comm, Bankruptcy Section, 500 W. Madison 1400, Chicago, IL 60661-2511; Division Corp. Regulation, Securities & Exchange Comm, 450 5`" St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20549; Internal Revenue Service, STOP 5700 BKY, 316 Robert St. , St. Paul, MN 55101; MN Dept. of Revenue, Baula•uptcy Section, PO Box 64447, St. Paul, MN 55164-0447; Dept. of Manpower Services, State of Minnesota, 390 N. Robert St., St. Paul, MN 55101; United States Attomey, 600 US Courthouse, 300 S. 4`" Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415; United States Trustee, 1015 US Courthouse, 300 S. 4�' St., Minneapolis, MN 55415; State of Minnesota, Dept. of Tasation, Centennial Office Bldg., St. Paul, MN 55145; Ramsey County Treasurer, Ramsey County Government Center, 14 W. Kellogg Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55102; Thomas J. Lallier, Foley& Mansfield P.L.L.P., 1108 Nicollet Mall suite 200, Minneapolis, MN55403. WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 45 ofthe Saint PauI Legislative Code an order identified as an"Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)" dated October 1, 2002; and AA-ADA-EEO Employer o'�.-��?+o WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested ar responsible parties that the structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and 4 WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or 5 demolish the shucture located on the Subject Property by November 1, 2002; and 7 WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this 8 building(s) to constittxte a nuisance condition; subject to demolirion; and 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 49 50 WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Leb slative 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, place 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, November 26, 2002 to 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 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 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 demolirion of the structure to be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council Hearing; and WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, December 4, 2002 and the tesrimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Offrcer 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 Findings and Order concerning the Subject Property at 1066 7`" Street East: That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul Legislative Code, Chapter 45. 3. � Q 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 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 condition have not been corrected. That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placazd on the Subject Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subj ect to demolition. AA-ADA-EEO Empiuyer o s.•��yo 2 0 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 That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division of Code Enforcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings. 8. That the known interested parties and owners aze as previously stated in this resolution and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 have been fulfilled. ORDER The Saint Paul City Council hereby makes the following arder: The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall make the Subject Properiy safe and not dehimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this structure and conecting all deficiencies as prescribed in the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in accordance with all applicable codes and ardinances. The rehabilitation ar 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 time the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are 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 Legislative Code. 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 demolition 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. AA-ADA-bS0 Employer oi-��a 1 2 3 4 5 6 It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul L,egislative Code. 4. Requested by Department of: -�� f Adopted by Council: Date fl*a�.� � aDO,� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by � Citizen Ser ice Office• Code Enforcement By: V`�Y` `'� Form Approved by City Attorney By: Appro(Je� by Mayor for Submission to AA-ADA-EEO Employer Division of Code Enforcement 09/27/02 cortrncr a�asor� s aFror� f"� Andy Dawkins 266-8427 � �" . .. MUSTBEONCOUNLYLAGBJOAB`/lOA7E) , Wednesda December 4 2002 � � xovnxc oRDER V,Y . TOTAL 0 OF S(GNAT(JRE PAGES _ . o �..t�'S'e SHEET No 7 024:14 mmrmr. �v r o�.