03-162Council File # p 3- 1��
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented by_
Referred To
Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the February 11,
2 2003, decision of the Legislafive Hearing Officer on the following address:
3
4
5
6
7
Pro�ert�p ep aled
Appellant
118 Litchfield Street Patrick Whitney for Frank J. Steinhauser
Decision: Appeal denied on Correction Notice dated January 8, 2003. A reinspection will be done by
Wednesday, February 19.
Yeas Na s Absent
Benanav ✓
Blakey �
Bostrom ,,,�
Coleman �
Harris ✓
Lantry ,i
Reiter ✓'
s o a
Adopted by Council: Date ��.� \�, ac03
� r
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�
App�
�
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
Green Sheet # 200567
Council Offices
Marcia Moermond, 266-8560
MUST BE ON CqINCIL AGQJDA BY (DA7�
-1�-D3 —
DATE INRUIT�
bruary 11,
�� �
ROUTING
ORD9t
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES
GREEN SHEET
63 —Ic��-
Na 200567
u �..R.,�.� u «n�—
❑ arcwnoaeEr ❑ arrp.Fxrz
��.����. �.�..�.V,KRa
❑ WYOR(ORAlSf1l1111) ❑
(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
Approving the February 11, 2003, decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Correction
Notice Appeals for 118 Litchfield Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Has fhis persoNf�m eHerMwiced under a conVact for uis department?
YES NO
Has this persoMfirm eNer been a dty empbyee7
YES NO
Does this pe�sqNEnn poasess a sldVl �mt nwmallYP�%�1 M�+Y ��Re�i u1Y �P�7�
YES NO
Is Gda peisori/firm a tarpetetl verxbYl ,
YES NO
�e6 r h':`:�`;ei�:r' 0 ."`.yx^
�d�it�
3 � � 1. � ����
�4,
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S_
FUNDING SOURCE
� ' FIN4NCIAL INFORMATiON (IXPLp1N)
�
COST/REVENUE BUDCETED (CIRCLE ONE)
ACTMTY NUMBER
YES NO
o� -i�a-
MINLJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORREC"ITONS ORDERS,
CORRECTIONS NOTICES, AND SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS
Tuesday, Febniary 11, 2003
Room 330 Courthouse
Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The meeting was called to order at i:40 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Officer Dean Koehnen, Police Depariment (assigned to Code Enfarcement);
Lisa Martin, Code Enforcement
2252 Falcon Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-28-03)
Marcia Moermond stated that the correction order has been withdrawn per an e-mail from Craig
Mashuga (Code Enforcement) indicating a plan has been worked out.
(withdrawn)
118 Litchfield Street
Lisa Martin reported that she is not sure why this issue is being appealed. Back in November,
Mr. Steinhauser had 21 issues on a Correcuon Order. All of them have been taken care of, and
he has done a good job of complying with the orders. Now, he has a tenant who has interior
sanitation issues. There was a child at home missing school due to lice. She would like to get
back into the unit to inspect and make sure the occupant has cleaned up the condirions of that
unit for the safety of her child and herself, and to get them help if they need it.
The following appeared: Frank Steinhauser, owner; Patricia Whitney, attorney for Mr.
Steinhauser; and Sazah Anderson, Project Hope, advocate for the tenant.
Ms. Whitney explained that the tenant is at wark and the tenanYs attorney could not attend
because she had another hearing to attend. They aze here because Mr. Steinhauser has been
issued a Correction Notice. The only item on the notice is for interior sanitation, which falls
under Section 34.16 of the Saint Paul City Code. This is not a landlord responsibility, but an
occupant responsibility. That is the main reason they haue appealed. It is not Mr. Steinhauser's
obligation to clean up his tenanYs apartment, but he has received notification and order to do so.
On the correction notice, the occupant herself has not been given written notice. It was sent to
188 Litchfield, and that address has nothing to do with 118 Litchfield. It is a violation of the
tenanY s right to privacy under the state statute if Mr. Steinhauser were to interfere in her basic
household without evicting her. The eviction process would take longer than what the City
allowed for the cleanup, which is another reason they filed an appeal. Finally, the inspection
itself is an issue because neither Mr. Steinhauser nor the tenant gave the City access. The tenant
was at work. Ms. Whitney wonders if this is an issue of the City breaking or entering or if they
o3-tc�a
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 2
obtained entrance by a minor child. If the City wanted to deal with Child Protecrion issues, there
is a department for that. Ttie only jurisdiction the City has is under Saint Paul City Code 34.16,
and they did not follow the requirements of that.
