04-595Council File # oa Sv
Green Sheet # �C'7� � �� �
RESOLUTION
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented
Referred To
Date
�
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the May 11, 2004,
decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Correction Notices, and
Correction Orders for the following addresses:
Property Appealed
Anoellant
306 Ruth Street North, Unit 9 Josephine Amadasum
Decision: Lay over to the June 8, 2004, Legislative Hearing.
483 Sherburne Avenue Steve R. Johnson and Ken Johnson
Decision: Appeal granted on the Correction Order dated April 19, 2004.
671 Western Avenue North Daniel Cazlson
Decision: Laid over to the May 25, 2004, Legislative Heazing.
2218 Doswell Avenue John and Diane Norris
Decision: Appeal denied on the Conection Notice dated Apri126, 2004.
Yeas Nays Absent
Benanav �-
BOShOm �
H2LIIS `�
Helgen ✓
Lantry �
Montgomery �
Titune �/
�
Adoprion Certified by
Requested by Department o£
�
Form Approved by City Attorney
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
Adopted by Council: Date ii�.� /G. �d��
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green She�et��i�
Departmentloffice/eouncii: Date Initiated:
co �m� a��N� Green Sheet NO: 3018015
Conqct Person 8 Phone• Deoartment Sent To Person initiallDate
Marcia Mcertnond � 0 ouncil
266-8560 Assign 1 ouncil De arhnentDirecror
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 i Cierk
For
Routing 3
Order 4
5 i
ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Approving the May 11, 2004, decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Conection No6ces, and
Correction Orders for the following addresses: 306 Ruth Street North-Unit 9, 483 Sherburne Avenue, 671 Western Avenue North, and
2218 Doswell Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this persoNfirtn ever worked under a contrad for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/frm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
cuvent city employee?
Yes No
' Expfain afl yes answers on separaYe sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Probfem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
F'
o-s
Advanppes IfAporoved: . u
Council Res�arc� Cerrter
Disadvantages If Aaproved: __
, �
, � - � ,a..,. ' _"' ,._ / _. .... .�. --
Disadvantages If Not Approved: � �-
Total Amount of CosNRevenue Budgeted:
Transaction: .
Fundinp Source: ActiviN Number:
Financiai lnfortnation:
� (Explain)
��m ��
c�� ���
NOTES OF Tf� LEGISLATIVE HEARING
LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES, AND CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Room 330 City Hall, 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd
Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 1:35 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Paula Seeley, Neighborhood Housing and Property Ixnprovement; Michaei
Urmann, Office of Fire Prevention
306 Ruth Street North. Unit 9
Michael Urmann reported that the appellanYs comment is that there is no grease on the walls.
That is true, as it was cleaned up and the field inspector approved it. The only thing outstanding
is the stain on the carpet between the living room and the kitchen.
(Mr. Urmann submitted photographs.)
Josephine Amadasum, appellant, appeared. In answer to several questions, Ms. Amadasum said
that the stain is from water damage from the refrigerator. The re&igerator has been repaired and
does not leak anymore. She went to the manager for a new refrigerator and someone was sent on
October 4.
(Ms. Amadasum gave Ms. Moermond paperwork and photographs.)
Ms. Moermond's paperwark says that the oven was a problem and has been repaired. Ms.
Amadasum responded it had not worked for four months. VJhen she complained about the paint
coming off the wa11, the manager never came. In addirion, the lady that lives downstairs says
water drips down when someone takes a shower in Unit 9.
Ms. Moermond stated it looks like there is some mildew. Ms. Amadasum responded she tried to
remove it.
Ms. Moermond stated there are a lot of non tenant related things: structure, torn carpet, etc. She
asked is the tenant moving. Ms. Amadasuxn responded if she could. The manager promised they
would change things.
Would Fire Prevention be working with the property owner on some of these issues, asked Ms.
