03-629!ai�r�1�., /�u��is� �� �d�3 /
Council File # �3 `C62�
Green Sheet # ��e�,
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
ti�
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Citizen Service Office, Division of Code Enforcement has requested the City
2 Council to hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or
3 wrecking and removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and the detached, one-stall,
4 garage located on property hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Properiy" and commonly known as 928
5 Maryland Avenue East. This property is legally described as follows, to wit:
Lot 3, Block 2, Eastville Heights
9 WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
10 obtained by Division of Code Enforcement on or before December 1, 2002, the following are the now
11 known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Trudy Mae Gloe, 18140 Fenway
12 Avenue North, Forest Lake, MN 55025; Trudy Mae Gloe, 928 Maryland Avenue East, St. Paul, MN
13 55106; BNC Mortgage Inc., P.O. Box 19656, Irvine, CA 92623; Charles C. Kallemeyn, 3200 Main
14 Street NW, Suite 280, Coon Rapids, MN 55448; Bank One NA , f/k/a The First National Bank of
15 Chicago, as Trustee Foreclosure Dept., N54 W 13600 Woodale Drive North, Mail Station WI - 4033,
16 Menomonee Falls, WI 53051; R.A.M. Properties, Inc., By Richard A. Miller, Present, 935 Maryland
17 Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55106
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
WHEREAS, Division of Code Enforcement has served in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 45 of the _Saint Paul Legislative Code an order idenrified as an "Order to Abate Nuisance
Building(s)" dated Apri14, 2003; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the
struchxre 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 structure located on the Subj ect Property by May 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subj ect 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 the Legislative Hearing Officer of the City
Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and �
WHEREAS, the interested and responsible parties have been served notice in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislarive Code, of the time, date, place and puxpose of
the public hearings; and
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
2
0
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
b3- �2w
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
Council on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 to hear testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the interested or responsible parties
to make the Subject Property safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfare and
remove its blighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shucture in accordance with all
applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to
be completed within days after the date of the Council Hearing; and
WHEREAS, a ear�`fiiu held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, 7une 25, 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 Subject Property at 928 Maryland Avenue East:
1.
2.
3.
�
7
That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code violations at the
Subject Property.
That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known responsible
parties to correct the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the building(s).
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition have not been corrected.
That Division of Code Enforcement has posted a placard on the Subject Property which
declares it to be a nuisance condition subj ect to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitared by the Citizen Service Offices, Division
of Code Enfarcement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
8. That the known 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:
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 structure 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 alternative by demolishing and removing the structure in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition and
removal of the structure must be completed within fi��.,� days after the date of the Council
Hearing. �/`i,�lis l�d�
O
AA-ADA-BEO Employer
63
2 2. If the above corrective action is not completed within this period of tune the Citizen Service
3 Office, Division of Code Enforcement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are necessary
4 to demolish and remove this structure, fill the site and chazge the costs incurred against the
5 Subject Property pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
6
7 3. In the event the building is to be demolished and removed by the City of Saint Paul, all personal
8 property or fixtures of any kind which interfere with the demolition and removal shall be
9 removed from the properiy by the responsible parties by the end of this tnne period. If all
10 personal properiy is not removed, it shall be considered to be abandoned and the City of Saint
11 Paul shall remove and dispose of such property as provided by law.
12
13 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested parties
in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
Requested by Department of:
Benanav
Blakev
Bostrom
Coleman
Harris
Lantrv
Reiter
Yeas Navs
✓
�
`
v
Y
Absent Citizen Se vice Office• Code Enforcement
Y� `�
�(v
By: �
—�
Adopted by Council: Date a
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Appr
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
BY; G .�
Approved b� Mayor for Submission to
By:
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
03 �9
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheef Green Sheet �
DepartmenUoffice/council: Date Initiated: `��
cs -��a�s�� 16MAY-03 Green Sheet NO: 3000601
Contad Person 8 Phone: DepartrneM Sent To Person Initial/Date
Andy Dawkins � 0 'tizen Servicw
266-�9Z� ASSign 1 itizenServices De artmentDirec[or �
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z ; Attorn
25-JUN-03 For
Routing 3 a or's Office Ma or/Assistant
Order 4 ouncil
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Ac4ion Requested:
City Council to pass this resolution to order the owner(s) to remove or repair the building(s). If the owner fails to comply the Code
Enforcement Division is ordered to remove the building.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Foliowing Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this personffirm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
. 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
curtent city employee?
Yes No
' Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
This building(s) is a nuisance as defined in Chapter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislari�
Code. The owners, interested parties and responsible parties lmown to the Enforcemern Officer were given an order to repair or remove
the building at 928 Maryland Avenue East by May 5, 2003, and have failed to comply with those orders
- A���=��� I�EGEIVEC�
AdvantageslfApproved: ""' , , Mj�� � � ��03
The City will elinvnate a nuisance. [' � ����
, ��:_� • CITY ATl'QFiNEY
Disadvantages If Approved: ., - �
The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the proper[y, collected as a special
assessment against the property taxes. . "
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
A nuisance condirion will rexnain unabated in the Ciry. Tlus building(s) will continue to blight the community.
Total Amount of 9000 Cast/Revenue Budgeted: Y �
Transaction:
Funaing source: 30251 activicv Numner: Nuisance Housing Abatement
Fi nancial Information:
(Explain) " "
03 -��9
1VIINUTES OF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING
928 MARYLAND AVENLJE EAST
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 10:08 am.
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner and Tony Novak (legal intern), Code Enforcement; Racquel
Naylor and Jean Birkholz, City Council.
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Walsh, legal intern with Southern Minnesota Regional Legal
Services (SMRLS), 46 East 4t Street; and Annabelle Wagner, Ramsey County House Calls
Program.
Ms. Moermond noted that this meeting is intended to provide a progress report, and that on
Wednesday, Ju1y 23, 2003, this issue will come before the City Council again. At the ]ast City
Council meeting, she asked the City Council to lay it over for a month while Ms. Gloe took steps
to do more rehabilitation on the property.
Mr. Magner reported that: 1) the real estate taxes currently are paid in full; 2) the Code
Compliance application dated 12-19-02 was paid for on June 20, 2003; 3) he spoke with Jim
Seeger this morning, who informed him that the inspection is going to be conducted this morning
at 10:15 a.m.; 4) the vacant building fees have been paid, so the building is now registered; but 5)
there has not yet been a Performance Bond posted. In summary, the City is still waiting far the
Code Compliance Inspection and the bond.
Tom Walsh, legal intern with Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS),
representing Ms. Gloe, listed the progress that has been made: 1) the building fee has been paid;
2) the back t�es have been paid; 3) the criminal citation was dismissed; 4) Ms. Gloe's insurance
checks are in their office, and will be used to rehab the property; 5) Ms. Gloe applied for her
property taa� rebates, and will be able to use a good portion of it toward rehabilitation also; 6) Ms.
