03-237/ %//7UF'_L!� / / /���i/Z �o7i Gf!/��
council File � C3 -73!1
Green Sneet n
RESOLUTION
Presented By
Referred To
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MiNNESOTA
�
Committee: Date
WHEREAS, 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 ar
wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood frame single family dwelling with a detached, two-stall,
wood frune garage located on property hereinafter refened to as the "Subj ect Property" and commonly
lrnown as 1107 Bush Avenue. This property is legally described as follows, to wit:
Lot 22, Block 8, Terry's Addition to the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and State
of Minnesota.
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
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or befare September 25, 2002, the following ue the now
known interested or responsable parties for the Subject Properiy: Bank of America, NA, P.O. Box 9000,
Getzville, NY 14068-9000; Bank of America, NA, Attn: Karen Resetarits, 475 Cross Point Parkway,
Getzville, NY 14068; Bank ofAmerica, NA, P.O. Box 26388, VA2-200-03-04, Richmond, VA 23260-
6388; Bank of America, NA, Attn: Kenneth D. Lewis, 101 South Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC 28255;
As per MN Stat. Sea 5.25 Subd. 4:, Minnesota Secretary of State, 180 State Office Building, 100
Constitution Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155; Peterson, Fram & Bergman, P.A., Attn: Michael T. Oberle,
Suite 300 - 50 East Fifth Street, Saint Paul, M1V 55101
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code an order identified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated January 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the
structure located on the Subject Property is a nuisance building(s) pursuant to Chapter 45; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the interested or responsible parties that they must repair or
demolish the struchue located on the Subj ect Property by February 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Division of Code Enforcement
requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before tbe Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
o3-a3�
2
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
WF�REAS, 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, February 25, 2003 to heu testimony and evidence, and after receiving testunony
and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible
parties to make the Subject Property safe and not detrnnental 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 shucture in accordance with all appl9cable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of
the struchue to be completed within �ftP°^� after the date of the Council Hearing; and
D�� l�u.slD�c�/r60)11�ys
WI3EREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, March 5,
2003 and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the Legislative Hearing Officer 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 5ubject Property at 1107 Bush Avenue:
That the Subject Properiy comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
That the oosts of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now ex3sts and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violarions at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then laiown responsible
parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s).
That the deficiencies caus3ng this nuisance condition have not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subj ect Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subj ect to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by the Citizen Service Offices, Division
of Code Enforcement, VacantlNuisance Buildings.
That the laiown interested parties and owners are 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 order:
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
o3-a3�
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The above referenced interested or responsible parties shall 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 shucture and correcting all deficiencies as prescribed in
the above referenced Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) in accordance with all applicable
codes and ordinances, or in the altemative by demolishing and removing the shucture in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and
removal of the structure must be completed within fifteen (15) days after the date of the Council
Hearing.
2. If the above correcrive action is not completed within tlus 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 chuge 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 propez as provided by law.
21 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties
in accordance with Chap 45 of the Saint Paul Legislati Co
Yeas Navs Absent
BENANAV ,/
BIAKEY ,/
BOSTROM �
GOLEMAN �
HARR/S �
LANTRY ,�
RElTER ✓
7 O
Adopted by Council: Date '�.
Requested by Department of:
Citizen 3er ce Office� Code Enforcement
gy: � C!�
Form Approved by City Attorney
By: ��'�J`
n
Mayor for Submission to
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE
SHEET
b'j -�3�1
No 1 �2426
-�..,,a.�L��=7� ��„�
���. o ��
.YlRPR11ff6TMR� ❑ �
(CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE7
City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If
- the owner fails to compiy with the resolution, the Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement is ordered
, to remove the building. The subject property is located at 1107 Bush Avenue.
PL4NNING COMMISSION
q6 COMMfTSEE
CML SERVICE COMMISSION
� m� v� �.�a w�aer a �mna�r mrn� aeaaro�n
vES No
{qsthia ye�sonlfi�m aver nem a 61y emqbyeel .
YES NO
Dces tlds PeBOrvhrm P� a sla'N not r�wnWlyp�sced by anY artent a1Y emPbYce7
YES !1Q
k tlAS pnsa'Jfirm a tarpe[etl �eridofl
YES ND
This building(s) is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of
the Saint Paul Legislative Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement
Officer were given an order to repair or remove the building at 1107 Bush Avenue by Pebruary 3, 2003; and have
failed Co comply with those orders.
The Ciry will elirninate a nuisance.
a��.�;r.���a
FEB 14 2003
C1TY ATTORNEI(
The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs wili be assessed to the properly,
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This buiiding(s) will continue to blight the community.
: 11 ' � 111
SOURCE
msance ousmg_ a emen
INWRMAnON (E7�WN)
eossmEVSUUE euoc:erEO tciac� ow� ( vES ) no.
ACTNRY N111�FR
AA-ADA-EEO Emptoya
REPORT
03 - �-3�
Date: February 25, 2003
Time: ] 0:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hall
I S West Kellogg Boulevard
LEGISLATIVE HEARiNG FOR REMOVE112EPAIR ORDERS, CONDEMNATIONS,
SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, AND ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS
Marcia Moermond
Legislative Hearing Officer
1. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2285 Benson
Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is
ordered to remove the building.
(Laid over from 2-I 1-03)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval.
2. Laid over Summary Abatements from February 11, 2003:
J0207AAA Property clean-up at 7'74 Central Avenue West, 430 Edmund Avenue,
837 Fourth Street East, 271 Maria Avenue, and 550 Edmund Avenue;
J0204CC Demolition of buiIding at 1000 Reaney Avenue;
J0207BB Boarding-up of vacant building at 567 Stryker Avenue.
271 Maria Avenue (J0207AAA)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
1000 Reanev Avenue (70204CC)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the March i l, 2003, Legislative
Hearing.