�w«� � arcwnouEV � ❑ arvcae�rz _ ❑ wuxaaamvr.rsoa ❑ w+�x�w.amn�ccra � WYORI�I1iRTYlI) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATfONS FOR S(GNATUREj City Cowncil to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner faits to comply with the resoluYion, the CiYizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property is located at 1066 7` Street East. w PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITfEE ' CNII SERVICE WMMISSION Fias fhis PQrsoMirm e+er vrorked uMer a cantrad for this depahment? YES NO Fias Mis pereonrTrm e�er been a cdy empbyee7 YES NO Dces this persoNfiim possess a sldll not namellypossesseE by arry curtent ciry empbyee� YES NO IS Mia pneoMrm a tarpeted ventloR . YES NO (Who. What. when. ansreis on seoarate she� and attach m - This building{s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vaoant building as defined in ChapYer 43 of �r;; -, , the Saint Paul Legislatiye Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties lrnown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 1066 '7"' Street East by November 1, 2002, and , have failed to comply with those orders. , ADVANiAGESIFAPPROVED v,.,, ��"°,�,�' , . �� 6g..��"i,�r', s . vY _ The City will eliminate a nuisance. �� N�V 1 2 2fl02 _ �, THe City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be-assessed to the property, collected as a speaial assessment against the property taxes: DIS4DVANTAGESIF NOT APPFiOVED ' � A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will conrinue to blight the community. AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION SOURCE CAST/ilEVENUE BUD6ETEDjGRGtE ON� ACTNRYNUMBER (IXPWN) l"iJ�;L] AA-ADA-EEO Employer , a�-��ao ,� . •� IEGISLATIVE HEARING Date: November 26, 2002 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Room 330 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Marcia Moermond I,egislative Hearing Officer Appeal of summary abatement order at 1774 Norfolk Avenue. Owner: Colleen Moore. (Department of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement) ('Phe City Council referred this issue back to the Legislafive Hearing Officer.) Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that there should be no forthcoming assessment related to this summary abatement order dated August 13, 2002, as the nuisance was abated by the City before the appeals process had been completed. � 2. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1066 Seventh Street East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement is ordered to remove the building. Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval. [Mrr� CITIZEN SERVICE OFF[CE Dona[d J Lurta. City Clerk CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rnndy G Kelly, hfayor November 1, 2002 .,�; �° �.:��'�S°" � "S�u a c `��}n�s �a :, � �' � NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Council President and Members of the City Council Citizen Service Office, VacanY/Nuisance Bnildin�s Enforcement Division has requesYed the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at: 1066 7�'' Street East The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, November 26, 2002 City Council Hearing - Wednesday, December 4, 2002 The owners and responsible parties of record are: Name and Last Known Address John J. DuerscherUIrene R. Duerscherl 269 Bernazd Street W. West St. Paul, MN 55118-1235 Spanky's Baz d/b/a E.& K Corp. 1066 7`� St. East St. Paul, MN 5�106-39�3 Mary Jo A Jensen-Carter 4� Cedar St. St. Paul, M�I » 101 DNISION OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEM Q�� Andy Dnwkirzr, Progr¢m Nfannger Nuisance Bui[ding Code Enforcement 1600 White Bear Avenue Te[: 65l-166-7900 SaintPaul,MN55l06 Faz:65l-266-1926 Interest Fee Owner =Tax Owner Bankruptcy Tmstee AA-ADA-EEO Employer 1066 7` Street East November 1, 2002 Page 2 Name and Last Known Address Thomas J. Lallier Foley& Mansfield P.L.L.P. 1108 Nicollet Mall suite 200 Minneapolis, MN55403 Ashley's Gallary d/b/a E& K Corp. 4610 Drexel Avenue Edina, Mi�155424 Walt En�elhardt 194 S. Iwalco Rd. River Falls, WI 54022 State ofMinnesota Department of Taxation Centennial Office Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55145 Ramsey County Treasurer Ramsey County Govemment Ctr. 14 W. Kello�� Blvd S. Paul, MN 55101 Ramsey County Sheriff Ramsey County Courthouse 15 W Kellogg Blvd St. Paul, M1V 55102 Property Records and Revenue Attn: Judith Bolman 50 W. Kellogg Blvd suite 824 St. Paul, MN 55102 Minnesota Dept of Revenue P.O. Box 64447 �� 551 Banl.zuptcy Section St. Paul, lTV »164-4622 IRS District Counsel 17� E. �`" Street, 6�0 St. Paul, MN 5� 101 Interest Attomey Interested Party Listed Bankniptcy Creditor Listed Bankruptcy Creditor Listed Banlmiptcy Creditor Listed Banlmtptcy Creditor Listed BanlQUptcy Creditor Listed Creditor Listed Banl�uptcy Creditor 0 i�-��D AA-ADA-EEO Employer 1066 7`" Street East November 1, 2002 Page 3 Name and Last Known Address MN Dept of Economic Security UI Tas Assistance PO Box 75278 St. Paul, MN 55175 United State Trustee Office of the US Trustee 300 S 4`� SYreet suite 1015 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Securities & Exchan�e Comm Bankniptcy Section 500 W. Madison t400 Chica�o, IL 60661-2511 Division Corp. Regulation Securities & Exchange Comm 450 5` St. NW Washin�ton, D.C. 20549 Internal Revenue Service STOP 5700 BKY 316 Robert St. St. Paul, MN 55101 MN Dept. of Revenue Bankniptcy Section PO Box 64447 St. Paul, MN 55164-0447 Dept. of Manpower Services STate of Minnesota 390 N. Robert St. St. Paul, MN 55101 United States Attorney 600 US Courthouse �� 300 S. 4�' Street Minneapolis, NL�I5541� L'nitzd