Gloe is taking care of her health needs, including taking her medication on a regular basis; 7) Ms.
Gloe has authorized their office to consult with her doctor, Dr. Giefer, to make sure that she is
meeting with him and taking her medication; and 8) their office has contacted some
organizations to assist Ms. Gloe in this process. One of those organizafions, House Calls, is
represented here today by Annabelle Wagner, who has indicated that House Calls will be able to
offer Ms. Gloe some helpful services.
Ms. Moermond welcomed Ms. Wagner.
Ms. Wagner commented that this case is unusual in that House Calls normally works directly
with the inspectors on homes that are occupied. They try to provide services to keep it from
being condemned. House Calls has agreed to provide a dumpster for Ms. Gloe to clean the
debris from the fire out of her home. Also, they can guide her to home loan programs and other
�3 -�aq
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING-9281VIARYLAND AVE E- JIJLY 15, 2003 Page 2
services that can be of assistance.
Ms. Moermond offered Ms. Wagner a look at photos of the house to give her a general idea of
the situation; she also gave her a copy of the Apri14, 2003 Order to Abate the Nuisance.
Mr. Magner interjected that House Calls will also need the Code Compliance Inspection Report,
which is being prepared this week and will most likely be available tlus Friday, July 18, 2003.
Ms. Moermond stated that she would recommend that the City Council continue its discussion on
this issue on Wednesday, August 6, 2003, to give Ms. Gioe a couple of weeks to puf together a
plan. She expects that all of the items on the Code Compliance Inspection would be addressed.
Permits will not need to be pulled, but the plan must include a very good idea of how each item
will be addressed, i.e., will a contractor be needed, the estimated cost, will a permit be needed,
etc. After a draft plan is developed, Steve Magner and Ms. Moermond will need to evaluate it to
see whether they think the plan will work, whether mare time will be needed, or whether it will
not work at a11. Then a recommendation to the City Council can be made. Ms. Moermond
suggested that a draft plan be submitted a week before August 6, 2003 (July 30, 2003), to allow a
considerable amount of time for conversation on how the items will be addressed. A bond will
need to be posted by noon, August 6, 2003, with the Office of License, Inspections and
Environmental Protection (LIEP). Because this is a vacant building, Ms. Gloe will need a
Performance Bond, which is a$2,000 bond, posted with LIEP before any permits can be
obtained. Ms. Gloe will also need to pay for the permits. When the work is finished, the bond is
returned. There are bond agencies auailable that may be of assistance. Ms. Moermond
commented that her concern, in the long term, is that this property will be returned to being a
well-maintained single-family dwelling. Because of Ms. Gloe's disability, any assurance that
there will be monitoring of her health care and any assistance from House Calls to provide on-
going services will be an asset to that end.
Ms. Wagner responded that House Calls will look into the possibility of helping Ms. Gloe
monitor her specific needs.
Ms. Moermond added that if there could be some type of plan developed from House Calls
perspective, it would be all the more helpful.
Mr. Walsh, referring to the bond requirement, asked whether there was any way the amount
($2,000) could be reduced. Ms. Gloe has the money but would like to be able to use it all for
rehab.
Ms. Moermond responded that posting the $2,000 Performance Bond assures the City that this
person has the financial capacity to take on what is known to be a very difficult job: rehabbing a
vacant building in bad condition. It does require considerable financial resources to do that. She
understands that there aze some financial resources in play. She suggested that SMRLS would
know of bonding agencies that could help. Bonds can be secured in many situations, by paying a
percentage of the value of the bond. For instance, a$2,000 bond may cost $200. Ms. Moermond
03��5
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING-928 MARYLAND AVE E- JULY 15, 2003 Page 3
thinks that this situation would be viewed more favorably by the City Council if Ms. Gloe could
secure the bond. If she cannot secure the bond with a small percentage, Ms. Gloe is to write a
letter to Ms. Moermond, and she will deal with it at that point. Ms. Moermond asked Mr.
Magner what his experience tells him regarc3ing a situation like this.
Mr. Magner responded that there aze only two ways around the situation: 1) post the money in
cash; and/or 2) purchase a Performance Bond from an agency that is willing to take the risk.
Also, an item/items could be fmanced and the available money used for securing the bond.
When the bond is retumed, that money would be used to pay-off the financed item/items.
Ms. Moermond added that if, for instance, Ms. Gloe needs to pay cash for carpeting, she could do
it with a non-profit organization's loan, and then pay-off the loan right away.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Gloe and Mr. Walsh to let her know if anything comes up; otherwise,
a work plan will be expected by July 30, 2003. Both Mr. Magner and Ma Moermond should
have a copy.
Racquel Naylor asked Ms. Moermond to recapitulate what she is requiring of Ms. Gloe.
Ms. Moermond reiterated that this item will come up at the City Council on Wednesday, July 23,
2003. At that time, she will recommend that they postpone discussion on it until August 6, 2003.
A bond needs to be posted by noon Wednesday, August 6, 2003. A draft plan to bring this
property into compliance according to the Code Compliance Report, is due Wednesday, July 30,
2003; a finalized plan is due by Wednesday, August 6, 2003.
The heazing was adjourned at 10:35 a.m.
jab
b3-c�zq
REPORT
Date: July 15, 2003
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hail
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Marcia Moermond
Legislative Hearing Officer
1. Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 928 Maryland Avenue
East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolurion, Code Enforcement is ordered to
remove the building. (Laid over from 6-17-03 Legislative Hearing)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the August 6, 2003 City Council
meeting.
jab/rrn
a�-(�z�
•� •.�
Date: June 17, 2003
Tune: 9:30 and 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Mazcia Moermond
Legislative Hearing Officer
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 928 Maryland Avenue
East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to
remove the building. (Laid over from 6-10-03)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the July 15, 2003, Special
Legislative Hearing.
2. Appeal of Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 756 Juno Avenue.
(Laid over from 6-6-03)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal on the June 5, 2003, Revised
Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate. The Order to Vacate is enforced as of June
17, 2003, 8:00 p.m. No one is allowed inside the premises, except far anyone actively
working on the property from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
�rr�i
CCC(ZEN SERVICE OFFtCE
Dona[d!. Cuna, City Clerk
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
P.cndy C. Ke:;�..'�fayor
tifay 16, 2003
DNISiOti OF PROPERTY CODE ErFORCEbIENT
dndy Dmrk�ns. Program �Llnnager
v3-l�Zg
Nuisr.rtce Bui!dirsg Code Ertforczment
1600 Nordr Wnite BearAvenue Te1: 65i-166-1900
SaintPn:d,hl.VSi106 F¢r:651-266-1926
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Council President and
Members of the City Council
Citizen 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:
928 Maryland Avenue East
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearin�s as follows:
Legislative Aearing - Tuesday, June 10, 2003
City Council Hearing -`i'ednesday, June 25, 2003
The owners and responsible parties of record aze:
Name and Last Known Address
Trudy Mae Gloe
18140 Fenway Avenue North
Forest Lake, vIN 55025
Tn_e�; �Ia� Cioe
92a Vlarviand ����nue Eas:
St. PauI, viti »106
Interest
Fee Owner
Fz� O«ner
AA-ADA-EEO Employec
63 Z9
928 Niaryland Avenue East
May 16, 2003
Page 2
I`Tame and Last Known Address
B�IC Mort�a�e Inc.