567 Stryker Avenue (J0207BB)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
430 Edmund Avenue (J0207AAA)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends spreading the amount of the assessment over a
five year period.
837 Fourth Street East (J0207AAA)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the March 25, 2003, Legislative
Hearing.
550 Edmund Avenue (J0207AAA)
Legislative Heazing Off cer recommends spreading the amount of the assessment over a
five year period.
03 _���
LEGISLATIVE HEt1RING REPORT OF FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 2
774 Central Avenue West (J0207AAA)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
(Note: there are two assessments for 774 Central. See Item 3.)
3. Summary Abatements:
JQ205V Towina of abandoned vehicles fram private property for part of May,
3une, 3uly, and August 2002;
J0208B Boarding-up of vacant buildings from December 2042;
J0207A1 Property clean-up for part of July 2002 to part of December 2002.
670 Palace Avenue (J0207A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the Mazch 11, 2003, Legislative
Hearing.
236 Arlin¢ton Avenue West (J0207A1)
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
2021 California Avenue East (J0267A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer reconmiends approval of the assessment.
972 Dayton Avenue (J0205V)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the March 25, 2003, Leglslative
Hearing.
1817 Da,yton Avenue (J0207A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
b91 Edmund Avenue (30205V)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approvai of the assessment.
123 Geranium Avenue East (J0205V)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
12b4 Marshall Avenue (J0207A1)
Legislative Hearing O�cer recommends approval of the assessment.
679 Mazvland Avenue East (J0207A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
1774 Norfolk Avenue (J0207A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends deleting the assessment.
645 Oakdale Avenue (30207A1)
Legisiative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
¢r'► •? 3 R
LECzISLATIVE HEARING REPORT OF FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 3
892 Wilder Street South (30207A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment by $100 from $400.50
to $255.50 plus the $45 administrative fee for a total assessment of $300.50.
712 Hawthorne Avenue East (J0207A1)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the Mazch 11, 2003, Legislative
Heazing.
289 Fifth Street East (J0208B)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends deleting the assessment.
1364 Marion Street (J0205�
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends deleting the assessment.
774 Centrai Avenue West (J0205V)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
(Note: there are two assessments for 774 Central. See Item 2.)
� 4. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at ll07 Bush
Avenue. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is
ordered to remove the bailding.
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval.
5. Appeal of summary abatement order at 707 Marryland Avenue East.
(Division of Property Code Enforcement)
Legisiative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeai of the summary abatement
order dated January 27, 2003.
6. Appeal of Notice of Condemnation at 97U Euclid Street.
(Division of Property Code Enforcement)
Legisiative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal of the Notice of
Condemnation dated February 3, 2003.
rrn
MINUTES OF THE LEC�ISLATIVE HEARING
ORDERS TO REMOVEIREPAIR, CONDEMNATIONS,
CORRECTION ORDERS, ABATEMENT ASSBSSMENTS
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Room 330 City Hall, IS West Kellogg Boulevard
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m.
�� �3�
J (S,
STAFF PRESENT: John Betz, Code Enforcement; Louis Langberg, Real Estate; Steve Magner,
Code Enforcement; Lisa Martin, Code Enforcement
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 2285 Benson Avenue. If
the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to remove the
building.
(Laid over from 2-I 1-03)
Esther E. McGinnis stated she is not authorized to speak on this properiy, but she is here on
another property.
Steve Magner reported that he had a conversation with the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
and indicated that the building is dilapidated and needs to be abated as a nuisance. If they want
to save it, he told them to bring in a plan by today. Since they are not here, Mr. Magner believes
they are going to allow this building to be abated as a nuisance.
Marcia Moermond asked if Code Enforcement would like to amend the order to remove or repair
in 15 days. Mr. Magner responded he would recommend amending that to five days to expedite
matters.
Ms. Moermond recommends amending the resoiution to remove or repair in five days.
LAID OVEZ2 SUMMARY ABATEMENTS FROM FEBRUARY i l, 2003:
J0207AAA Property clean-up at 774 Central Avenue West, 430 Edmund Avenue, 837
Fourth Street East, 271 Maria Avenue, and 550 Edmund Avenue;
J0204CC Demolition of building at 1000 Reaney Avenue;
J0207B$ Boarding-up of vacant building at 567 Stryker Avenue.
271 Maria Avenue (J0207A)
Kathryn Hessler, 1171 Jackson Street, appeared and stated she just spoke to Lisa Martin (Code
Enforcement) and had this issue taken caze of. Ms. Hessier is withdrawing her appeal.
Marcia Moermond recommends approvai of the assessment.
O� - Z� - 1
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 2
627 Palace Avenue (J0207A1)
(Arno A. Karner, owner, appeazed. The green cazd was not retumed 'an time; therefore, the
records were not available for this property.)
Marcia Moermond recommends laying over to the Mazch 11, 2003, Legislative Heazing.
774 Central Avenue (J0207r1AA)
(The owner arrived late. This issue was addressed at the end of the meeting.)
1000 Reanev Avenue (J0204CC, J0207B)
{Note: there aze two assessments for 1000 Reaney. J0204CC is an emergency demolition for
$56,41 I.O1. J0207B is an emergency boarding for $338.25.)
Steve Magner reported this was a church. On the night of August 16, a fire broke out in the
build"ang and the Fire Aepartment responded. The fire was put out and the City's emergency
boarding contractor secured the building at 2:00 am. resulting in the charge of $338.25.
Afterwards, the Fire Department was concerned because the east side wall adjacent to a
neighboring residential structure started to bow and move. The Fire Department reported to the
City. The City condemned the building and authorized an emergency demolition because it was
in danger of falling. They went out to the property and authorized this demolition to stop any
further danger.
