04-755�M E/�J (�� � ��28���
RESOLUTION
OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Properiy Improvement has requested the City Council to
2 hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecl�ng and
3 removal of a two-story, wood frame, single family dwelling and the detached, two-stall, wood frame
4 garage located on properiy hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property" and commonly lrnown as 948
5 Duchess Street. This property is legally described as follows, to wit:
6
7 Lot 55, Block 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 7 St. Paul Minn.
8
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and information
obtained by Neighborhood Housing & Property Ixnprovement on or before January 25, 2004, the
following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: Eloise
Filipkowski, 948 Duchess Street,St. Paul, MN 55106; Tenence & Alice Yankovec, 948 Duchess Street,
St. Paul, MN 55106; Joe Rubenstien, Staff Attorney, Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, 444
Lafayette N., St. Paul, MN 55155
WHEREAS, Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement 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 Apri127, 2004; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then laiown 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 Subject Property by May 12, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Properiy declaring this
building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Neighborhood Housing &
Property Improvement requested that the City Clerk schedule public hearings before the Legislative
Hearing Officer of the City Council and the Saint Paul City Council; and
W FIEREAS, 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
Council File # � f � ��
Green Sheet � 3ot�s13
�`
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
Oy- 7SS
1 WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the L,egislarive Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul City
2 Council on Tuesday, 7uly 13, 2004 to heaz testimony and evidence, and after receiving testimony and
3 evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to arder the interested or responsible parties
4 to make the Subject Properiy safe and not detrimental to the public peace, health, safety and welfaze and
5 remove its biighting influence on the community by rehabilitating this shvcture in accordance with all
6 applicable codes and ordinances, or in the alternative by demolishing and removing the stnxcture in
7 accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The rehabilitation or demolition of the structure to
8 be completed within #� days after the date of the Council Hearing; and
g f�ve g
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
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday, July 28, 2004
and the testimony and evidence including the action taken by the I.egislative 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
conceming the Subject Property at 948 Duchess Street:
That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
L,egislative Code, Chapter 45.
2.
Q
GQ
E:�
That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed three
thousand dollazs ($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 Neighborhood Aousing & Property Improvement has posted a placard on the
Subject Properiy which declazes it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by Neighborhood Housing & Property
Improvement, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
That the lrnown interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this resolution
and that the notification requirements of Chapter 45 haue 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 demolirion and
removal of the structure must be completed within days after the date of the Council
Hearing. ��ve C�
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
oy- ?5S
�
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
2. If the above correcrive acrion is not completed within this period of tune Neighborhood Housing
& Properiy Improvement is hereby authorized to take whatever steps aze necessary to demolish
and remove this structure, fill the site and charge 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 fistures of any ldnd 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 property as provided by law.
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
MontqomerV
Bostrom
Thune
Harris
YE35 � Navs
Absent Nei hborhood H sin Pro�ert Im rovement
By:
�� F v
,� Form Approved by City Attorney
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
� � Y-?ss ♦
Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
Departrnentloffice/council: Date Initiated:
NH NeighbofioodHousing/Aoperty 1&JUN-04 Green Sheet NO: 3018735
Contact person 8 Phone: DeuartrneM Selrt To Person initiallDate
Mdy Ddwkln5 � 0 ' 6orhood Ho " ro er
2661927 /�ssj9n 1 ei Lbor600dHousin ro er De artmentDirect r ��(
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z �h• pttoroev %U/G'Ll"'u9
28JUL-04 For
ROUtlfig 3 vor's Oifice Mavor/Assistant
OWer 4 ouoci
5 i Clerk GStv Clerk
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip NI Lowtions for Signature)
Action Requested:
Ciry Council to pass this resolution wluch will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to
comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing & Properry Improvement is ordered to remove the building. The subject property
is located at 948 Duchess Street.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Re�ect (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worloed under a coniract for ihis department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firtn ever been'a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any
current city employee?
Yes No
Ezplain 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 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 laiown to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to
repair or remove the building at 948 Duohess Street by May 12, 2004, and have failed to comply with those orders.
Advantages If Approved:
The City will eliminate a nuisance. J(f � c Z 5 2���1
DisadvantageslfApproved:
The City will spend funds to wreck and remove this building(s). These costs will be assessed to the property, collected as a special
assessment against the property tases.
Disadvantages If Not Approved:
A nuisance condirion will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the coinumnity.
