Loading...
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Enforcement 2252 Falcon Avenue (Rescheduled from 1-28-03) Marcia Moermond stated that the correction order has been withdrawn per an e-mail from Craig Mashuga (Code Enforcement) indicating a plan has been worked out. (withdrawn) 118 Litchfield Street Lisa Martin reported that she is not sure why this issue is being appealed.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)