The following appeared: Louie Vaillancourt, Senior Pastor, 1033 Selby Avenue, St. Paul Park,
and Lonnie Thayer (phonetic), Associate Pastor. Mr. Thayer stated a bolt of lightning hit the
church and that caused the problem. The Fire Department came out. It ignited again in the
marning. They were unable to save anything inside the church. The demolition was $56,000.
Mr. Vaillancourt stated they have no idea what is on the itemized statement. Dan Bostrom (City
Council President) was irying to track down some information. Everyone they talked to thinks
that this charge is out of line.
Ms. Moermond asked is he making any specific requests of the City. Mr. Vaillancourt responded
they have been there for 25 years and have done different kinds of food ministries helping
people. Most of the people in the church would like to stay in the inner city. They are hying to
work out some details so they can continue to do ministries and reach out to the drug addicts. If
they have to, they may pay that kind of money out of their insurance proceeds.
Mr. Thayer asked was there any way to provide leniency. It would be a severe hardship to re-
establish the church because of the poorness of the people they deal with. This assessment costs
more than the church did in the first place. The tithes and offerings will not pay the cost of the
cieanup. That land is not big enough to rebuild on.
c��=Z��
LEGISLATTVE HEARIr3G MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 3
Mr. Vaillancourt stated he has talked to different departments in the City to see if there is a
possibility of exchanging properties if the City has something that would suit their needs. Their
location on Reaney and Cypress is an exceilent spot for housing.
Mr. Magner stated he has an itemized bill. The largest dollar amount of $36,000 is primarily the
dumping of the material and the acquisition of the fill required. When there is a fire, the site has
to be inspected for contamination of asbestos or other pollutants. This site was positive for that;
therefore, special methods have to be taken: dump trucks had to be lined with plastic, all the
materials had to be brought to a sepazate dump site, spread out, and theu put into the landfill.
That cost is higher than noimal for a standazd demolition in which they remove the asbestos prior
to the demolition. With a fire, there is not that luxury. Also, there is the additional cost of
employing people on the weekend to taze the building. Mr. Magner will provide a copy of the
bill. They had no inquiries of the bill priar to this hearing. He can mail it to them. (Note: this
bill was mailed on February 26.)
Ms. Moezmond recommends laying over to Uie March 11, 2003, Legisiative Hearing after they
had have a chance to look over the bill in some detail. There is no provision for her to waive an
assessment based on economic hardship. She encourages them to talk to the Mayor's Office and
Planning and ficonomic Development to find another appropriate site within the City,
567 Stryker Avenue (J0209B)
(No one appeared)
Marcia Moermond recommends approvai of the assessment.
430 Edmund Avenue (J0207A)
John Betz reported Code Enforcement issued a notice to remove roof shingles, vehicle parts, cut
brush pile and tall grass and weeds in the yard and adjacent to the alley area. The notice was
issued on August 19, 2002, with a compliance date of August 23. Parks did the work on
September 4.
Paul R. Smith, owner, appeared and stated he had a six foot fence around the backyard. People
aze constantly throwing garbage there. He took a vacation from the middle of 7une to sometime
in August or September. When he picked up his mail, there was a letter concerning this. He
called the phone number on the letter, and she said she would postpone the cleanup for a few
days to give him a chance to take care of it. He went into the alley and it had already been done.
He had no control over it. He is a senior citizen, handicapped, and iY is hard enough for him to
pick up his own trash.
Ms. Moermond asked who he talked to at the City. Mr. Smith responded whoever sent him a
letter. He does not recall the name. He is bad about keeping letters.
�� Z3�1
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 4
From the inspector's notes, stated Mr. Betz, it was reinspected on Aua st 23, tall �ass and
rubbish remained, no cali from owner, no telephone number was found.
Ms. Moermond stated that dumping is a probiem anyplace. There is little the City can do unless
people are caught doing it. She asked did he atrauge for anyone to take care of his property in his
absence. Mr. Smith responded he told his neighbor he would be gone and to check for broken
windows and things like that. The neighbor probably did not check the alley. There is no lawn
back there except for a tiny strip near the fence and the aliey.
Ms. Moermond asked was there any record of Mr. Smith contacting the inspector. Mr. Betz
responded no. He has a videotape. There was the same situation a few yeazs ago. Code
Enforcement has cleaned the property in the past.
Mr. Betz asked does he know the date he went to the post office or called Code Enforcement.
Mr. Smith responded they were going to clean it up the next day.
Ms. Smith requested that it be spread out over a period of time because he is on a fixed income.
Louise Langberg responded that it can be spread out over a five year period.
Ms. Moermond recommends spreading the amount of the assessment over a five year period. In
the future, the owner should make sure someone is looking after the property and his mail.
837 Fourth Street East (J0207A)
Racquel Naylor stated the owner requested that this matter be laid over to March 25.
Marcia Moermond recommends laying over to the March 25, 20Q3, Legislative Hearing.
550 Edmund Avenue (J0207A)
John Betz reported Code Enforcement inspected this property on August 9, 2Q02. An order was
issued to ihe property owner to remove tall grass and weeds. It was reinspected on August 15.
The Pazks Department cleaned the property on September 3.
Harold Tucker, owner, appeared and stated he has diabetes, high blood pressure, and he is on
social security. He is unable to take care of this property by himself. He lives alone. He told the
inspector about his problem, she said she didn't caze, and gave him a ticket anyway.
Ms. Moermond asked has he taiked to any nonprofit programs to heip him maintain his property.
The City has a long history at this property with exterior violations. Mr. Tucker responded they
talked to him about moving out of the house and into an apartment building. He does not want to
mo�e into one, but he may have to.
a�z3-�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FESRUARY 25, 2003 Page 5
Ms. Moermond stated he could make arrangements with the City's Real Estate Division to spread
out the payments. Ms. Langberg responded she can spread it out over a five year period.