Ms. Moermond asked about the original inspection. Ms. Martin responded there was a complaint
on the property. There were iwo small children at the property alone being chased by a
doberman pinscher. She called axiimal control. They contacted the mother at work.
Ms. Moermond asked was the doberman pinscher in the yazd at 118 Litchfield. Ms. Martin
responded it was running azound in the front chasing the four yeaz old and ten year old. The ten
year old was at home watching the four year old. After getting the children inside, they contacted
the mother at work to discuss the living conditions. They gave her the benefit of a doubt and did
not place the children with Child Protection. They asked her to clean up her unit and put away
all medication.
Ms. Moermond asked how they obtained access to the unit. Ms. Martin responded the ten year
old who was in control of the property at the time let them in. Ms. Martin had an understanding
with the tenant that she would take care of things, and this would not happen again. At that
point, Ms. Martin scheduled to come back and do a reinspection. On January 7, they did a
reinspection with Mr. Steinhauser who obviously did not inform his attorney that he let them into
the unit at that time. He explained to them that the child was home alone and that he had one of
his workers working on some of the items there. That is when they found out the little boy was
home with lice. Ms. Martin and Mr. Steinhauser had a conversation about the sanitation issues
upstairs, and she informed him she would be sending him a copy of the letter, and that she was
asking the tenant to clean the interior of her apartment. It was not his responsibility, but she
wanted him to know that she would be sending this letter.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Steinhauser if this is consistent with his recollection. Mr. Steinhauser
responded no, he was not at the property on January 7. The day they inspected it was
Wednesday, December 17, for the sign off on the repairs that were done.
Officer Koehnen asked Mr. Steinhauser if they did not physically meet him at the property when
the workers were already in the upstairs unit. Mr. Steinhauser responded they were there, but on
a different day.
Ms. Martin asked did he let them into that unit. Mr. Steinhauser asked is she referring to January
7.
Officer Koehnen asked if they met him in front of the property where his workers were in the
unit, at which time they discussed him having issues with them writing up the conection. Mr.
Steinhauser responded he did let them into the apartment whenever they came back to inspect.
Ms. Whitney added that was December 17, 2002, which was one week after they were at a
previous LegislaUve Hearing on December 7.
a5- ��a.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 3
Officer Koehnen stated he does not believe Ms. Whitney was at the property during the
inspection. Ms. Whitney responded that she was not, but she did negotiate via fax the inspection
dates. They did not negotiate January 7.
Ms. Moermond asked about the tenant working today. Ms. Anderson responded she works from
5 am. to about 430 p.m.
Ms. Moermond asked is the tenant aware that there is a Correction Notice to clean up the unit.
Ms. Anderson responded yes. She was in the tenanYs unit on the day they were out to inspect on
December 17. They made her come home from work, but she does not have vacation, sick time,
or leave time. She does not get paid for leauing work. She was told what needed to be done.
The cop was very rude to her and commented on a toy squirt gun that was on the floor and told
her that guns kill. What her children play with, said Ms. Anderson, is between her and her
children. They told her they would be back to reinspect on that Monday. Her client took that
Monday off work to sit at home and wait for them to show up. They never showed up. Her
client missed a full day of work. She feels they pushed there way in when her children were at
home. She thought her ten year old could be there during the day with her four year old. Since
that has happened, the apartrnent has been cleaned up. Ms. Anderson has been in the unit. It is
not spotless, but the tenant is raising three boys and she is single. The three boys are doing
whatever they want until their mother gets home. When she gets home, the place is cleaned up.
On Saturday, Ms. Anderson did a surprise inspection. Again the house was not spotless, but it
was not a filthy mess. Ms. Anderson does not know what it looked like when the inspectors were
there, but she was there after the tenant was told to clean it up. As for the pills on the
entertainment center, the four yeaz old is usually not there. Her client has a ten year old that
needs to be on medication, and she leaves the medication on the entertainment center because he
needs to take that pill when he gets home from school in the afternoon. She is not there to give it
to him. She did take off all the medication, but she does leave one pill on the entertainment
center.
Ms. Moermond asked to see the Code Enfarcement file and the photos. She is interested in any
inspection dates.