P.O. Box 19656
Irvine, CA 92623
Charles C. Kallemeyn
3200 Main Street NW, Suite 280
Coon Rapids, NN 55448
Bank One NA
f/k/a The First National Bank of Chica�o,
as Trustee Foreclosure Dept.
N54 �V 13600 Woodale Drive North
Mail Station WI - 4033
Menomonee Falls, WI 53051
R.A.M. Properties, Inc.
By Richard A. Miller, President
935 Maryland Avenue East
St. Paul, i�In 55106
The le�al description of this property is:
Lot 3, Block 2, Eastville Heights
Interest
Mort�a�ee
Attomey's Lien Holder
Mort�a�ee
(Assi�unent of BNC Mtg.Inc.)
Possible Reverter Interest
Division of Code Enforcement has declared this buildin�(s) to constitute a"nuisance" as defined
by Le�islative Code, Chapter 45. Division of Code Enforcement has issued an order to the then
known responsible parties to eluninate this nuisance condition by correctin� the deficiencies or b}
r2zina and remooin� this buildinQ(s).
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
b3�c��t.q
928 Maryland Acenue East
May 16, 2003
Page 3
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains
unabated, the community continues to suffer the bli�htin� influence of this property. It is the
recommendation of the Division of Code Enforcement that the City Council pass a resolution
ordering the responsible part;es to either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a timely
manner, and failin� that, authorize the Division of Code Enforcement to proceed to demolition
and removai, and to assess the costs incurred asainst the real estate as a special assessment to be
coilected in the same manne: as taxes. V
Sincerely,
�s
, �� ,
i
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildin�s Supervisor
Division of Code Enforcement
Citizen Service Office
SM:mI
cc: Frank Berg, Buildin� Inspection and Desi�
Meghan Riley, City Attomeys Office
Nancy Anderson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housin� Division
ccnph
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
03 -� a5
MINI7TES OF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING
928 Maryland Avenue East and 756 Juno Avenue
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevard
Marcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 9:33 a.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner, Code Enfarcement
Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 928 Maryland Avenue
East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to
remove the building.
(Laid over from 6-10-03)
Marcia Moermond stated there were two summary abatement assessments and one appeal of a
Summary Abatement Order at the last legislative hearing. Those have been dealt with. Now
what is in front of her is an appeal of a resolution to remove or repair the building.
Steve Magner reported the building was condemned in November 2002 and has been vacant
since then. The current owner is Trudy Mae Gloe. There have been eight summary abatement
notices issued to remove refuse, secure buildings, remove snow and ice from public sidewalk,
and cut tall grass and weeds. On April 1, 2003, an inspection of the building was conducted, a
list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance conditions was developed, and photographs were
taken. An order to abate a nuisance building was issued on Apri14, 2003, with a compliance
date of May 5. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance
as defined by the legislative code. The City had to boazd the building to secure it against
trespass. Vacant building fees are due and owing. A citation was issued charging the owner with
failure to pay the vacant building fee. Real Estate taxes are unpaid in the amount of $371.17 for
2002 and $682 for 2003. Taxation has placed an estimated mazket value of $8,900 on the land
and $42,000 on the building. As of June 17, 2003, a Code Compliance Inspection has not been
applied for nor a$2,000 bond been posted. Code Enforcement officers estimate the cost to repair
this structure is $60,000. Estimated cost to demolish, $8,000 to $9,000. Code Enforcement is
seeking a resolution to repair or remove the building in 15 days.
The following appeared: Trudy Mae Gloe, owner; Tom Walsh, representing Ms. Gloe, Southern
Minnesota Regional Legal Services (SMRLS), 46 Fourth Street East; Bob Korf, friend of Ms.
Gloe, P.O. Box 863, Forest Lake, Minnesota.
Mr. Walsh stated he is a law student working under the supervision of Julia Althoff of SMRLS.
Mr. Walsh is requesting reasonable accommodations for Ms. Gloe's disability. Such
accommodations are authorized under Saint Paul City Code Section 183 and also the Federal Fair
Housing Act. Mr. Walsh has come up with a plan that will serve the purposes of allowing Ms.
Gloe to get back into her home. Right now, Ms. Gloe would be homeless except for the good
graces of a friend. The accommodation plan is as foliow:
1. Allow Ms. Gloe time to continue with her health care plan, meeting with her doctors, and
taking her medication;
o3-6zy
MINI JTES OF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR Ji.JNE 17, 2003 Page 2
2. Allow Ms. Gloe time to apply for funding to repair her house. They are in the process of
looking into auailable funding from agencies;
3. Allow Ms. Gloe to work with House Ca11s to get repairs done. An initial assessment is
being done by them, and they have funding and advocates available;
4. Allow Mr. Gloe time to assess social services that she will need to take caze of the home
once it is fixed up. With a minimum amount of services, she should be able to maintain
her own home;
5. Allow Ms. Gloe time to repair the house;
6. The City suspends demolition and declaring the house a nuisance;
7. The City waives the $2,000 performance bond. Ms. Gloe is disabled and has little
income; and
8. Judgement be withheld and this hearing be continued for three months to a11ow Ms. Gloe
to get the programming services she needs.
Mr. Wa1sh feels this is a good plan that does not impose undue hardship on the City, and it will
allow a single mother and her son to stay in the home and not become homeless. Ms. Gloe has
gone through some tough times. Hopefully, it will not be the case that she has a relapse. This
plan can prevent that and make it so she is treated fairly and a valuable part of the community.
Ms. Moermond stated the City needs a plan for action for how this house will be rehabbed. She
wants a pIan based on the Code Compliance inspection, which is conducted by the office of
License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP). They send through four trade inspectors
to look at the house and make a list of what is necessary to bring it into code compliance for an
existing structure. This was talked about briefly at the last legislative heazing. One of the signs
that the owner is acting in good faith is getting that inspection done. Ms. Moermond would like
to know that the owner has a plan to address everything on the list. It is about $125. She would
not recommend waiving it because it is cheap at the cost. If the house would be sold, she would
have to go through the truth-in-housing and that is mare expensive and not as thorough. As far
the $2,000, the code compliance inspection would determine if it is necessary. There are bonding
companies. Coming up with a bond shows a financial wherewithall to do the rehab work, which
is not going to be cheap.
Ms. Moermond stated she is dismayed that the vacant building fees are due and owing. The fee
to be in the program is $200 a year. Mr. Korf responded Ms. Gloe paid the money due.