Ms. Moermond recommends spreading the amount of the assessment over a five year period. It
is not her place to say where he lives, but if he is going to stay in his own home, he has to
maintain the property on his own or arrange for some heip. He did know this work was suppose
to be done and he did not do it on his own. She encourages him to talk to some of the nonprofits
in the area. Mr. Tucker responded he called the W31der Foundation, but they never came out.
774 Central Avenue West (J0207AAA, J0205V)
(Note: there aze two assessments on this properry. J0207AAA was laid over from February 11; it
is a property cleanup for $448. J0205V is a towed vehicte for $540.6Q.}
Jolm Faulkner, owner, appeared and stated he had a colleague govern that property. If any
assessments were sent, it was sent out to his address. Now Mr. Faulkner is the owner. This is
the first he has heard of this assessment. He took over ownership in September 2002. The
assessment is for an abandoned vehicle for $540,60. He tried calling the previous owner, but his
number is disconnected. This is a vacant lot.
As the cunent oumer, stated Marcia Moermond, he is still responsible for the assessments that
aze due.
The previous owner neglected telling him about it, stated Mr. Faulkner. He asked could the
assessment be cut in half. Ms. Moermond responded that is the cost the City incurred.
Mr. Faulker stated he appeared on February 11, 2Q02, and the assessment there was $448 far the
same vehicle. The second letter is for $540.60. Mr. Betz responded the lot is overgrown. The
assessment for $448 was for cutting tali grass and removing refuse (J0207AAA). The lot was not
being maintained. That did not include the vehicie.
Ms. Moermond recommends approval of both assessments.
Summary Abatements:
J0205V Towing of abandoned vehicles from private property for part of May, June,
July, and August 2002;
J0248B Boarding-up of vacant buildings from December 2002;
J0207A1 Property clean-up for part of July 20Q2 to part of December 2002.
236 Arlin�ton Avenue West (J0207A1)
3ohn Betz reported Code Enforcement inspected this property. On September 19, 2002, an order
was issued to the property owner to cut the grass and remove debris from the property by
September 22. A reinspection was conducted, the work had not been done, and a work order was
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003
o�z
Page 6
issued to the Parks Department on September 2'7. They charged a minimum amount for the
removal of debris.
Vicky Faulhaber, owner, appeared and stated she was in a car accident and has a doctor s excuse.
She has a letter from her doctor in which the doctor rvrites that Ms. Faulhaber has increasing pain
and to provide assistance with house work and yard work until she recovers. It is dated
September 13, 2�02, and addressed to American Family Insurance Company. They did noi
provide assistance, and it is still under investigation.
Ms. Moermond asked did ihe City mow the lawn. Ms. Faulhaber responded yes. She does not
know about the debris. She lives on a corner lot across from the high school.
Ms. Moermond asked to look at the videotape.
(A videotape was shown.)
Ms. Moermond asked did she try to arrange someane to cut it. Ms. Faulhaber responded no one
wouid cut it because it was long.
Ms. Moermond asked did the City only go out once to help her with this. Ms. Faulhaber
responded yes.
Ms. Moermond recommended approval of the assessment. In terms of reimbursement, the ownex
shouid talk to the insurance company if they were suppose to provide assistance. This would be
a private matter. Her claim is with the insurance company and not the City.
2021 California Avenue East (70207A1)
(No one appeazed)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
972 Dayton Avenue (J0205V)
3ohn Betz reported his office inspected the properiy and a notice was issued on 7une 10, 2002, to
remove an abandoned vehicle by June 20. A reinspection was conducted on July 16, the vehicle
was in the same position, a work order was sent to the police department, who removed the
vehicle on August 20. The notice was sent to 995 Grand Avenue and 972 Dayton Avenue.
The following appeared: Sonja Hauter, owner, 1087 Fairmount Avenue, and NinetYe Carlson,
property manager, 1067 Hague Avenue. Ms. Hauter stated she did not get either of those notices.
She is the owner of record. Mr. Betz responded they got the address from Ramsey County
records.
c�����
LEGISLATIVE HEAKING MINLITES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 7
Ms. Moermond asked about the Grand Avenue address. Ms. Hauter responded the former
properiy managers are there. They have not worked for her since Mazch 2002. Their attitude
concerning her properties is to throw away any correspondence. She called the police to have the
vehicle removed. They evicted the woman who was living there and they tried to have towing
companies get the vehicie, but the VIN (vehicle identification number) had been scratched, there
was no registration, and they told her to call the police. She cailed the police, they towed it away,
and assured her there would be no charge.
Ms. Carlson stated she made the phone call to the police. She met the officer at the property with
the maintenance man. They could not get anyone to tow that vehicie because it was stolen and
completely stripped. The VIN and ]icense number were gone. She is surprised at the $422 for a
tow. Mr. Betz responded the property has a rental dwelling registration form with the mailing
address as 995 Grand Avenue #B3. His office issued the order to tow it. The fee includes the
towing, storage, and administrative costs. Steve Magner added that storage is $ I S a day and it
has to be there for a minimum of 14 days.
Ms. Moermond stated this is a typical expense for the City. They have to hold it for 14 days and
there are auctions every two weeks. Her having initiated the contact with the City is good, but
the City did incur these costs. Ms. Carlson responded she coutd have called a private company
and had the officer sign off on it. Code Enforcement did not call to have this towed and she has
proof of that, but she does not have the proof with her.
Ms. Moermond suggested the owner change her records with Ranisey County. Ms. Hauter
responded she has already done that.
Ms. Moermond recommends laying this over to the March 25, 2003, Legisiative Hearing. In the
meantime, she would like the regulations and laws foz towing a vehicle from private property
��hen the VIN have been removed. Mr. Magner responded that a private company will not tow a
vehicie off the properry until the police has issued a tag at the request of the property owner. If
the tag was issued, it is the responsibility of the properiy owner to contract with a private towing
company to have it towed. If the towing contractar is working on the authorization of the Police
Department, it is because of a work order authorized &om Code Enforcement.