Total Amount of
Trensaction: 9000 Cost/RevenueBudgeted: �' . � ... . �
� �: �
Fund�ng source: Nuisance Housing Activity Num6er: 30251
Financial Information: Abatement IIII 11 M' ���"
altiL {/ 8
(Explain)
oy• �ss
crrY oF sa�rr PauL.
Randy C Kelty, Mayar
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSL`iG & PROPERTY IMPROVEMEA"T
Nuisance Building Code Enforcement
1600FoRhR^niteBecrAvenue Te1: 651-166/9D0
Saint Pavt. M�' S5166 Fax: 651-266-1926
June 18, 2004
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
���_- ! � ,,,.
_, , „
Council President and "`''7'
Members of the City Council
v��:;� � a C�u�t
Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement , VacanUNuisance Buildin�s Enforcement
Division has requested the City Council schedule public hearin�s to consider a resolution
ordering the repair or removal of the nuisance buildin�(s) located at:
948 Duchess Street
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows: -
Legislative Hearing - Tuesday, July 13, 2004
City Council Hearing - FVednesday, Juty 28, 2004
The owners and responsibie parties of record are:
Name and Last Known Address
Eloise Filipkowski
948 Duchess Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
Terrence & Alice Yankovec
948 Duchess Street
St. Paul, MN 55106
..- ' �a..�. ,. :.. . ; . .•..:
...,,,._-. .- i _.: . . ..,� , :�
,. , r.
l� i'/. Uw� � ��� • li� � i���1
�t;�.
I.ai 55, Block 2, Auditar's Sni�division No. 7 St Paul Minn_
Interest
Fee Owner
In possession/ciaims ownership
AA-ADA-EEO E-+mloycr
Oy- 7S''$"
948 Duchess Street
June 18, 2004
Page 2
IvTeighborhood Housing & Property Improvement has declazed this buildin�(s) to constitute a
"nuisance" as defined by Lea slative Code, Chapter 45. 1Veighborhood Housin� & Property
Improvement has issued an order to the then l�own responsible parties to eliminate this nuisance
condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razin� and removing this building(s).
Inasmuch as this Order to Abate has not been complied with the nuisance condition remains
unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting influence of this property. It is the
recommendation of the Nei�hborhood Housing & Property Improvement that the City Council
pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to either repair, or demolish and remove this
buildin� in a timely manner, and failing that, authorize the Neighborhood Housin� & Property
Improvement to proceed to demolition and removal, and to assess the costs incurred against the
real estate as a special assessment to be collected in the same manner as taxes.
Sincerely,
�O
, , � � ,
Steve Ma�er
Vacant Buildin�s Supervisor
Neighborhood Housin� & Property Improvement
SM:mI
cc: Frank Berg, Buildin� Inspection and Desi�
Meghan Riley, City Attorneys Office
MaryErickson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Laurie Kaplan, PED-Housin� Division
ccnph
41 :4DA-EEO Employer
1 S�
� ��S
MINUTES OF TI� LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIR, CONDEMNATIONS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS
Tuesday, July 13, 2004 ,
Room 330 Courthouse
Mazcia Moermond, I,egislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 10_03 am_
STAFF PRESENT: Steve Magner and John Betz, Deparhvent of I�Teighborhood Hausing and
Properry Improvement (NHPn
Resolution ordering the o�ner to remove or repair the 6uilding(s) at 1956 Feronia Avenue.
If the owner fails to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvement is ordered to remove the building(s). (I,aid over from 5-25-Q4)
(Note: there are two issues regazding 1956 Feronia: one is a resolution discussed eariier and the
other is an assessment.)
The following appeared: Naomi Isaacson, 328 Fourth Street; Rebecca Brown, her attorney, 1350
South Frontage Road, Hastings.
Ms. Moermond stated that when they left the meeting on Aprii 27, #laey were mainiy wai#ing for
financimg information.
Steve Magner said his understanding from the last legisiative hearing was that the owner and the
representative Mr. High from the financial institution had appeared and indicated that they coutd
arrange immediate financing if they were to do it as a single family residence vs. doing the
building as originally planned. He said the City would require new pians if it was done as a
single family dweliing. The original plans were submitted to the Office of LIEP and approved
for the multiple use.
Mr. Magner said that, except for checking the building, they had na fui4l�er information at this
time.