Ms. Moermond stated she is not sure what to make of asking far time extensions based on
disability. She would anticipate that it would take a certain amount of time to get things done no
matter who is doing it. Mr Walsh responded he is asking for time for Ms. Gloe to get the
processes in place to get started on the repairs, contact the different agencies, and to get in place
healthwise so she is able to function and make these repairs. Once the funding is in place, then it
should be the normal amount of time to make the repairs.
Ms. Moermond stated the real estate t�es are due and owing. If taxes are not paid, it is a sign of
financial crisis. Ms. Gloe responded she has a check that was issued from All State. They only
a3-� z9
MINiJTES OF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEAILING FOR J[JNE 17, 2003 Page 3
gave her $30 for cleaning, storage, truck use, trailer, and she is fighting that. That check is over
$3,000, and she has not cashed it yet. TaYes will be paid with that money.
If she is holding onto the checks because of legal advice, Ms. Moermond stated, she should
check that out with her current counsel. If cashing those checks puts her at a disadvantage, that is
bureaucratic, but this resolution is a pressing matter. Ms. Gloe responded she was told not to
cash them.
Ms. Moermond asked when was the court date far the citation. Ms. Gloe responded June 26, but
she is not good with dates.
Ms. Moermond stated she is concerned about Ms. Gloe living in the same circumstances with
people coming and staying with her. She is not sure what social services are there for ongoing
monitoring. Ms. Gloe responded never again will people be staying with her. If she can keep her
medication down, she is fine, can function well, and does not need to be monitored. She is not
afraid to ask for help.
Ms. Moermond stated she would like to see the photographs that Ms. Gloe had last time.
(Ms. Gloe showed photographs to Ms. Moermond.)
Ms. Moermond stated ths is scheduled for the City Council for Public Hearing on June 25. She
would like to see significant progress by June 25 in terms of scheduling the inspection, paying
the real estate taxes, settling the citation, and paying vacant building fees. If some of these fees
and citafion issues are settled, that would be a good sign on her part of getting started.
Mr. Korf stated if she paid the vacant building fee, she does not have to show up for court. Mr.
Magner responded he does not know if that is true; Ms. Gloe may need to talk to Maureen Dolan.
(Ms. Moermond gave Ms. Gloe an application for property tax abatement.)
Ms. Moermond stated Ms. Gloe has been given a disaster abatement form because there was a
fire at the properiy. This is asking them to recalculate the properiy's value which would lower
the t�es. If she can get the code compliance inspection settled, Ms. Moermond can lay this over
to another legislative hearing, do a progress check, and make another list of things that need to be
done. If the owner has paid the vacant building fees and got the Code Compliance Inspecfion
scheduled, Ms. Moermond will recommend that the City Council lay over the public hearing on
July 23. In between then, she would like one more legislative hearing, at which point they should
have the results of the code compliance inspection, and can start to have plans for the rehab of
the property.
Mr. Wa1sh stated he appreciates the extra time, but is a little concerned with the short time frame.
With the disability, she would like to have this addressed before they can have funding. He
would like a little more time than usual. Ms. Moermond responded she is already giving extra
b3-6 � 9
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL LEGISLATNE HEARING FOR JLJNE 17, 2003 Page 4
time by doing it this way. She is asking for a couple of things to get started so she can ask the
City Council for another 30 days, during which time she would expect a plan to be developed.
Ms. Moermond stated she would like to reschedule to July 15, 10:00 am. to see if she has time
left to deal with this. The City Council public hearing will be held on July 23.
Ms. Althoff stated they have made a request for more time. Registering that as a vacant building
is not a problem. The problem is that in order to qualify for some of this financing, they will
have to get Ms. Gloe hooked up with social services first, and that will take time. She does not
know if they can get the back taxes done before the June 25 hearing. If it is registered as a vacant
building and an inspection scheduled, asked Ms. Althoff, would that be sufficient to recommend
extra time if Ms. Gloe is making steps to get social services. Ms. Moermond responded she
would look for a good reason why Ms. Gloe has not cashed those insurance checks because if
there is several thousand dollars in insurance money, it needs to be used.
In si.immary, Ms. Moermond recommendation is as follows: by noon of June 25, she would like
the real estate taxes paid, the vacant building fees paid, the citations settled or on its way to be
settled, and the code compliance inspection scheduled. This matter will be laid over to the July
15 Legislative Hearing, at which time she will expect to see the results of a code compliance
inspection and the beginning of a plan to bring the property into compliance as stipulated on the
code compliance inspection report. On July 15, she will be asking pointedly how the bond will
be posted, how the agencies are responding, and what is going on. When she goes to the City
Council on July 23, she will give them a recommendation to grant extra time or not.
Appeal of Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate at 756 Juno Avenue.
(Laid over from 6-6-03)
Steve Magner stated that after the last legislative hearing on June 6, there was a number of
conditions placed on the property. Regarding occupancy, those conditions were that the City was
not going to enforce the vacate order on the occupant Anthony Garofalo provided that he did not
have people in the dwelling. Subsequent to that agreement, Mr. Magner received a number of
phone ca11s indicating the police were called to the site and there were people seen coming and
going from the properry, as described by the neighbors. Even though the Police Department was
told to write reports on all incidents at this address, they did not for some reason. That was
changed because Mr. Magner has a report from Saturday, June 16, indicating the police were
called to the property in regards to people entering the property that did not appeaz to be the
owner or occupant. When the police arrived, they found three females in the property, who said
they were there at the request of Mr. Garofalo to patch the walls. After Mr. Garofalo voluntarily
left the room, the females changed their story to indicate they came to the properry to receive
money owed to them and were hanging out and doing dishes. When the police knocked on the
door, Mr. Garofalo told them to go down the basement and tell the police that they were puttying
walls and beginning to work on the house. Mr. Magner stated there was a wanted felon seen
entering the property after 8:00 p.m. At that time, there were no permits for the property. There
was a decision made at the City Attorney's Office to a11ow the owner to obtain permits. Mr.
Magner suspects the owner made some repairs, but has not been norified of these. The
o3-ea9
REPORT
Date: June 17, 2003
Time: 9:30 and 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 City Ha11
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE HEARING
Marcia Moermond
Legislative Hearing Officer
Resolufion ordering the owner to remove or zepair the properry at 928 Marvland Avenue
East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ardered to
remove the building. (Laid over from 6-10-03)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the July 15, 2003, Special
Legislative Hearing.
2. Appeal of Notice of Condexnnation and Order to Vacate at 756 Juno Avenue.
(Laid over from 6-6-03)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal on the June 5, 2003, Revised
Notice of Condemnation and Order to Vacate. The Order to Vacate is enforced as of June
17, 2003, 8:00 p.m. No one is allowed inside the premises, except for anyone actively
working on the property from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
rrn
b3 •�2q
REPORT
Date: June 10, 2003
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Room 330 Ciry Hall
15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIR,
CONDEMNATIONS, SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, ABATEMENT
ASSESSMENTS
Marcia Moermond
Legislative Hearing Officer
Laid over summary abatements:
J0302AAA Property cleanup at 928 Maryland Avenue East.