1817 Davton Avenue (J0207A1)
(No one appeazed)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
691 Edmund Avenue (X0205V)
Phuc Craig appeazed and stated this is his girlfriend's property. Ais dad lives there. `I he car
betonged to the next door neighbor. He has been there twice asking him to move it, but he was
c��=z��
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 8
not there. By the time Mr. Craig got the notice, someone broke into the caz. He received a letter,
went to the police station, and he was told to call the police and make a report. Nobody showed
up and he calied again. He was told that he did not have to worry, to let the police tow, and
they'd biil the owner of the caz. Ms. Moermond responded that he should take the bill to the
owner of the car and that is a private matter between them. Mr. Craig responded that the owner
is a drug dealer and in jail. It is half of his property and half of the owner's properiy.
Mr. Craig stated it is really unfair that he has to pay every time someone parks on his property.
Ms. Moermond responded he should not allow them to park there.
Mr. Betz stated he has a photograph of the car. Weeds have grown up about four feet around it.
(Ms. Moermond looked at the photograph.)
Ms. Moermond stated the date on the photograph reads August 2000. Mr. Betz responded that is
sloppy writing. It should be August 2002.
Mr. Craig asked how he can prevent this from happening again. Ms. Moermond responded there
is nuisance handbook that talks about dumping on properiy. Also, he should post a no pazking
sign and taik to the district council crime prevention coordinator. She will send him a Ietter with
the crime prevention contacts. Mr. Magner added that the owner can call the Police Department,
they wili tag the vehicle, and the owner can contact a tow company to have the vehicle removed.
Ms. Moermond reconunends approval ofthe assessment. (Mr. Craig was given a"St. Paul
Resident Handbook: Neighborhood Nuisances.")
123 Geranium Avenue East (J0205V)
(No one appeared.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
1264 Mazshall Avenue (J0207A1)
(No one appeared.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
679 Maryland Avenue Ease (J0207A1)
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
c��z�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Paee 9
1774 Norfolk Avenue (J0207A1)
Marcia Moermond recommends deleting the assessment as it was incorrectly assessed.
(Note: On December 4, 2002, the City Council voted that there would be no forthcoming
assessment related to this summary abatement order dated August 4, 20Q2.)
645 Oakdale Avenue (J0207A1)
Kathryn Hessler, 1171 Jackson Street, appeared and stated she just spoke to Lisa Martin (Code
Enforcement) and had this issue taken care of. She is withdrawing her appeal.
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
892 Wilder Street South (J0207A1j
John Betz reported a notice was sent to the property owner to cut tali grass and weeds, remove
scrap lumber, brush piles, and jusil: by September 27. A reinspection was conducted on October
2, the work had not been done, and a work order was sent to the Parks Departrnent who did the
work on October 7.
TIm McMillen, owner, appeared and stated it seems they came on Monday, September 30. Steve
Shiller (Code Enforcement) did not return his last phone call and there was no inspection at that
time either because most of die wark had been done by then.
Mr. Setz stated a work order was sent to Parks on October 3. There is a videotape of this with a
date.
Mr. McMillen stated he got two notices and nine items in all. Six of the items were taken care
of. He had a bathtub in the backyard that he was going to use as a liner for a pond. That was
done on September 27. The wire feticing, concrete, bicycle parts, brush piles, and boulevard
were taken care of. There is no more lawn. At this time, the boulevazd was in the process of
being dug up and planted. When the City arrived, there was nothing to cut. The wood was not
taken care of, and he would have liked to keep it. Mr. McMiilen thought the crew came on the
30` but he may have written the wrong date. When the crew came, he called Mr. Schiller and
said he thought they had an agreement. Mr. Schiller said that he had lost his nuxnber, yet Mr.
Schiller called him back that day when Mr. McMillen left a message. Mr. McMillen stated it is
hard to deal with someone, that does not retum phone calis and then says he lost the number. Mr.
McMiilen thought he was working along with the inspector. He was going to get an outdoor
wood burner for the wood. He had wood fencing that he got from the neighbor, and that was
taken_ He already had fence posts in the ground. Those things were taken along with his child's
toys. The toys were stared in a four by four foot outdoor pool, which the neighbor said they used
C�� 23
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRI3ARY 25, 2003 Page 10
to carry away die wood. He cut back the grape vines in the driveway that the inspector
mentioned, but those were not part of the original orders. He had a lot of wood debris left.
Mr. $etz stated there aze all kinds of records and conversations dating back to 3uly in the file.
The inspector met the properry owner there. He had started an abatement aetion. There was
something about a bathtub being installed. Mr. McMillan responded a liner is expensive. An old
bathtub can be turned into a liner if someone has the crearivity to do it.
Mr. Betz went on to say that the inspector noted that on September 13 he called the property
owner to finish cieaning up the rear yard and remove the old carpet. On September 19, he
reinspected it and he did say the carpet had been removed, the fencing had been taken apart, and
the front boulevazd remained the same. At that time, he issued a second summary abatement
with a compliance date of September 27. On October 2, he reinspected it. There was stili brush,
wood debris, wood fencing, and bicycle parts. The inspector left a message on the owner's
phone machine on October 2 that the City would now cut and clean the property and charge him.
Mr. McMillan asked why his call to the inspector was not noted in the file. Also, the crew did
not pick up the bicycle parts. He has less bicycle parts in his yard than his neighbor has
everyday. Mr. Magner responded that some of this may be addressed by viewing the videotape.
Mr. Moermond asked did he appeai the summazy abatement order. Mr. McMillan responded he
asked couid he appeal and the inspector gave him a number and name of a woman who told him
that she did not know why he was calling her. But, she did tell him about the green cazd, and that
is why he is here.