Moermond. Mr. Urmann responded the inspector said some of the issues are addressed already:
the stove, the refrigerator. The refrigerator was set on the lowest code setting. The inspector
turned it up, it cycled right away, and it started working. The bathroom tile is a tenant sanitation
issue. He can go back and look at the other issues.
Ms. Moerxnond stated bleach could be used for the mildew; the tenant will be responsible for
that. Ms. Moermond asked does the bathroom have a fan. Ms. Amadasum responded yes. She
has tried using bleach and it did not work. Someone was living in this apartment before and did
�
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING, MAY 11, 2004 Page 2
not clean anyflung. She was promised that the tiles would be changed, but they never were. The
bathroom has been like that since she got there.
Ms. Moermond asked is the cazpet permanently stained. Mr. Urmami responded the fieid
inspector felt that it could be cleaned up, but he would like to go to the properry himself.
Ms. Moermond stated she will lay over this issue and requested the property owner's name, as it
was not in her paperwork. Mr. Urmann suggested 30 days and supplied Ms. Moermond with the
ownership information.
Ms. Moermond recommends laying over to the June 8legislative hearing. Some of these items
are the responsibility of the tenants. Some will be the responsibility of the landlord. Ms.
Moermond will look to the Fire Prevention inspectors for advise on what things need to be fixed
in the next month. Ms. Urmann responded he will meet with the tenant if she will take the time.
483 Sherburne Avenue
The following appeared: Steve R. Johnson and Ken Johnson, owners, 576 Bay Street.
Mazcia Moermond stated she is looking at two items on the appeal. The correction order can be
dealt with today. The excessive consumption assessment requires an appeal through a different
process. They will get a notice soon about that.
Paula Seeley reported that on March 23 she was at the properiy and issued a correction notice for
two vehicles parked on the grass. There was a reinspection of April 1, and a Pontiac was still on
the grass with ruts in the backyard. She issued a Suminary Abatement with a recheck date of
Apri15. At that time, there was suppose to be a$50 assessment. She went there on Apri15, the
PonUac was still on the grass neaz the alley with no call from the owner. The owner did put
down a barrier. At that time, the owner got the excessive consumption bill. On April 19, there
was a waste management trash container and two bags of garbage on the ground. She issued
orders on that, too. She issued a short order because no bags are supposed to be on the ground.
There are about five properties in the alley that received orders also.
Ms. Moermond stated two orders were written: one on gazbage and the other on vehicies. Ms.
Seeley responded she found trash there on April 19. The vehicle had not moved. The vehicles
were written up on Mazch 23 and a Summary Abatement Order was issued on April 1 for the
vehicles. She went back on Apri15 for a recheck, and she noted the vehicles were still there.
She went back on April 19, and she noted gazbage. That is when the owner got a bill.
The Johnsons said there is Class 5 gravel at the property and some cement. The vehicles were
parked on the Class 5. Maybe one tire could have been too far over on the grass. Some of the
Class 5 does sink into the ground after winter.
Ms. Moermond reminded the 7ohnsons that the issue in front of her is the garbage. Steve
responded there is a legitimate container there. The trash was filled inside the container. The
Johnsons got a citation and they took photographs of properties in the a11ey.
O�-�GS
NOT'ES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING, MAY 11, 2004 Page 3
(Ken showed the photographs and presented paperwork.)
Ms. Moermond stated these are notarized. She heazd the inspector say that there aze orders on
the properties in the alley. Steve Johnson responded that there are no records yet and there aze no
complaints. The trash was neat and someone kicked it over. Steve always teils his tenants to put
the trash out eazly the day it will be picked up. There is a whole ailey with vehicles on dirt,
graffiti, washers, dryers, refrigerators. He is discouraged that one bag of trash is a citation. It is
selective harassment. Ms. Seeley responded she has four open files in that alley.