(A photograph was submitted.)
Ms. Martin stated she and Mr. Steinhauser have different dates, but the facts still remain that this
is a property in which the tenant is in distress and needs some help. Had she known that Ms.
Anderson was there to help her, they could have worked with her, but they never heard from her
nor the tenant. At this point, Ms. Martin is asking to do a reinspection. The tenant has been told
verbally. It does look like there was a mistake made on the notice given to the occupant;188
Litchfield is a typographical error, but she has had verbal warning since November that the home
needed to be cleaned up. Ms. Anderson responded they did not show up for the reinspection, and
the tenant complied. They were there December 17, and said they would be there the following
Monday. Ms. Martin responded that Bonnie Frederick (tenant) told her that she would not be
home, her son is 24 yeazs old, and there is another roommate. Ms. Martin is not sure where the
_ >
05-���-
LEGISLATNE HEARII�iG NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 4
other children come in. The child that they met claimed he was the only child there. He was a
ten year old named Nicholas. The adults there can help pick up as well as the ten yeaz old.
Again, Ms. Martin is asking that they be able to go back in and verify. If it was cleaned up back
then, it should probably still be clean at this point.
Ms. Moermond stated it is unfortunate the occupant address is listed as 188 Litchfield as opposed
to 118 Litchfield; however, it is cleaz from her conversation with Ms. Martin and Officer
Koehnen that the tenant was aware there was a correction order and correction dates. Ms.
Whimey responded she knew from the beginning that Ms. Anderson and Legal Aide were
representing this client, but they did not inform her until after the expiration of the orders. They
never received it.
Ms. Moermond asked if she representing Legal Aide or another organization. Ms. Anderson
responded she is a community advocate that puts the homeless back in housing. Once they aze in
there, she makes sure they stay in housing. Bonnie is her client that she placed with Mr.
Steinhauser. Ms. Anderson is not an attorney, but she is here on behalf of her client. Ms.
Whitney added that Ms. Anderson works with Project Home, which is an arm of Southern
Minnesota Regional Lega1 Services (SMRLS).
Ms. Moermond asked has Bonnie secured the services of SMRLS. Ms. Anderson responded she
has. Her client feels she has been hazassed. It states on the Conecfion Notice that they were
there on January 7. No one was home. The kids were in school. Those records can be checked.
She was in court, and that record can be checked. And she was at work, she punches in and out,
and that can be proved. If the inspectors were in there on January 7, they entered without
anyone's permission. Officer Koehnen responded they do not practice breaking into units. Ms.
Anderson responded she did not say that they did. Either they went in there without permission
or the conecrion item was what they had seen prior. Either way, that statement is false.
Ms. Moermond stated the issue is moot in a way. If the inspection was on December 17, and the
reinspection was a week later, she would expect that the conditions were sanitary on January 7
and that it would get clean and stay clean. It appears the conditions did warrant the Correction
Notice to be issued. It is the tenant's responsibility to keep the apartment sanitary. There clearly
are owner responsibilities for the overall property maintenance.
Ms. Moermond denied the appeal. She will handle this in an expedited fashion, so the appeal is
concluded at the City Council level, and she can get a reinspection done. Hopefully that can be
rescheduled now or in the neaz future, so everyone is on the same page about when the inspection
will happen. The inspection should occur when the tenant can be there or could arrange for
someone to be present in order to affirm that it is all taken care of.
Since Ms. Anderson is representing the tenant, Ms. Martin suggested setting up a time and date
today to do an inspection within the next week. Ms. Anderson responded she cannot do that until
she has spoken to Bonnie to see if someone can be at the unit or if there is a day she can go into
work later or get off early. Ms. Anderson has no problem calling Ms. Martin later.
b3_ti�a-
LEGISLATIVE HEARING NOTES FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2003 Page 5
Ms. Moermond stated it seems reasonable that this reinspection be done within the next seven
days.
Ms. Moermond's decision is as follows: The appeal is denied. A reinspection will be done by
Wednesday, February 19.
763 Minnehaha Avenue West; owner: Leslie Lucht.
(Division of Property Code Enforcement)
4. 1554 Bush Avenue; owner: Jaime Dela Torre.
(Division of Property Code Enforcement)
5. 469 Whitall Street; appellant: Kevin R. Johnson.
(Division of Property Code Enforcement)