(Laid over from 5-13-03)
J0302$B Boarding-up of vacant building at 928 Man'land Avenue East
(Laid over from 5-13-03)
J0301V2 Towing of abandoned vehicles from 1607 Carroll Avenue
(Laid over from 5-27-03)
J0301VVV Towing of abandoned vehicles from 1688 York Avenue
(Laid over from 5-27-03)
928 Maryland Avenue East
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
928 Maryland Avenue East
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
1688 York Avenue
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends spreading the assessment over a five-year period.
1607 Carroll Avenue
(Recommendation is forthcoming.)
2. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 928 Maryland Avenue East.
(Laid over from 5-13-03)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends denying the appeal.
3. Resoi�tion ardering the owner to remove or repair the property at 928 Maryland
Avenue East. If the owner fails to comply with #he resoIution, Cade Enforcement is
ordered to remove the building.
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends laying over to the June 17, 2003, Legislative
Hearing.
63-�Zq
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT FOR JLJNE 10, 2003 Page 2
4. Summary Abatements:
J0303A Properly cleanup for part of February 2003 to part of Apri12003;
J0302SNOW Snow/ice removal and/or sanding of walks for part of February 2003
to part of March 2003;
J0302C Demolition of buildings for part of March 2003;
J0303B Boarding-up of vacant buildings for March 2003.
690 Central Avenue West (J0303A)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
574 State Street (J0303A)
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends spreading the assessment over a five-year period.
1820 Stillwater Avenue (J0302SN0�
Legisiative Hearing Officer recommends reducing the assessment from $195 to $75 plus
the $45 administrative fees for a total assessment of $120.
595 Edmund Avenue (J0303A)
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends laying over to the July 8, 2003, Legislative
Hearing.
1237 Matilda Street (J0303A)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends laying over to the June 23, 2003, Legislative
Hearing.
1374 Ames Avenue (J0303A)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
958 Bradley Street (70302SNOW)
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
817 Davton Avenue (J0303A)
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
994 Earl Street (J0303A)
Legislative Hearing Qfficer recommends approval of the assessment.
1093 Hudson Road (J0303A)
I,egislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
983 James Avenue (J0303A)
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
03�o�i
LEGISLATIVE HEARING REPORT FOR JUNE 10, 2003
604 Jessamine Avenue East (J0303A)
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
1848 Seventh Street West
Legislative Heazing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
659 Westem Avenue North (J0302SN0�
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
124 Winter Street (J0302SN0�
Legislative Hearing Officer recommends approval of the assessment.
Page 3
5. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 1555 Iglehart Avenue; Daniel Jambor,
owner.
(Withdrawn)
f.�il
b��Zy
MINUTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIR, CONDEMNATIONS,
SUMMARY ABATEMENT ORDERS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
(Note: 9:00 a.m. is scheduled to discuss issues concerning 928 Maryland Avenue East. 10:00
a.m. is scheduled for the rest of the agenda)
STAFF PRESENT: John Betz, Code Enforcement; Steve Magner, Code Enforcement; Ruifen
Zhuang, Technology and Management Services
The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m.
J0302AAA Property cleanup at 928 Maryland Avenue East. (Laid over from 5-13-03)
J0302B$ Boarding-up of vacant building at 928 Maryland Avenue East
(Laid over from 5-13-03)
Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 928 Maryland Avenue East
(Laid over from 5-13-03)
Resolution ordering the owner to remove or repair the property at 928 Maryland Avenue
East. If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Code Enforcement is ordered to
removQ Yhe building.
Marcia Moermond stated there are four issues here: two are assessments, one is an appeal of a
summary abatement order, and there is an order to remove or repair the house. She will start
with the assessments because they are straight forwazd. J0302B is about open and unsecured
windows on the north side of the house. J0302A is about tires, mattress, trash, and truck in the
yard. Ms. Moermond asked aboui the vehicle abatement order on the truck. Mr. Magner
responded the truck is not one of the items ua front of Ms. Moermond right now. On the
summary abatement issue to secure the w�ndows, there was a compliance date of February 17,
2003, the building was rechecked on February 18, the windows were still open, and a summary
abatement was issued. A work order went to the contractor, who secured the north side window.
There was also a summary abatement issued for cleaning up the yard at the same time. They did
the reinspection on the 18`�. There was no compliance. They sent the work order to Parks to
clean up the yazd.
The follo�ving agpeazed: Trudy May Gloe, owner, 18140 Fenway, Forest Lake, Miunesota; Bob
Korf, friend of Ms. Glc>e, 481� Fenway, Farest Lake, Ivlinnesota; and $randon, Ms. Gloe's son.
Ms. Moermond stated it appears the building had been condemned prior to the fire. Mr. Magner
responded no. Mr. Korf also responded no, but said the documents appeaz that way.
Ms. Gloe stated that is what she is upset about. She called the cops because the doors were open
6�-coui
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF 7UNE 10, 2003
Page 2
again. The cops told her she could not go into the house and could not take anything out of the
house. She could not even lock up her house. Mr. Korf stated the most important fact here is
that Ms. Gioe has been out of her house for over seven months because the City inspector
informed the insurance company that the house was condemned before the fire; therefore, the
insurance company discontinued all work. Mr. Korf does not understand why the inspector is
talking to the insurance adjuster.
Ms. Moermond asked how Mr. Korf knows the inspector said that. Mr. Korf responded the
adjuster told him. When the adjuster did not come back in three of four days as he said, Mr. Korf
called and asked why. The adjuster said the City informed him that the house was condemned
before the Fire.
Ms. Moermond asked are there any records of what the inspector said during the meeting with
the insurance adjuster. Mr. Magner responded that there is no indication in the records that
anyone in the City told the fire adjuster anything. Mr. Magner spoke to the fire adjuster at the
property, and toid him the property was condemned. The building was inspected at the time of
the fire, which was November 7. The condemnation was posted on the building and a vacant
building file was opened, which is standazd practice following a fire. Unless it is minor, the City
does not allow people to stay in a building after a fire. There were also other conditions present
that constituted a condemnation. The building had previously been condemned, but not at the
time of the fire. The building was not already declared unfit for human habitation at the time of
the fire. There were previous pending exterior violations—yard, storage, etc.—but no pending
condemnation.
Ms. Gloe said she has photographs of the house. She met with a mortgage company the next day
and had the house looking good. The code guy told her she had to pick up all this stuff, and the
insurance said not to touch nothing. She cannot deal with this.
Mr. Korf asked where the City has the right xo teli Ms. Gloe that she has to remove everything
from her house ia�cluding silverware and have it inspected before she moves back in. Ms.