Ms. IvSoermond said in looking at zhe suminary statement and the resolution, the estimated cost to
demolish the building is $20,000 to $30,000. She questioned if that amount was based on
comparable demolitions that have occurred in other places. Mr. Magier responded that the
number is over one yeaz old; it is the same number that was used for the original hearing about
18 months ago. The amount would probably be higher based on what would be found after the
hazardous waste abatement was compieted, sgecifically for items such as asbestos. To Ius
knowledge, the building is basically gutted and he suspeets that there aze oniy some smail areas
that might have floor tile Yhat woutd test positive. They wouid also be lool�g for any pipe wrap.
On a building like this, thep eou4d sgend s�ore in 13azardflus waste abatement than would be spent
on demolition He feeis tlxs cost wrautd be aaare iu the area of $30,000 to 40,000; however, since
it is gutted, it significantly reduces the cost. A contractor would not take the brick to a landfili,
�� - ��S
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES, JLTLY 13, 2004, 10:00 A.M. Page 2
said Mr. Magner. Rather, it would be taken to a recycling site which significanfly reduces the
doliars compazed to if it was all rubble that had to be landfilled. Labor and dumping costs aze the
two primary costs that drive the demolition.
Ms. Brown said that the bank is requiring a new appraisal and that's still pending. (She handed
out paper work)
Ms. Moermond asked where they were at in terms of the building use. She said in looking at the
figure of $1 miliion she was assuming they are talking about an 8-unit building. Ms. Isaacson
responded t2�Y iYs a 9-imit building. The appraiser who handled it a year ago was just certified
with MI*ti. He will update ihe appraisat in approximately two to three weeks.
Ms. Moermond said she was looking for this to be expedited as it will be before the City Council
for a public hearing on July 28. She is not inclined to delay it again so she would like to see
everything locked up by that time. If that occurs, her recommendation will be to grant 180 days
to complete the rehabilitation. Otherwise, she will not make that recommendation and Ms.
Isaacson would have to explain to the Council why they should lay over the matter or send it
back for additionai legislative hearings. Ms. Moermond did not think the Council would
consider granting additional time if everything is not in order because the bond was revoked
previously. The Council may say thaL they will condirionaliy grant 180 days but the owner would
have to post additionai money in her bond. That is one of the things that sometimes happens
when bonds have been revoked previously on a project
Ms. 3vloermond questiflned where the plans are in the approvai process and if they aze ready to go
with permits. Ms. Isaacson said as faz as she knew, they were ready.
Mr. Magner suggested that within the next two weeks the parties should contact Ed Locke and
Jim Seeger in the Office of LIEP Yo verify fhat they have everything so when they come in with
their bond #hey can also purchase their pemuts. The first permit they will need is either the
building pernrit, which will inclade any demolition that wiil be done, or they will have to get a
demolition permit for any additionai dexnolition 2ha# they will be doing. After that, their trade
contractors will obtain the additional reqnired pernuts. Mr. Magner said it was his understanding
that the awner's brother is the general contractor'on the pmjeci so he wouid i�ave to pull ffie
building pemrit if he's going to do the general contracting.
Ms. Moermond toid Ms. Isaacson that they need to fmd out if Ed Locke has finished reviewing
the plans, if everything is included, if he has signed off on the plans, etc. Jim Seeger is the
vacant btuldings contact. He will bring in a team to do Yhe inspection. Ms. Isaacson said it was
her un3erst ans�s'z that iY svas ready to gca and the financsng just had to be completed.
Ms. Moermond told Ms. Isaacson that, according to state law, she will have 180 days with the
pernut. If she is 50% complete on the project on the 180�' day, staff will grant her an addifional
180 days to complete the rehabilitation. Jim Seeger would make that deternunation.
o�--� ��
LEGISLATTVE HEAItING MINUTES, JLTLY 13, 2004, 10:00 A.M. Page 3
In summary: Ms. Moermond recommends granting the owner 180 days to complete the
rehabilitation of fihe property on condirion that the foliorving is done by noon of July 28, 2004:
1} A closing date has been set, 2) A$2,000 bond is posted.
J0402A1 Property cleanup during Mareh 2004 (Laid over from 6-23-04 City Council)
922 Chazles Avenue
Kurt and Lois Speten, owners, appeazed.