Mr. Betz stated the orders do state that they can appeal to this body. {Mr. Betz showed him the
appeai part at the bottom of the notice.)
Ms. Moermond requested the videotape.
(A videotape was shown.)
Ms. Moermond recommends reducing the assessment by $100 from $400.50 to $255.50 pius the
$45 administrative fee for a total assessment of $300.50. She does believe that the owner tried to
communicate with the inspectar at the last minute about organizing this. In the future, when he
receives an order to conect something, it specifies very cleariy at the bottom how to appeal.
712 Hawthorne Avenue East (J02Q7A1)
John Betz stated he just had the file brought down from his office, but he does not have the
videotape. This is about a property cleanup. There was an inspection conducted in September.
A notice was issued to the property owner to clean up the property and cut taii grass and weeds.
A reinspection was conducted. A notice was issued to the Parks Department to remove and
o�=z.��
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 11
dispose of refuse and a garbage can full of trash and animal feces. Parks Department conducted
the work on October 28, 2002, and the charge was assessed to the property owner of $243 plus
the administrative fees.
Jamel Flemino, owner, appeared and stated they removed a can of dog feces that she could not
lift. Also, they put a city garbage can in the back at $50 a week. She told them she was selling
the home and there would be no household gazbage. They wanted proof that she had purchased
garbage service for two months. She has a letter from the properry where she was living. The
home was vacant and up for sale. There was no garbage to be removed. The yazd was kept up.
The only thing there was one can of dog feces. She told them to remove it because she could not
lift it. That could be maybe $50 a week. The garbage cans were empty and the properiy was sold
on December 30. The garbage cans still remain at the address. A Public Works person named
Kelly also witnessed that the garbage can had never been used. She is in agreement with paying
$50 to remove the garbage can there, but $243 is excessive.
Marcia Moermond stated she would like to look at the videotape. It sounds like there wiil be an
appeai separately far the garbage service. Mr. Betz responded the notices say that if the City
corrects the nuisance, the rate will be $22S plus expenses. It is in there so that people know ihat.
James Bigelow stated she cut down the weeds using his weed whacker.
Ms. Flemino requested hearing both matters at the same time. Mr. Betz responded he could find
oui from the Real Estate Division when they will schedule the hearing regarding the garbage
haulin�. Both assessments can be deait with at the March 11 heazing.
Ms. Flemino asked if there is another step after the legislative heazing. Ms. Moermond
responded the City by law is only allowed to chazge what it costs them to do this. Because this
involves money and property, it will go before the City Council for a public hearing.
Ms. Moermond recommends laying over to the March 1 l, 2003, Legislative Heazing.
289 Fifth Street East (J0208B)
Steve Magner reported this was an incorrectly assessed property. He requests tliat this properiy
be deleted and the correct address of 281 be assessed.
1364 Mazion Street (J0205V)
Tohn Betz stated proper notification was not made. He requested deleting this.
Marcia Moermond recommends deleting the assessment.
c7�=Z�`�
-� � ,
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 12
,( � Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property af 1107 Bush Avenue. If
�� the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcemenf is ordered to remove the
building.
Steve Magner reported this is a two story wood frame single family dwelling. It has been vacant
since January 17, 2002. The owner is Bank of America. Six summary abatement notices were
issued to remove refuse, cut tall grass, and secure the doors. On December 20, 2002, an
inspection was conducted, a list of deficiencies which constltute a nuisance condition was
developed, and photographs were taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on
January 3, 2002, with a compiiance date of February 3. As of this date, this property remains in a
condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. The vacant building
fees were paid. Real estate taxes are paid in full. T�ation has p]aced an estimated market value
of $23,500 on the land and $69,200 on the building. As of February 25, 2003, no one has applied
for a code compliance inspection nor has a bond been posted. Code Enforcement estimates the
cost to repair is $60,000 to $70,000; estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000.
Esther McGinnis, 50 Fifth Street East, Suite 300, representing the Bank of America, appeazed
and stated Bank of America is the cunent owner of the properry. They have obtained ownership
by foreclosure. She taiked with her client and they have a limited budget for this property. They
have lined up a crew to take care af the majority of the work within 30 days. They propose to
patch and seal the roof, remove all interior and exterior debris, remove mold including the carpet,
bleach and paint the walls, repair and paint the basement ceiling, and repair the front steps. Thfs
would bring it up to HUD (Housing and Urban Development) requirements. They would then
convey to HUD. A new buyer from HUD would then complete the repairs. She does not know
the seriousness of the code violations because they were never provided with anything from Mr.
Magner's Office even though her client requested information. They are making ffiese repairs
based on limited information. They believe these repairs wiil take care of a lot in an expedient
manner.
Ms. Moennond stated the code compliance inspection is their best means to get an overall
assessment of the buiiding. She asked the fee for the inspection. Mr. Magner responded $100
for a single family residence such as this.
Ms. Moermond asked how long Bank of America has been in possession of this property. Ms.
McCrinnis responded she thinks ii has been about a yeaz. She does not have the exact date. Some
of the repairs were done last spring or summer.
Ms. Moermond asked about the time span for the six summary abatement notices. Mr. Magner
responded they have occuned since Banl: of America had cleared the title or obtained the title to
the property. The first one was for garbage in January, tall grass and weeds in July, gazbage
abatement and tall grass and weeds in October, sumiziary abatement for securing in October,
another securing summary abatement in December. On February I 1, 2003, Code Enforcement
issued a summary abatement to cleaz the walk from snow and ice cover. Mr. Magner has not
o� Z��
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 13
seen Bank of America taking the lead. Code Enforcement has been maiting information to the
Bank of America attomey, attention Kazen Resetarits in Geizville, New York, and post office
boxes in Cetzville and Richmond, Virginia.