Moennond asked was this indicated in any of the orders. Mr. Magner responded he does not
believe so.
Ms. Gioe stated the only thing that caught on fire was her son's bedroom. According to her
insurance agency the only thing that needed to be done was painting because of smoke damage in
the living room. Mr. Korf respondec3 to Ms. Gioe that there was smoke and water damage
throughout the house.
Ms. Gloe showed a photograph Yo Ms. Moermond and said this is all that caughY on fire. When
the fire department got there, t}ie f�as was oui It was �ecessary for tfiem to do all this. Mr.
Korf responded to Ms. Gloe that the Fire Department had to check because it was so smoky in
the house. They wanted to make sure nothing was smoldering.
Ifthere is a concern with the insurance company, Mr. Magner stated, the owner shouid go back
to the company or get legal counsel. If the insurance company is unwilling to honor its
D 3�Zy
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLTNE 10, 2003
Page 3
commitment, the City does not have any responsibility to compel them to do so. If the insurance
company says the building is condemned and that is why they are not paying, they would have to
have proof of that in the form of condemnation. There is no proof because there was no
condemnation prior to the fire.
Ms. Gloe stated Mike Kalis (Code Enforcement) told the insurance company that the house was
condemned before the fire. They investigated, but by that time, the code guy had other things on
her. Mr. Korf added that insurance adjusters aze hard to deal with, and Ms. Gloe is not in a
position to deai with them.
Ms. Gloe stated she was painting the walls unril she got a stop-work order. The code guy was
coming out every other day. He came with a police officer one day, and they went through the
whole house. She showed them the list of what she was doing. Three days before she was
complete, he put a stop work order on her because Mr. Magner was not informing him.
Ms. Moermond asked did she understand that the house had to be in the vacant building program
because it was condemned. Ms. Gioe responded the house should not have been condemned
because she had it done. Ms. Korf added that Ms. Gloe received the vacant building information
on December 19. When he read through the codes, an owner has 90 days to register. Mr.
Magner responded the code states there is an exemption from the vacant building fee, but the
owner is still required to register the building. They have 90 days from the date of the fire to pay
the $200 vacant building fee. Mr. Magner was at the building with Mr. Kalis on November 7
when this property was condemned, and he instructed Mr. Kalis to condemn the building for
more than just the fire. There was a material endangerment issue based on the conditions.
Uitimately, it was the responsibility of the occupant to clean the building and make the fire
repairs. If Ms. Gloe had cleaned up the building and made the repairs within 90 days, she would
not have had to pay the $200 vacant building fee, Code Enforcement would have lifted the
condexnnation, and she would be back in the property.
Ms. Gloe sfated she and her two sons worked on that house for three months. She tried to do
what the City wanted her to do, but stie did not get from them a list of things to do. She had
people in there that trashed her house, who were alcoholics. When she was sick, she couid not
get out of bed to clean up after them. She had a restraining order against her mom's boyfriend,
and he would call the code guy and Child Protection. Every three to six months for seven yeazs
is a lot times to come out to her house. Ms. Kalis was peaking through her windows, said Ms.
Gloe.
For the vacant building, Mr. Korf asked, the house was registered November 7. Mr. Magner
responded it is standard proced�ae #hat wt�en a building is candemneai and there is a fire, it
automatically becomes a vacant building. On November R, there was a Notice for Unfit for
Human Habitation. Also aa� 1V'owea�ber 8, the vacarAt building regislration was mailed to Ms.
Gioe. At this point, Mr. Korf asked was he awaze that they don't deliver mail to a vacant
building. Mr. Magner responded that is generally a policy of the U.S. Post Office. There may be
a forwarding order at the post office also_
d3-�2q
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2003
Page 4
Ms. Moermond stated that it seems Ms. Gloe was in the registered vacant buiiding program by
the time the two summary abatements occurred in February because the fire was in eaziy
November, the building was posted, she knew the building was to be boarded, and the items were
still in the yard in February when they did the cleanup.
Mr. Gloe stated that someone dumped junk in her yard and she called the cops two weeks ago.
(The videotape was shown.)
Mr. Korf asked how much was the chazge. Ms. Moermond responded $328. Ms. Gloe
responded the City did not pick up any of that stuff.
Ms. Gloe stated Mr. Kalis broke her windows. Ms. Moermond responded she can not deal with
Mr. Kalis here. Ms. Gloe can file a claim with Risk Management for damages.
Mr. Korf asked about the other items being appealed. Ms. Moermond responded the assessment
for boazding up the windows is for $88.25. The summary abatement order was appealed, but the
work has already been done by the City. Mr. Magner responded the windows were broken open
and the sliding glass daor was open on a number of occasions. A summary abatement order for
securing has to be inspected that day or the next day. Once the building was boazded, his office
found out that the appellant had asked for an appeal on that issue.
Brandon stated the sliding glass door had two boards in there and it was nailed shut from the
inside.
Ms. Gloe stated the neighbor kept throwing cats in her buiiding also.
Ms. Moermond stated the last thing is the order to remove or repair the house. If the Councii
issues the order to remove or repair, the department can demolish the place. That is the biggest
issue here. She asked has there been a code compliance inspection. Mr. Korf responded Ms.
Gloe cannot come up with the $2,000 bond to work on her house. She cannot get medication
because she's out of the county. Her son could not go to school and got truancy because he had
to change schools. Her house is immaculate on the first floor. Right before she was about to
wrap it up, she got gets a stop work order on the house. She has been working there ali the
while. ivtr. Kalis has been stopping by at night. When he sees she's about to get done, he puts a
stop work order on it. He could have put the stop work order on a month ago.
Ms. Moermond stated her paperwork says that Ms. Gloe is on disability. From looking at the
videotape, tiungs cvere cleaned arad #he pa�operty was boarded by the City. She wili recommend
that these assessments are approved. These assessmen#s can be paid over five yeazs or Ms. Gloe
can talk to the Real Estate Caffice about geitang ihe assessment deferred until the properry is sold
because of her disability.
Louise Langberg explained the requirements for deferring the assessment. It can be defened for
a maximum of twenty years or until the property is no longer homesteaded.
03-�za
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JIJNE 10, 2003 Page 5
Ms. Moermond explained that the owner may qualify for a property tax abatement because there
was a fire and the properry was condemned.
Ms. Gloe stated she had the door nailed shut, so she does not understand how the City had to do
it again. The inspector wanted to be let in through the sliding glass doors. She would pop out
the nails for him to come in.
Ms. Moermond asked is there any information about how the property was entered and is there
standazd operating procedure to open a nailed door. Mr. Magner responded the only time the
inspectors entered the property was when Ms. Gioe was there or someone eise in control of the
property. He does not know about entering the property any other times. He found the property
to be unsecured at times and the door was physicaily open. Mr. Magner put his head through the
window, looked around, didn't see anything, shut the door, and was unable to secure it because it
is a sliding glass door. They issued the Summary Abatement Order. When they did the
reinspection, the sliding glass door was wide open again. Ms. Gloe responded she has witnesses
that they were in her house with flashlights without her there. The code guys have telling her
neighbors that there are animal feces all over her house. She is embarrassed to go back there.