Ms. Ivloermond asked why the progeriy owner was appealing the assessment Mr. Speten
responded Yhat he did not feel the ciYy picked it up. T1:e tenants were serveti an eviction notice
and were asked to clean up the properiy. There was litter outside the fence and in the alley but it
did belong to his tenan#s. The tenaat moved out on March 24. He asked her to have everything
cleaned up immediately, she said she would, and they took her word for it. Another notice was
received from the city on Apri17 for the same item. Mr. Speten felt by that time they had it all
cleaned up. He disagreed that the City did any cleaning because there were computers still
outside.
John Betz regorted his office received a complaint on March 4, 2004 regarding trash and refuse
piled by the back of 2$e property. A notice was sent to the property owner to remove it by March
16. A reinspecTion was conducted on March 16 and there was a T'V set, garbage bags, plastic
pails, etc. A work order was sent Yo Pazks and they cleaned the property on March i9. Another
complaint came in on April 5 stating issues of discazded fumiture, dog feces, trash,
over-the-fence containers without covers. An inspection was conducted and the inspector
indicated there was a lazge pile of debris at the properiy. A notice was sent to the property owner
to comply by April 14. A reinspection was conducted and Yhe properiy owner cleaned it up. He
said there will be a$50 assessment fee on Yhe properiy for �cessive consumption of city
inspectfion services.
(A city cleanup crew video was shown of the proper[y.}
The Spetens disputed what was shown saying they had cleaned up ihe property. Ms. Maermond
reminded #hem that a couple of dates aze involved with respect to cleanup anci t�ey uaay be
confizsed when they were. The video sYeawn was for the eleanup doae on ivlarch 1�.
Ms. Moermond said she wautd recoanmend to t&e City Coau�cil that they approve the assessment
because she fee4s tfie videa is accueate. �he told the property owners that they can appear before
the Council at the hearing on July 28 and explain their situation.
1206 Cook Street East
(No one appeared on behalf of the properry.)
��-� ��
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES, NLY 13, 2004, 10:00 A.M. Page 4
Mazcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment.
J0402A2 Property cleanup during February 2004 at 492 Charles Avenue (L,aid over from
5-26-04 City Council)
(No one appeazed on behaif of the properiy.)
Marcia Moermond recommends approval of the assessment
Summary Abatemen#s:
J0402B Boarding-up of vacanf bnildings dnring March and April 2004;
J04T1Q Providing weekly garbage service for the first quarter of 2004;
J040iC Demolifion of vacant buildings during Apri12004.
1956 Feronia Avenue (J0402B)
(Note: there are two issues regazding 1956 Feronia: one is a resolution discussed eazlier and the
other is an assessment.)
Naomi Isaacson asked Ms. Moermond about an order she received regazding an assessment the
City was going to put on the properly. It was for work which she hired a conYractor to do and she
questioned why she would be charged for it. Ms. Moeimond that a hearing was scheduled for
assessment, but a card was not returned; therefore, the file may not be available on this
assessment. The assessment was for a boarding-up in April.
Mr. Magner reported that he was at the properry on Mazch 31, 2004 and there was a broken
second floor window on the sonth side along with glass on the public sidewalk. A suminary
abatement order was prepared on March 31, 2004 and mailed fln April 1. The order indicated that
the owner was #o immediately remove the brnken glass fram Ehe public walk. The broken
window was also nated and a compliaace da#e of Apri16, 2004 was requested. Mr. Magner
visiYed the properiy on April 6 and found that the building was not secured, there were two
broken windows on the second story, and there was still broken glass on the public sidewalk. A
boarding order was sent to the City's contractor for the windows and a work order was senY to
Parks. Mr. Magner rehuned to the property on April 12 for a reinspection. The south side
window was 3Marded up by the owner. A$50 eousumpteon ietter was sent There was no work
order at that time. On February 23, a phone call was received at the O�r,e of LIEP saying there
was broken glass in the bui�ding and it was falling onYo the sidewalk, Magner said. He went to
the properry and fDUnd tfiat windflws on the seconci and third floor, south and wesi side, were
broken out. Ii sumnaary ahateuient arder vvas iss�ed to sec€ue tl�e windows, remove Yhe broken
giass, and clean the pubiic walk. He called the ocvner and left a message.
