Loading...
02-1141Council File # bZ-�i�� RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the November 26, 2 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following 3 addresses: 4 Pro e�rty Apnealed A epp llant 5 6 1775 Grand Avenue. Anartment 306 Kathryn Berryxnan 7 Decision: Fifty percent of the combustible materials will be removed from Unit 306 by January i, 2003. 8 177 Winifred Street West. Aoartment 4 Tionna Cannedy 9 Decision: Laid over to the December 19, 2002, Properry Code Enforcement Meeting. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav � Blakey � Bostrom � Coleman � Harris � LanhY � Reiter ✓ � � 1 Adopted by Council: Date �,� \\ a�� Adoption Ce •'fied b Council Sec By: � Green Sheet # 113843 i �� Requested by Department of � Form Approved by City Attorney � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Approved by y Date � ��� -�� $y . �v�'t�� �'- �. � � 6"• A� _ \i�\1 v�. —\♦ DEPARTMENTlOFFICFJCOU�IL DATE INRIAiFD „ , . . _ . - - - - - City Council Offices Dec. 3, 2002 GREEN SHEET NO 1 i� CONiAC7 PFRSON 8 PFiONE � InMeloa�� ' tnMldN� Marcia Moermond, 266-8560 ���� �,�� MUST 9EON COUNCfL AGENOA HY (O11T� w6NGN NUYBERPoR arvAiidtlEY arvq3NK RWmN(: �� iNM1NW1.fFRNCFfpR HMMtlY.iFRV/RCCT6 ❑ 11AYO�t1oM1ASYSfqNi) ❑ TOTAL # OF SICaNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL IOCAT10N5 FOR SIGNATURE) CTION REQUESTED . � - .-. . ' Approving the November 26, 2002, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Property Code Enforcement Appeals for the following addresses: 1775 Grand Avenue, Apartment 306; and 177 Winifred Street West, Apartment 4. RECOM NDATION Approve (A) or Rel� (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONiRACfS MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLAWING QUESIIONS: . 1. Has this Pe�Nfirm e�er v.orketl under e coMract fw thi6 dePertmeM? PLANNING COMMISSION YES NO CIB CAMMITTEE _ 2. Hes ihis persor�firm aver heen a dly empbyee? CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION YES NO . _ 3. Doesthis Pe��� 9� a slWl not �w'rt�a1�YP�sbM bY anY cu�reM cihJ �P�oY�� YES NO , 4. Is tlus Pe��rm a tatpeteM1OEntlo(J . " YES t� E�ISin all yes ar�sv.ers an separate sheet arM attach to 9reen she� � INI71A71NG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITV (Whq What, Wlien, Whwe, Why) ' ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED Council Rese�rch Center bEC 43 2002 DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED , i "; ,,, ' , , DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S C0.5T/REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) VES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlNANCIPL INFORMATION (t7�WM oz ��� 1 ,�. NOTES OF THE PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT MEETING November 26 and December 3, 2002 Room 330 Courthouse Mazcia Moermond, Legislarive Hearing Officer The meeting was called to order on November 26 at 132 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Kevin Chapdelaine, Fire Prevention; Pat Fish, Fire Prevenfion; Michael Urmann, Fire Prevention 1775 Grand Avenue #306 (November 26, 2002) Katlu yn Beiryman, tenant, appeazed and stated she is hauing a problem with the owner of the building, and she has filed a complaint with the Department of Human Rights. There has been consistent entry into her apartment without notification. The last tim e, she had an attorney ca11 the owner to explain the notification policies. Also, she called a police officer when she realized someone had been in her apartment, and it was one of the owners. She did get nofice of the inspection, but there was a pre-inspection by the owners which has never happened before. She believes that knowledge of what was in her properry came from illegal entries. Inspector Chapdelaine walked into the apartment and told her she had excess combusfibles. He asked her what percentage of her possession can she part with, and she did not respond. She had been chosen in the yeazs 199$ and 2000 for an inspection, and she was not cited for excess combustibles at those times. The inspector lectured her about being a real problem and not being fair to her neighbors. Then, Bartlett Baker, one of the owners, burst ihrough the door and asked "Did you check out the other thing that I was talking to you about " Mr. Chapdelaine responded "Yes and that's okay." Cleazly, there had been a pre-discussion and he was led to her apartment. They had a loud discussion right outside her door; Mr. Baker told him he wanted paperwark to verify that she is going to be cited for this violation. This was done to embarrass her in front of her neighbors, stated Ms. Berryman. Appazently, they were led to her