Ms. Moermond stated her concem is a history of Bank of America not taking care of the
property. Ms. McGinnis responded it is her understanding that this has slipped through the
cracks, but they aze now awaze of it. Karen Resetarits told her that she is willing to get the
repairs started this week.
Ivls. Moermond recommends approval of the order to remove or repair within 15 days. She is not
confident the properry will be rehabilitated. The history on this property is disappointing. She
suggested Ms. McGinnis talk to Councilmember Kathy Lantry about this issue.
Appeal of summary abatement order at ?07 MarVland Avenue East.
Lisa Martin reported she was at this property for an inspection. Orders were sent out to have the
garage taken care of by January 24. She was at the property again on December 30 and there was
no change. On January 8 she was at the property, and Mr. Bigelow admitted he did not have a
permit Mr. Bigelow responded he neve� admitted that.
Ms. Martin stated there was a recheck on January 27. There was no change on the garage. She
issued orders on January 27 to have the garage repaired or torn down and to remove the
dangerous garage structure attached to the shed. She has photographs where the wiring is done
improperly, and the doar is hanging off the garage. It is full of debris.
James Bigelow, Sr., owner, appeared and stated he did pull a permit and it was checked off by
James West (License, Inspection, Environmental Protection) in 1999. They call it a garage, but
he calls it a carport enclosure. It was filled with used buiiding materials, which he was ordered
to clean up. The wiring was not up to code, so he removed it. The garage door was not hanging
there, but the flap needs to be pushed up on the top. He has photographs that he took this
morning. He also has photographs of another garage with a flat roof. He has been having
probiems with the code people hazassing him. Dick Lippert (Code Enforcement) admitted he
was hazassing him and was not going to stop until he moved. One entered his house without him
being there and wrote up some work orders.
(Ms. Moermond looked at the photographs and the permit.)
Mr. Bigelow stated that Mr. Magner said he did not have time to check for a permit, but doubted
there was one.
Ms. Moermond stated she does not see a sign off for the permit. Mr. Bigelow responded that he
asked was it signed off and he was told yes.
a�
LEGISLATIVE HEFIRING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 14
Mr. Magner stated the summary abatement order being appealed is for the garage. He went with
Ms. Martin. After looking at the garage, he instructed her to issue the summary abatement to
completely rehabilitate the garage under a new permit or to remove it. The garage roof is failing.
The joists aze starting to pull away and twist. He talked to someone from LIEP and was told the
inspector originally requested the permit in 1999 because he went to die property on a complaint,
and the owner had started the project without a permit. When he came back to reinspect, he was
unable to contact the owner, and he closed it out as the permit was compietely far the exterior.
The inspector was never able to get back in to compietely reinspect the interior. He never would
have closed it out if he knew what was occurring inside with the construction methods. The fact
remains that was not 1999. The garage does not meet the minimum code standards at this time.
If the owner wants to keep that structure on the property, he needs to get a permit for
rehabilitating that structure, have the building inspector go through it with him after having
completed those repairs, and then have the building inspector sign off on that. If he does not
choose to do that, he can remove it or the City can. There is also another issue of an attached
shed structure which he was likely using as a residence. He had an illegal toilet that was draining
out into the yard. He also had an order for the interior. The reason it was originally inspected is
because the FORCE Unit executed a narcotics wanant on this property for drugs and the FORCE
Unit Housing Inspector did the inspection.
Mr. Bigelow stated there was no wanant He told 7otm Linson (police office) that he could come
in. They wanted to see the little shed he was staying in. That is where his dog slept. He let them
inside the garage and the attic. No ilarcotics were found. The homemade toilet did not drain into
the garage, but into a can. James West said to add a beam across the roof to support the weight.
It is not a garage. It is a carport enclosure. Ms. Moermond responded that is not in front of her
today.
Ms. Moermond asked if the inspectors saw a beam failing. Mr. Magner responded yes and it is
an unfinished structure.
Ms. Moermond stated the order does not spell out the exact issue with the roof coming close to
failure. She is also unhappy about water probiems or sewer connections from another
outbuilding on the property. She would like to get the inspectors back out to relook at this. Mr.
Magner responded he has an original correction order that indicated those repairs, but the owner
is not appealing that order from January 30, 2003. He is appealing the subsequent stunmary
abatement to remove this structure.
Ms. Moermond stated her initial concern was that it was not clear what needed to be done to
bring this in compliance, but that was specified in the correction notice that is not in front of her
today. She is comfortable that Code Enforcement concerns were clearly articulated to him. She
asked has he taken steps to deal with the soundness of the structure. Mr. Bigelow responded he
does not see it coliapsing. He had 3 to 4 feet of snow last year, and he has had no problem with
it. He would like to have an inspector come out in order to save the structure. He has to have a
piace to store things.
o� Z,�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 15
Mr. Magner stated he would be v.�illing to have a building inspector go to the properry. Ms_
Moermond stated they can get an inspector there to outline exacfly what needs to happen.
Mr. Bigelow asked the difference between a carport enclosure and a garage. Mr. Magner
responded that is a question for zoning. He is not sure there is a difference between a carport that
is enclosed on four sides and a gazage. A carport is a roof with supports that a car is parked
under.
Ms Moermond recommends denying the appeal. They will have a building inspector go out to
show exactly their concems. She asked the compliance date. Mr. Magner responded they will
need to set a compliance date after he is given a list.
If the permit was checked off, stated Mr. Bigelow, then it should be okay. Ms. Moermond
responded the situation right now is that it is strucCUrally unsound. When it is checked off, that is
for the conditions at that point and time. Things can change radically over time.
Ms. Moermond recommends denying the appeal on the January 27, 2003, summary abatement
order.
Appeal of Notice of Condemnation dated January 3, 2003 at 970 Euclid Street.