Ms. Moermond stated that she recommends denying the appeal on the Summary Abatement
Order. The owner can also appeal the cost ofthe assessment when it comes before Ms.
Moermond at a later time.
Mr. Korf asked about what happened to her cars. Mr. Magner responded they'sent a work order
on a Suburu and the Summary Abatement was mailed to her property at 928 Maryland. It lacked
current license tabs. Vehicies have to be licensed. Ms. Gloe responded she has a lot going on in
her life with her mother being sick and other things she is dealing with.
Ms. Moermond suggested to Ms. Gioe that she go to Southern Minnesota Regional Legal
Services; they should be able to help her with the insurance company and saving the house. She
has a lot going on here and counset would help.
(Ms. Moermond supplied Ms. Gioe with an"Application for Abatement-Local Option Disaster")
Ms. Moermond stated she will lay this over to June 17, 9:30 a.m. to deal with the resolution to
remove or repair the property. They aze running out of time this moming.
Mr. Magner stated that Ms. Gloe said she was going to sell the house. If you aze going to sell the
house, you are required to get a Truth-in-Housing report, but a person can use the code
compliance inspectn�n instead.
(There was further disczass�on about the code compliance inspection.)
Mr. Korf asked about the curfew for working on the property. Mr. Magner responded that is 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. There is no ordinance that says it, rather it is a policy out of Code Enforcement
that is enforced on all vacant properties they monitor. If someone was in the dwelling occupying
D3 -�Z�i
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2003
Page 6
it, that person could have been tagged, and the City Attorney wouid make a decision about
prosecuting the case.
Mr. Korf stated the Ms. Gloe was painting and then she was told she had to be out of the house at
8:00. Also, he asked why the enforcement guy was there at 8:00 p.m. and three nights a week.
Mr. Magner responded the inspectors will be on duty if they are there at night. Mr. Magner is the
only other person that would be going with those individuals. A number of times the property
was inspected at night. Ms. Gioe and other individuais were on site and not engaged in working
on the building. If Inspector Kalis was at the properry other times than what was documented in
the reports, Mr. Magner does not know about that. Ms. Gloe responded Mr. Magner is lying.
Ms. Moermond stated Ms. Gloe wrote a letter to the Mayor about this situation, and the Mayor
had an investigation conducted of this alleged behavor, but Ms. Moermond cannot deal with
behavior in this fonun.
Ms. Moermond recommends approval of both assessments. She recommends denying the appeal
on the Summazy Abatement Order dated Apri12003. The resolution to remove or repair will be
laid over to Tuesday, June 17, 930 a.m.
(Recess from 10:15 to 10:18)
Laid over summary abatements from May 13, 2003:
J0301V2 Towing of abandoned vehicle at 1607 Carroll Avenue;
J0301VVV Towing of abandoned vehicle at 1688 York Avenue.
1688 York Avenue
Marcia Moermond sTated orders were mailed on September 25, 2002, and the work was done on
October 24.
Karen Mazza, owner, appeared and stated she called the inspector. She does not know why it
was towed. He said he looked under the hood and it did not have a battery. She found that odd
because her son always kept it locked. One morning, they showed up with a tow truck. Her son
was asked if couid it be driven around the block. He was told no; therefore, it was towed.
John Betz reported the inspector issued arders on September 25 for an abandoned vehicle that
was inoperable and missing parts. The compliance date was October 2. He went back on
October 9 on another issue; therefore, he was doing the vehicle inspection in conjuction with
another �nsg�ction. On October 9, there was no change in the vehicle orciered abated. He went
back on October 17, it had fla# tir�s, and it was still missing a battery. He agreed to meet the
prope�ty owxier at the property. No one showed for tt�e i�sspection. He took pictures of the
vehicles, and sent a work order to the police department to tow the vehicle. Ms. Mazza
responded that she called the inspector as soon as she knew she would not be able to leave work
in time to get there.
0 3��q
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2003
Page 7
Ms. Moermond asked was that the same day it was towed. Ms. Mazza responded it was towed
later.
Ms. Moermond asked was she able to reschedule an appointment. Ms. Mazza responded he
never called her back, and she did not call him. Ms. Moermond responded the responsibility is
on her to do the calling.
Ms. Mazza stated she drives by houses with cars sit[ing on blocks for weeks. Ms. Moermond
responded there aze one of three ways abandoned vehicles are identified: 1) The City has a
complaint-driven system, and someone could have calied in to say there was a property in
violation; 2) in some cases, the City does sweeps in neighborhoods; 3) if an inspector is already
there on a problem and sees another problem, it was be noted.
Ms. Mazza stated she has to pay all this money because they towed her son's car. Another way
to look at this, responded Ms. Moermond, is that she has to pay this money because she did not
take caze of this situation herself. It is her property, and she is responsible for maintaining her
property in compliance with the code. The owner can also appeal to the City Council. Ms.
Moermond can recommend that the assessment is spread over a five yeaz time period. Ms.
Mazza responded that is what she wants to do.
Ms. Moermond recommends spreading the assessment over a five-year time period.
1607 Carroll Avenue
Pheng Thao, owner, Route 2, Box 39A Beaz Road, Hinckley, Minnesota, stated this is about a
vehicle towed for $551.45 plus fees. He did not get a notice. He got a notice for court. He
taiked to the tenant, who said he did not want the car anymore. Later, Mr. Thao got a citation.
He read the code and it says the owner should take care of this. He did not know this beforehand.
He felt it was his fault, so he paid the citation of $100. Now, he has this assessment. He was
told to talk to a man who told him the fee was Yhe storage for the car. Mr. Thao asked how there
can be storage for the car when the owner did not want the car.
Ms. Moermond stated the City is required to hold the vehicle for at least two weeks. That is
State law. During that time period, the owner can get it. Also, there were other issues at this
property in the last couple of years regarding refuse.
Mr. $eta st�Yscl laas off`ice daes n�t have the correct address. There have been other tags issued
for trasla. The #ags were undeliverabie, so there may be � w oui for the owner. Mr. Betz
suggesYed the owner change his address wiYh Rainsep Couuty Taxation Records. There is another
assessmenY for property cleanup Yhat is pending. Mr. Thao responded he went to the post office
and changed his address. '
Ms. Moermond stated he should go to Ramsey County and take care of the warrants today. Also,
he should notify Ramsey County TaYation regarding the correct address.
03 • b2q
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JLTNE 10, 2003 Page 8
Mr. Thao stated the tenant had called and said he did not want the car anymore. Ms. Moermond
responded she is going to call the Impound Lot where the car was stored to have them look at the
records to see when he called and see if that effects their charges. If it does, she will recommend
the CiTy Council decrease the assessment accordingly.