States 7rustee 10I� liS Courtfiouse 300 S. 4`� St. Minneapolis, MN 55415 Interest Listed Bankruptcy Creditor Listed Banknzptcy Creditor Listed Bankniptcy Creditor Listed Bankntptcy Creditor Listed Bankruptcy Creditor Listed Bankniptcy Creditor Listed Bankruptcy Creditor ListedBacila uptcy Creditor Listed Banit�ruptcy Creditor Q }�\\�' AA-ADA-EEO Employer 1066 7` Street East November 1, 2002 Page 4 Name and Last Known Address State of Minnesota Dept. of Taxation Centennial Office Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55145 Ramsey County Treasurer Ramsey County Government Center 14 W. Kello�� Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 The le�al description of this property is: Interest Listed Bankruptcy Creditor Listed Bankri.iptcy Creditor b �-. �\'�o Lot 12, EXCEPT the West 40 feet and all of Lot 11, Block 7, Terry's Addition to the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and State of Minnesota. 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 known responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this building(s). 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 resoiution orderin� the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this buildin� in a timely manner, and failin� 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 taxes. Sincerely, �o , , � V � , r Steve Magner Vacant Buildings Supervisor Division of Code Enforcement Citizen Service Office SM:mI cc: Frank Bzra, Building Inspection and Desi�n Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division ccnph AP.-ADA-EEO Employer oZ `�� MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ZZ.. Tuesday, November 26, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Marcia Mcermond, Legisiative Heazing Officer The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: Steve Mab er, Neighborhood Housing and Properiy Improvement (NHPn; Steve Schiiler, NHPI Appeal of summary abatement order at 1774 Norfolk Avenue. Owner: Cotteen Moore. (Division of Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement) (The City Council referred this issue back to the Legislative Aearing Officer) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Mazcia Moermond stated this is an unusual situation. This appeal already had a Legislative Hearing conducted by Gerry Strathman prior to his retirement. The original summary abatement order was issued in August. The City Council referred this matter back to Ms. Moermond for another legislative heazing. Steve Schiller reported that his office was not notified of this change in procedure. Ms. Moermond responded this is not a change in procedure. The City Council has always been empowered to consider the individual addresses with correction orders. Itmay be confusing because the Legislative Code reads that the Legislative Heazing Officer will make a final decision, but it indicates elsewhere that the City Council wi21 ratify that decision. Mr. Schiller stated it is unusual for this matter to go from the previous Legislative Heazing Officer, to the City Council, and back to the Legislative Hearing Officer. He just found out two days ago about this matter being referred back. Mr. Schiller proceeded on the abatement orders and gave the owner an addifional week before NHPI would proceed with a cleanup on the property. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Schiller to briefly walk through the history of this matter. Mr. Schiller responded this issue has been ongoing for five years. Colleen Moore, owner, is a junk collector. She does not have a problem with garbage, but she colIects everything else: jugs, botties, wooden pallets, sheetmetal, two by fours, plastic pails, wood, metal pipe. She had great plans of selling her property, which was going to be bought out four years ago with West End Development Money. There was a second try at the money, and that feil through. She has collected this stuff to start her life over again on a hobby farm. She uses none of these items. Mr. Schiller gave Ms. Moore about 90 days to clean up the property. NHPI had the cleanup done on November 14, and Mr. Schiller was there supervising to make sure nothing valuable was taken. They left the following: sheet metal for fencing, which is dangerous; her collection of jugs, bottles, pails; all antiques in her horse trailer, pieces of machinery, boat motors, two antique sleighs, an antique wagon, and anything valuable. oZ �� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2002 Page 2 Ms. Moermond asked the approximate cost. Mr. Schiller responded $992. He tried to keep the cost down, which is why he stayed there. Steve Magner stated there is a$45 service fee also. Ms. Moermond stated the civ�c of the problem is the appeal was still in limbo when the actual abatement was conducted; therefore, the abatement was conducted in error. She does not blame Mr. Schiller because he acted reasonably with the information that he had. This has to do with communicauon between what happens at the City Council and the management of NHPI. That needs to be cleared up so these things do not happen in the