neighbor's apartment as well, who also feels his apartment has been entered without notification. Ms. Berryman stated she does not feel this inspection was impartial. The owner lud behind his routine inspection to cite her. He is trying to evict her from the building. She called Fire Prevention to express her concerns about this. Her notice was sent to her attached to a letter from Human Rights in a venue where it does not belong. She immediately called Pat Fish (Fire Prevention), who said at first that an exemption can be made for this kind of thing. Later, she backed down and said she will set a date. Then, she said they cite people once or twice a day for this. (Tom White, attorney, appeazed.) Ms. Berryinan went on to say that she broached these subjects with Fire Prevention previously. She was told that excessive combustibles was cited under the most severe cases, i.e. someone hanging onto piles of newspapers for years. Mr. Chapdelaine asked her no more questions and oZ ���� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES, NOV. 26 & DEC. 3, 2002 Page 2 did not bother to find out that she is in a dispute with the owner and that she is moving. Things aze spread out because she is trying to sort through them. A lot of the boxes have little or nothing in them. These boxes are ten by twelve by fifteen or ten by twelve by twenty-four. She never got any guidance about what she had to move. Mr. Chapdelaine said he did not know there was a complaint filed against her and that she was terrified and harassed out of her aparhnent in April 2001. Mr. Chapdelaine said she must have added many things since the last inspection. There aze boxes present because she is preparing to move. She thinks the City is being shortsighted in not considering the factors. He said that she needs to get rid of 50% of the combustibles, which is basically what everyone owns: paper, wood, plasfic, and fabric testiles. She talked to his supervisor after this, who told her she was not a pack rat, she was at the low end of compiiance, but she was not in compliance. Ivls. Berryman stated that Chris Rider (Councilmember Pat Harris' Office) talked to Inspector Chapdelaine, who told her the problem was boxes, he had a good relationship with this owner, and the owner owns other rental properties. Ms. Berryman talked to Steve Rice (Citizen Service Office) who did a computer search and found no other property in the azea with the same owner. Ms. Berryman already requested fire inspection reports since 1985 for that building, and Mr. Chapdelaine has never been in that building for a final naspection; therefore, she is not sure where that good relationship comes from. Ms. Rider said she is wiiling to come here today and speak to her conversation with Mr. Chapdelaine. Ms. Benyman stated she talked to Mike Urmami, the supervisor for Mr. Chapdelaine. She was not sure if an inspection would be done fairly because Mr. Urmantt said that she was putting lum between the owner and herself. He said that she was admitting guilt by not agreeing to the reinspecfion. She told him that she may have to hire someone independenfly and she is not admitting guilt to this. Tt is inconsistent to say she is in compliance and suddenly she is at the low end and has to remove 50%. She has very little fiuniture there. She lived there 16 years. In sumuiary, she is troubled by the rules of conduct, the inconsistencies, the inspector was being led to her door, and the manner in which this inspecfion was conducted. Mazcia Moermond stated she can heaz the matter regarding the conduct of the inspector as to whether or not the inspector acted azbitrarily. In terms of professional conduct, that is not something she can wark on here. If Ms. Berryman has concerns along those lines, she should follow the chain of command through the Fire Department and the Mayar's Office. The issue before Ms. Moermond is whether or not the Deficiency List was issued correctly or incorrectly and if there was a reasonable rime period given for correction of any situation that existed. Tom White, 4570 77�' Street W. #100, Minneapolis, attorney for Ms. Berryman, appeared and staxed his clienYs landlord is going to use this Deficiency List as a basis for eviction from the property. His client needs to show and demonstrate there is no violation of the fire code on her proper[y. He would suspect that if a fire inspector came in to any apartment, something wrong could be found. The problem is the order says combustible materials, but everyone has boxes in their house. He does not believe that rises to the level of the fire code. They do not think her UZ-\\y \ PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES, NOV. 