(Decision forthcoming.)
Summary Abatements:
J0303A Property cleanup for part of February 2003 to part of Apri12003;
J0302SNOW Snow/ice removal and/or sanding of walks for part of February 2003 to part
of March 2003;
J0302C Demolition of buildings for part of March 2003;
J0303B Boarding-up of vacant buildings for March 2003.
690 Central Avenue West ,
(No one appeazed.}
Marcia Moermond recommends approval ofthe assessment.
574 State Street
(Ruifen Zhuang translated Cantonese and English for this issue.)
Hon Wong, owner, appeazed and stated that he cannot understand English. When he received the
letter on April 3, he was not living in the house. He was temporarily living in his brother's
house. He was in China when the mail was delivered. On March 18, he came back to the United
States. He gave the letter to his son.
Mr. Betz explained the owner was issued a letter to clean up the properiy by a particular date.
The inspectar went out there, it was not cteaned up, and the City cleaned it up. That is what the
charge is far.
Ms. Moermond asked is the property in his name. Mr. Wong responded yes.
Ms. Moermond asked who did he ask to be in chazge of his property while he was not living
there. Mr. Wong responded that when he came back from China, he tempoaarily lived in lus
brother's home. Has oldest son helped hi�a paint the house.
Ms. Moermond asked when tJz� jurak was in the yard, was he aware of it. A�Sr. Wong responded
he already removed the garbage. The sofa was heavy. He needed someone's help to remove it.
(A videotape was shown.)
0 3-��►
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JiJNE 10, 2003 Page 9
Ms. Moermond asked what he is disputing. Mr. Wong responded this is his first time. He is not
cleaz on the rules. He has been retired two yeazs and has no job.
Ms. Moermond asked would it be helpful to divide the assessment over five yeazs with interest.
The total of the assessment is $330. Mr. Wong responded he wouid prefer five years.
He added that it is hazd to find someone that speaks Cantonese. It is difficult far him to
communicate. When he cails, no one can understand him.
Ms. Moermond asked does he have a relative or someone close to translate for him. Mr. Wong
responded everyone is busy. Ms. Moermond responded that is true with everyone's kids these
days.
Ms. Moermond recommends spreading the assessment over five years.
1820 Stiilwater Avenue (J0302SNOV�
Gary Blair, owner, 1769 Reaney Avenue, appeared and stated this is rental property. He received
a notice on about February 28, 2003, that the property had snow that had to be removed. The
notice he received says that on or after February 27, there could be an inspection. He went to the
property after February 28, inspected the walk, and it had been shoveled. He talked to the
resident at that time, and she said she had sanded it. There had not been much snow. He does
not live far from there. He received a notice that the City had cleaned it. He felt it had already
been cleaned. He wonders what they cleaned.
John Betz reported an order was issued on February 28. A reinspection was made. The inspector
sent a work order to the Parks Department which cleaned it on March 5. The next occurrence
resulted in a tag being issued. Mr. Biair responded he was out there on March 1, and it had
already been sanded and shoveled. He is not sure if there was snow in between. There were
flunies all winter.
(A videotape was shown.)
Mr. Blair stated there must have been snow in between. There is only about 30 feet of sidewalk,
and the chazge was almost $200. Ms. Moermond responded there is a minimum fee to have a
work crew to go out there. Mr. Betz explained there is a one hour minimum charge of $150, and
that is to bring the equipment out there, and shovei the property.
Mr. Blair said that his paperwork indicaies that the cost of snow removal is $150 with a half hour
minimum. Mr. Betz responded he is not awaze of a l�alf hour minimum.
Ms. Moera�oad recommends reducing the assessmeYSt from $195 to $75 plus the $45
administrative fees for a total assessment of $120.
�3•�z�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2003
595 Edmund Avenue (J0303A)
Kazla Johnson, owner, appeared. Code Enforcement did not have a files available on this
property. -
Mazcia Moermond recommends laying over to the July 8, 2003, Legislafive Hearing.
1237 Matilda Street {J0303A)
(No one appeazed.)
Page 10
Marcia Moermond recommends laying over to the June 23, 2003, Legislative Heazing, at the
owner's request.
Appeal of Summary Abatement Order at 1555 Iglehart Avenue; Daniel Jambor, owner.
Appeal is withdrawn as the owner and inspector have worked things out, and a hearing is no
longer necessary.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
rrn
Note: no one appeared at the Legislative Hearing on the addresses listed below. These addresses
were not read at the hearing.
1374 Ames Avenue (J0303A)
(No one appeared.)
Marcia Moermond reconunends approvai of the assessment.
958 Bradlev Street (J0302SNOW)
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
817 Dayton Avenue (J0303A)
(No one appeared.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
03 •�z�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF JUNE 10, 2003
994 Earl Street (J0303A)
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
1093 Hudson Road (J0303A)
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
983 James Avenue (J0303A)
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
604 Jessamine Avenue East (J0303A)
(No one appeared.)
Marcia lvYoermond recommends approval of the assessment.
1848 Seventh Street West (J0302SNOW)
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
659 Western Avenue North (J0302SNOt�
(No one appeazed.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
124 Winter Street (J0302SN0�
(No ona appeazed.)
Page 11
Marcia 3l�oerr�ond recommends approval of the assessauent,
�
l
r� .
- , ,�
r . ... y - y � �a � ��S' j k . i 'k' _ . .
•r• ` � ��` � ��� � `~ ; �
. P . � . . . . .. ..< ` I
_ � . . \ .. ' . '
y `- .• .. ` ., . � ��� —�
` V` � I . ._ ' � _
�
._ . . 1 > . • �-
��� .: # :� ` �
� R
.. •s f -'�_� � �
,+a"�;�'�-� ": -
� c::,/�_-:�
� ) � j v
_�. �n� .. �_ d"�.'M���`.�.k�'A� �
"� -
u � y t , � �
,�A-e � �.i .
s' A ,{_ , 'h ^ ✓,'k
: � ° `�"`+�'�-
t
. - .. . .. S. �
� .
�
. � ", � . � J� e#C�.. .... _ .
�. � � �
� �..
� i"��KYt
\ � �
�
Ya 1 R.
:�lf
4 Y
' _�
, , ----�� ►I�,.
�� �£OOZ `i tu�
puEl�Y�i 8Z6
�uui� I�ouloaig uadp
-,.� �,'' �
�
�r�.... �/""
.,. �
��
�. . ��
� �;
, t. � "
b M
� O
.—. O
>+ N
�.
O ��
Y °O S�.
� O�i ¢
�o
��
; _.
�-
�
�,
� M
� O
� O `'�:��
ap � i.
CL �;.E�
� � �w
. -y/'��e•�'.
X
��, yrfl.
�, `.?
,,.
��. �