future. Because the appeal to the abatement order was still being considered by the City Council, the abatement was done in enor and the City is going to end up paying the costs. Mr. Schiller asked did the owner show up for the City Council Meeting. Ms. Moermond responded no. Mr. Magner stated his office executed the work order and did the abatement. He wondered if the the appealing of the cost should be done through the second end of the appeals process. Ms. Moermond responded no assessment should be forthcoming because the abatement order was appealed successfully. Mr. Magner stated there is no question that the assessment should be deleted. He asked was the City Council going to rule that his office acted inappropriately and did the City Council determine this was a nuisance violation. Ms. Moermond responded the original legislative hearing decision was that the inspector acted correctly in issuing a summary abatement order based on the condition at the property and the inspector did not act arbitrary towards the owner of the property. Regazdless, this is a moot point because the City Council had not ratified the decision when the abatement was conducted. Mr. Schiller stated he wiii be dea2ing with this owner again because she has a tendency to cotlect things. She is going to know she will not get an assessment for what occuned. There should be something on the recard so that the City Attorney knows there was a slight procedure mistake in 2002. Otherwise, the owner will get the mixed signal. Ms. Moermond responded there is nothing in front of her right now that would in any way restrict NHPI's actions. Mr. Schiller asked if next year the owner can talk to Racquel Naylor (City Council Offices) or Ms. Moermond. Ifthat woutd be helpful, responded Ms. Moermond. Mr. Schiller shou2d go about doing his job exactly the way he has, said Ms. Moermond. This is not a question of inspection error in writing the abatement order. It is a question of timing and the execution of the abatement. Ms. Moermond reiterated her recommendation that there should be no forthcoming assessment related to this summary abatement order dated August 13, 2002, as the nuisance was abated by the City before ttce appeals process had been completecl. . � { V�i LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 26, 2002 Page 3 \ �/ Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 1066 Seventh Street ' j�; � East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NHPI) is ordered"fo reinove the buitding. (No one appeazed to represent the property. Photographs were submitted.) Steve Magner reported this is a two story, brick/masonry and wood frame commercial structure. The building has been vacant since November 16, 2000. The owner has no interest in the properiy, but Ramsey County refuses to amend the record to reflect that E& K Corporation is the title holder due to the fact that there are outstanding back taxes. E& K Corporation has filed bankruptcy and a trustee has been appointed. The owner was served personally. Mr. Magner has spoken to her on the phone, and two of her phone calls were retumed earlier this week. He is surprised the owner is not here. Mr. Magner continued with his report: nine summary abatement notices have been issued to remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse, cut tall grass, repair broken doors, secure doors, remove graffiti, and ramove hanging stucco. On September 11, 2002, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was devetoped, and photographs were taken., An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on October 1, 2002, with a compliance date of November 1. As of this date, this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building fee is due and owing in the amount of $600 for ihe years of 2000, 2001, and 2002. Real estate taxes are unpaid in the amount of $69,893.50. Previously, there was over $100,000 in back taxes owed. The estimated market value is $15,000 on the land and $178,000 on the building. On September 11, 2002, a code compliance inspection was done. A bond has not been posted nor has a recent team inspection been completed. The estimated repairs are $250,000 and Yhe estimated cost to demolish is $30,000 to $50,000. Mr. Magner went on to say the building was last used as a bar, and it had numerous problems when it was last opened. Because there has been no maintenance to the property in the last few years, the roof is damaged and it rains inside the building. NHPI was unable to make a full inspection of the inside of the building due to the extensive moid growth. Anyone trying to rehabilitate the property would have to gut the building and replace the roof. There is a structural problem on the front facing Seventh Street involving separation of the brick. Another frosUfreeze cycle would cause further degradation of the brick facade to the point where NHPI may have to remove the facade. NHPI is seeking action to have the property rehabilitated or to commence demolition as a nuisance. Ms. Moermond recommends approval of the resolution. The meeting was adjourned at 10:24 p.m. rrn