26 & DEC. 3, 2002 Page 3 aparkment is any worse than another apartment. Also, there is no inshucfion on how to bring the apartment into compliance. Removing all combustible materials is so broadly worded that it is almost impossible to comply because everyone has combuskible materials. Mr. White said he does not caze about personal conduct, but it seems coincidental that the inspector showed up at her apartment when there was a complaint filed against the landlord and the landlord is trying to find evidence to evict her. Ms. Moermond asked how many boxes are there. Ms. Berryman responded about 24. Some boxes are not packed yet. Ms. Moermond asked if she has lived there since 2001. Ms. Berryman responded she has not but, she checks on the place, her possessions are still there, and she still considers it her home. 'The owners have failed to address some of the tenants that are causing problems, and she did not think it was safe. She held onto the apartment hoping she could go back. She has accumulated things. She does not know how she went from being not cited to having to remove 50%. Michael Urmann reported that he spoke to Ms. Bertyman on the telephone shortly after the inspecrion. He offered to come out to the building to make a determination on the code issues, and she was apprehensive about letting him into her unit. He told her that in order to determine if the code issue was correct, he had to see the site. He told her she may be on the low end because he caxinot make that deternunation over the phone. By her own admission, she said she had combustible storage within her unit. He told her that he would come out, take a look at the amount, and help her determine the percentage to be removed. The inspectors hy to make a determination by percentage because they do not to tell people what they can or cannot have. They inspected 13 out of 18 units. It is possible that the building owner informed the inspector there may be a code issue in that unit. The building owner, building occupant, tenants, management, anyone can notify Fire Prevention of a possible code violation, and Fire Prevention has to follow up on it. Mr. Urmann provided Ms. Berryman with a copy of the code about combustibles, which can be rubbish, rags, waste, cardboard, wood, paper, and plastic. It may be determined by the inspector to be excessive. Ms. Berryman stated she requested someone to come out and reinspect, but she did not think she was going to be treated fairly. Mr. Urmann said it would take some time to do a reinspection, stated Ms. Berryman, but she had ten days to file an appeal. He did not offer to point out problems. Chris Rider informed her that Mr. Chapdelaine said he went in only one unit on the first floor. Ms. Moermond asked was the amount of time given in the letter of deficiency approxixnately a month. Ms. Berryman responded that is true, and the date was set up before the inspector left the building, which is strange also. oZ ��� � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES, NOV. 26 & DEC. 3, 2002 Page 4 Kevin Chapdelaine reported he never met the Bakers (owners) before October 24. The notice of this inspecrion was legal because there was paperwork at the entrance to announce his coming. The pre-inspection would have been the owner's requirement to check all the smoke detectors and fill out an affidauit. Mr. Chapdelaine was in and out of Unit 306 in about 30 seconds. There was tension in the room so he did not want to stay long. Ae was awaze there was a laistory between the owner and the tenant, and he did not want to be involved in that. He witnessed only one deficiency, wluch was excessive combustible. The amount of time given to comply was in excess of 30 days. The teinspection was set for yesterday, which was postponed because of this hearing. The date was set with the Bakers so they could schedule it in their book. This is common practice. His conversation with Ms. Berryman was short. He was trying to be polite because this is her home. He is very cognizant of that; however, she shazes walls with other people who consider their apartment their home. In multipie family housing, there is a heightened sense of responsibility. He asked if she could part with some of her things in the 50 percentile. Mr. Chapdelaine stated one other apartment was cited, which gaue that tenant more time. The tenant was happy about that. There is a reinspection set for December 16. Mr. Chapdelaine is hoping to have both of these situafions resolved by then. The caretaker's aparhnent was borderline. It did not warrant writing, but the caretaker was not beyond a little conversation. They are in dispute about how many boxes, stated