(Division of Property Code Enforcement)
Mark Meysembourg, owner, appeared and stated he retained an attorney who instructed him to
only bring up two issues today. The inspection on his property on November 15 was flawed due
to the failure of the inspector to gain proper consent from the tenants. All subsequent inspections
flow from this. Mr. Meysembourg stated he would like to rescind the condemnation due to faulty
inspection. The condemnation can only be done if there is a serious danger to the residents. The
only one that meets this levei is Item 1- Lack of pressure relief on the west boiler. It was
repiaced by Saint Paul Plumbing.
Marcia Moermond stated she heard the appeal on the first inspection that led to the subsequent
inspection, and that appeal was denied. She will not revisit that issue. Mr. Meysembourg
responded he didn't expect her to, but his attorney instructed him to say that. His atCOmey is
prepazing an appeal to district court.
Ms. Moermond stated his appeal addresses specific items. Mr. Meysembourg responded that
was before he discussed it with his attorney. He said all these items fall under these two issues.
Ms. Moermond stated the stronger case is embedded in the individual items. From reading
through this, the items do constitute conditions that jusfify a condemnation and the inspector
made the right call. She has no information from Mr. Meysembourg that these are not the
conditions at the property, except far the aforementioned the valve issue. As for the other items,
o�=z��
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2003 Page 16
she would need information that those conditions don't exist or don't justify condemning. If the
balance of the list is safety issues, that is the inspector's call.
Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the 3anuary 3,2003, Notice of Condemnation.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:28 p.m
rm
Note: �28 White Bear Avenue 1Vorth - John Betz requested that this one be deleted due to
improper notification. Marcia Moermond recommends deleting this assessment. This is
from File J0207A2, which will be on the agenda for March I 1, 2003.
� d � CiTIZEV SERViCE OFFiCE
Donald J Lursa. Ci[y Clerk � 3.�3 �
DNISfOY OF PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMEhT
And}� Datvkrns, Progrnm Mnanger
C l i S OF J�r PAV L Nuisnnce B�tilAing Code Enfo�cemen!
Rnndy C. Ke(fy, bfayor l600 Nor1h {f kite Bear Arenue Zel: 65l-266-1900
SnintPcu{ bLV S)!06 Far: 651-266-1926
February 07, 2003
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARI\TGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
Citi2en Service Office, Vacant/Nuisance Buildin�s Enforcement Division has requested the City
Council schedule public hearin�s to consider a resolution orderin� the repair or removal of the
nuisance building(s) located at:
1107 Bush Avenue
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows:
Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, February 25, 20Q3
City Council Aearing -`Vednesday, March 5, 2003
The owners and responsible parties of record aze:
Name and Last Known Address
Bank of America, NA
P.O. Box 9000
Getzville, NY 14068-90�0 -
Bank of America, NA
Attn: Karen Resetarits
4'IS Cross Point Parkway
Getzville, NY 14068
B2nk of Americz, i� a
P.O. Bos 26388_ � =A2-200-03-0-'.
Richmond, VA 23260-6385
Interest
Fee O�vnerlMortgage Foreclosure
Fee O�vnerlNiortga�e Foreclosure
Fe� Oc�n:r �,fonaase Forzclostir:
i �w:��'='�."i 1�^??'°
t : �.d M, -- L��e7
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
__----
�� a�1
1107 Bush Avenue
February 7, 2003
Pa�e 2
Name and Last Knocvn Address
Bank of America, NA
Attn: Kenneth D. Lewis
101 South Tryon SCreeY
Charlotte, NC 28255
As per MN Stat. Sec. 5.25 Subd. 4:
Minnesota Secretary of State
180 State Office Buildin�
100 Construction Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55155
Peterson, Fram & Bergman, P.A.
Attn: Michael T. Oberle
Suite 3�0 - 50 East Fifth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
The legal description of this property is:
Interest
Fee O�cnev'l�fort�a�e Foreclosure
Receiver ofpersonal service
Fee O�vnerlMort�a�e Foreclosure
Lot 22, B1ock 8, Terry's Addition to the City of Saint Paul, County of Ramsey and
State of Minnesota.
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this buildin�(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 eondition by conecting the deficiencies or by
razing and removing this building(s).
AA-ADA-EEO Empioyer
1107 Bush Avenue
February'7, 2003
Pa�e 3
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains
unabated, the community continues to suffer the bli�hting influence of this property. It is the
recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution
ordering the responsible patties to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a timel}
manner, and failin� that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition
and removal, and to assess the costs incurred a�ainst the real estate as a sgecial assessment to be
collected in the same manner as taxes.
Sincerely,
. �
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:ml
cc: Frank Berg, Buildin� Inspection and Design
Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housing Division
cc�ph
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
i � i;� !
' � A
j • . `,'
I - '.. � � �
` � .. f i. � . 1 �� � � � .
Y . ^ _ <. j. � � . � A \ ' _ � `_,
. r ;�. - � , _ , '
.' �� �
. . � . � . � . � .
-i- �¢� ' . It� . �t , ' . A } , �- _ — .
y + ♦ . - � � � 1A - � . .
.te � �4 � ��
�., . -�: .. r
� .
,
. " Y�) � ' .F .
� f��`�7 � . . F
?- � . SE
- � t � ;' . �x �
t
.. qs �': F �, � ' r . . . .
�� �• � y, ' � /( i � . .
t f 'a' , ) �f.P
j l
. � , . h`j`� . .�� .
b ' f ( �4
. � ' � � 1 ' / /� �'��64,'i . .
� � ' � ' � 'ys � 1 . �. a''S .
� �: �f., sM'�� f � �' v�p���� �'�'.
� �: �����..'� �...
:��� ��
. e �1�P ���,H
�. � � �". - .- ��,�
a . .�ea'�i � . �.- r { ��� \ � �
�
` �f1 �L�
i � 3 � � � � V ,` �1��Pt �*"ap�.: .
St