With respect to selective enforcement, said Ms. Moermond, there is an open file on the properry
because of the vehicles. They presumably received a vehicle abatement order on the probiem
vehicles. 5he asked has this been addressed. Steve responded the abatement said that it was
pazked on an unapproved surface-grass. That is wrong. If one tire was on grass, then the rest is
gravel. Ms. Seeley responded they need a few inches of grauel. Grass is coming up.
Ms. Moermond stated the Johnsons are saying the vehicles are not a legitimate abatement order,
but they did not appeal that. What Ms. Moermond is looking at now is the appeal on the garbage
bags. The photograph shows a lot of grass. It is not selective harassment if the enforcement
official is there in the course of their business and they saw another violation. She asked was
there a record of a dispute about whether it is a Class 5 surface. Ms. Seeley responded it is a
zoning ordinance. She believes it is not a legitimate parking area. The whole purpose is that
there are not deep ruts in the yazd and grass does not come through. The Johnsons have a
properry on Chazles that looks great. Steve responded Class 5 gravel sinks. He asked what the
citation is based on, and he was told that it was parked too far on the grass. Even if there is a
black surface and there is grass on the other side, if they go over that, they wili be on grass. The
neighborhood has waste, graffiti, a can that says "Contaminated" in a backyard, and vacuuxn
cleaners.
Ken Johnson said that the pxoperty is the best painted house on the block. The tenants take care
of the yazd. They are immaculate.
Have the bags been picked up, asked Ms. Moermond. Both Johnsons responded they were
picked up the same day.
Ms. Moermond then asked why they are appealing the order when they already picked up the
bags. Steve Johnson said they are appealing the fine because that is three month payment of a
trash company. Ms. Moermond responded that is an appeal of a tax assessment, which is not in
front of her today.
Steve Johnson asked what is excessive. Ms. Seeley responded if she gets a complaint or picks
something up, an order is issued, there is a reinspection and it is not done, that is an immediate
$50.
Steue Johnson asked how much time they get to comply with the order. 1VIs. Seeley responded it
depends on what it is. Ms. Moermond added that a refrigerator with a door attached will be
taken in 24 hours.
o�-���
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING, MAY i l, 2004 Page 4
Ms. Moermond stated she does not have an appeal on a vehicle, but she has an inspector that has
gone back several tunes to recheck the vehicle. There is a question about whether it is an
appropriate Class 5 surface. It looks like it needs to be mowed in a few weeks. If the vehicle
gets towed, it wili go on the Johnsons' properry taxes. It will cost up to $1,000 for a vehicle
assessment as the City is not convinced this is an approved surface.
Ms. Moermond granted the appeal on the Correction Order dated April 19, 2004, as the properry
is now in compliance. She will see the owners on the excessive consumption in a few weeks.
671 Westem Avenue North
(This address was inadvertently put on the wrong agenda; it should have been on the 10:00 a.m.
agenda.)
Paula Seeley reported she always gives people more tune. She told the owner to file an appeal as
he has some personal problems to deal with. Ms. Seeley was out there April 28 and told the
owner to get the vehicles off the grass by today (May 11) along with the trailer and boats. Then,
he would get more time for other stuff.
Ms. Moermond stated that today is four days after original time line. She suggests giving the
owner a two week extension. That is some consideration for the attorney's letter. Ms. Seeley
responded this came in as a complaint. The sununary abatement was far the retaining wa11. For
the suminary abatement order, she gave him June 7. The owner called her last Friday. The
retaining wall can wait.
Ms. Moermond made the following changes to the deadlines: July 3 on the retaining wall, May
21 on the vehicies, and June 1 on the yazd cieanup. The suminary abatement order was
mentioned in the appeal, but a copy of it was not supplied to Ms. Moermond.
(Note: this issue was heard again on May 25, 130 p.m.)
2218 Doswell Avenue
(No one appeared to represent the property.)
Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Correction Notice dated Apri120, 2004, as the inspector
said that the owner of the properiy has complied with some of the items and received extensions
on other items.
The hearing was adjourned at 2:18 p.m.