Mr. Chapdelaine. The last inspection was over two yeazs ago. A lot can change. Those inspectors would have written what he wrote because they trained him in. Mr. White asked did the inspector look inside the boxes. Mr. Chapdelaine responded he would consider that personal property, and he does not go into boxes. Mr. White asked if she broke down the boxes and they were empty, would that reduce the clutter. Mr. Urmann responded they are less readily combustible in a collapsed condifion. If they were collapsed and stored away, it would reduce their hazazd. Ms. Berryman stated Mr. Chapdelaine does not know what other inspectors would do at that time. She has moved nothing in there since Apri12001, but she has moved things out. His remarks were not polite; she found him condescending. Ms. Moermond stated her findings are as follows: 1) With respect to inspecfion procedures, inspectors can enter all the units if they so choose and they can enter units when the tenants or owners have flagged them. The selection of 13 of 18 units is fine as long as it is a sufficient proportion to make a good determination of the soundness of the building. If the flagging of a particulaz unit was retaliatory, then private legal action seems the right foruxn; however, the City has to investigate all claims against the fire code. 2) With regazd to professional conduct, the inspectors she has dealt with take seriously their role of working on the publids behal£ If there is any perceprion that Ms. Berryman's expectations oZ ��� 1 PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES, NOV. 26 & DEC. 3, 2002 Page 5 have not been met, she should shaze that through the appropriate channels. 3) As for pre-communication, that does not have any bearing on how units aze selected. 4) She does not have any information in terms of photographs or the sense of the volume of the material. It is impossible for her to look at the fire code and the unit to make that detennination. Professional staff' have been in the unit and made a determivarion it is a violarion of the fire code; therefore, Ms. Moermond must accept that staff person's deterniivafion. The only question is how much time the unit needs to come into compliance, which is difficult because there is litigation and the tenant is moving. The range of six to eight weeks seems like an appropriate tixne period. Ms. Moermond asked would any date be useful. Ms. Berryman responded she does not understand, It is difficult to be a tenant when the fire inspection looks at one aspect. No one makes the owners change locks. She needs to pack things up and sort through them. She will continue to move things out. She is still unclear about low end and 50%. Mr. Urmann stated he is willing to meet with the tenant to determine what needs to be removed. Ms. Moermond recommends that fifty percent of the combustible materials be removed from IInit 306 by January 1, 2003. In terms of looking at what is present and determining what is 50%, Ms. Moermond suggested the owner work with Mr. Urmann. If the move date is March 1, 2003, it is reasonable that half of the combustibles aze removed by January 1. 177 Winifred Street West #4 (November 26, 2002) (No one appeared to represent the property.) Pat Fish reported Fire Prevention was getting complaints on the property, and the owner failed to appeaz on several accasions. At one point, she had about five pages of violations on the building, and the property was condemned. The owner showed up for the next inspecrion and did some work on the building. On the last two inspections, the owner did not show up nor did he do any of the work on the buiiding. Only one out of four units is occupied. It appears the owner has left the state on a temporary basis. When he returns, he will have to deal with this. She does not know how much time the tenant is requesting. Marcia Moermond reported no specific time extension is specified on the appeal, which was filed by Dan Le of Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services. It lists the owner Ron Bathrock. Ms. Fish responded she does not know what Mr. L,e is looking for. The tenant cannot be in the building if the owner is out of the state and no one is taking caze of the issues. An indefinite postponement would be dangerous. The doors are not locked on the building, and the tenant is in the upstairs unit with sma11 children. There is evidence of people in the basement. Ms. Fish talked to the tenanYs mother who agreed that it is a good idea that she move out. Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the October 24, 2002, Certificate of Occupancy with vZ ���� PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES, NOV. 26 & DEC. 3, 2002 Page 6 Deficiencies based on the fact that the appeliant and Mr. Le are not here. Ms. Fish added that the tenanYs mother told her that the tenant has found another apartment, but she needed unfil the end of the month. Ms. Fish toid her it was not a problem. (Note: ttris issue was discussed again on December 3 at which time Ms. Moermond laid over this matter to the December 19, 2002, Properiy Code Enforcement Meeting. See minutes below.) The meeting was adjourued at 2:21 p.m. The meeting was called to order on December 3 at 2:09 p.m. 177 Winifred Street West #4 (December 3, 2002) Mazcia Moermond stated that Pat Fish (Fire Prevention) asked to be excused today because she already gaue a staff report on November 26. Dan Le, Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services, appeazed on behalf of Tionna Cannedy, tenant. This properiy has been subject to code enforcement reports for code violations. Mr. Le is asking that the City postpone the condemnation proceedings because he is in the process of filing a tenants remedy action to rectify the code violations in the premises. Ms. Cannedy informed him that the owner has been there doing some repairs in recent days. Obviously, Code Enfarcement would need to sign off on those repairs. According to Ms. Cannedy, this property has been cited before, which is why they feel a tenant remedy action is necessary to make sure the owner complies with what Code Enforcement has ordered to be corrected. His client is a lawful occupant and lease holder. Winter has set in. His client has no other residence but this one. At this time, he is asking Ms. Moermond to postpone these proceedings for a period of three weeks, which will give them sufficient time to file a tenant remedies action and haue it heazd before a judicial officer at Ramsey County. Ms. Moermond stated she checked some of the City records on this property. Although the City has not been notified of a utility shutoff from Xcel Energy, the water will be shut off on December 24 if the bill of $248.61 is not paid . If this wa#er service is not maintained, that is condemnable. Ms. Moermond will want to have the condemnation appeal resolved with sufficient time to give the tenant notice that she has to move. Two weeks will give Ms. Moermond time to give Mr. Le feedback regazding this. On the other hand, maybe there is another way with the tenant remedies action to deal with this issue. Mr. Le stated there is a potential for a water shut off. He is working closely with Ms. Cannedy and he is confident that he will be able to auert that situation. Two weeks is pushing it. It is not up to him when the tenant remedies action will be heard by a judicial officer. A first appearance can take a month after filing. That is why he feels three weeks is a reasonable time. With the Legislative Hearing Officer's support, it may make the urgency to the court a lot more evident in o� ��y � PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT NOTES, NOV. 26 & DEC. 3, 2002 Page 7 the sense that they will get that in front of a judge withiu a month. Also, he would request Ms. Moermond issue a brief letter which sums up the I,egislative Hearin� Officer's position on a stay in this matter. Ms. Moermond asked aze any children present. Ms. Le responded there is a two yeaz old developmentally disabled child receiving social security, a ten year old, an eight year old, and a four year old. It would be an extreme hardsiup far this family to be forced to leave these premises. In light of the code violations, the majority of them aze related to the owners obligations and not tl�at of the tenant. The water issue will be rectified well before the necessity for another hearing. If the water is shut off, he would dismiss this appeal as he would not subject his client to living in a condemnable properry in the winter without water. He would fmd it preferable to have the hearing in January on the other issues. Ms. Moermond laid over this matter to the December 19, 2002, Properry Code Bnforcement Meering. At that meefing, they can follow up on the address and schedule a further hearing in January when hopefully this matter will be closed. If the situarion is not promising, she would like to know that. It is of the upmost importance that the utilities aze paid. Also, Inspectar Fish had concerns over the building not being secure, and the possibility of people camping in parts of the building that could threaten the safety of the tenant and the cluldren. Ms. Moermond will write a letter to the courts. Mr. L,e responded the letter should be addressed to Mike Moriariy, Civil Court Administrator. The meeting was adjourned at 2:19 pm. rrn