Ms. Isaacson said she received notice dated April 14, 2004 which sounds the same as the Apri16
C�-{- � �S
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES, JtJLY 13, 2004, 10:00 A.M. Page 5
notice she received. She tallced to Mr. Magner about it and an inspection was conducted on April
13. Mr. Ma�er told her that one was eventually boazded by owner. The one he's talking about
now is previous to that one. February 23 is when the complaint was received and he went to the
groperty at the end of the day. He went to the property again on March 2 and found the third
story windows were boazded but they were boarded from the inside and the broken glass was not
removed. He told Yhe owner that the glass would have to be removed immediately or the City
would do it. Ae returned to the properry on Mazch 4 and the third story windows on the south
side were boarded from the outside, the firsY story window was still broken and glass was
hanging down on che gnbIic sidewalk. A coahactor was sent to board up the fust and second
floor windows.
Ms.lvIoermond recommends approval of #he assessment It appears adequate notice was given
that more than one story was involved.
1139 Beech Street (Tt?4TIQ)
Martha Fowler, owner, appeazed.
Ms. Moermond said that she remembers that there was a prior legisiative hearing on this
address. The City said they would not chazge for January. The owner was chazged for third and
fourth quarter of 2fl03.
3ohn Be#z reported the Ciiy was just there io pick up tlie barrel.
Ms. Moermond recommends deleting the assessment.
(526�y Avenue (J0402B, Ol-2$-23-22-0137)
(No one appeared on behalf of the propetty.)
Ms. Moermond recoinmended 526 Selby Avenue be deleted as #he ownea did noi receive proper
notice of tFge assessment per tfie Real Estate.
958 Rose Avenue East (J04'i'1Q)
Matt Mejia, HomeVestors, 1200 Forest Street, appeared and stated he is appealing an assessment
for garbage services. The property was acquired on November 7, 2003 by HomeUestors. There
were severaI abatement assessments wheFS the gsoperty was purchased. gIe said he did not realize
that the trash pickup cantineaed aegardiess o£ow�nership chaage. They had a dumpster on the
premises the entire time they were working. Wfien the floor sanding was being done, trash bags
were left in front of the house which is how he discovered that it was still under abatement. He
received a letter from Tom Friei instnxcting him to remove the trash bags and also informing him
that there was continued trash pick-up at the residence. He said he was not asking that they not
C��-���
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINLTTES, JIJLY 13, 2004, 10:00 A.M. Page 6
be charged for anything; however, no trash was left for pickup.
Ms. Moermond recommends approval of the assessment. When the transaction was done on the
property, some of the assessments appear #hat fhey would have been related to trash pickup and
hauling. She snggested that the seller could have been more forthcoming with the buyer but that
is a private transaction between them.
1304 Galtier Street (J04T1�
(No one appeared on behalf of the property.)
Racquel Naylar, L,egislative Haaring SecreYary, stated that she received a call from Pam
Washington prior to this mee#ing. 1vis. Washington said this was supposed to have been deleted
which Ms. Naylor was not able to verify.
Sieve Magner said he thought #his property was stili in the problem property unit and they aze
still dealing with it.
Marcia Moermond recommends laying over to the July 27 legislative hearing.
1fl24 North Wes#ern North (J04T1�
(No un� appeared on behalf of #he P��P�S'•)
John Betz reported that he was not an advocate for the owner but he had a conversation with.
He's presently in northern Minnesota but they went through the file and he is going to send a
letter to the City. This pertains to trash hauling, and the owner contends that the City, on its first
delivery of a container, chazged $50.00 and they aiso charged to empty it on the same day.
Public Warks could noi eacplain it. Pazks had no eaplanation of why they did it.
Marcia asked if #his was a case of financial hardslup. Mr. Betz responded that he didn't know
but #hat it could tje. Ms. Moermond said she would recommend to the Council that $50 be
deleted &om the assessment and that it be divided over three yeazs because of financial hardship.
Ms. Moermond recommends reducing the assessment from $420 to $350 plus the $20
administration fees for a total assessment of $370.
21 AslaryIand Avenue East (3U402B}
400 7ohnson Parkwav (J{34U2B)
767 Jessie Street (30402BJ
1212 $eech Streei (J04TiQ)
1004 Euclid Street (J04T1Q)
LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES, JIJLY 13, 2004, 10:00 A.M.
775 Maryland Avenue East (J04T1Q)
�� ���
Z�� �
Page 7
(No one appeared on the above addresses. Marcia Moermond recommends approval of these
assessments.)
� Resolution ordering the o�vner to mmove or repair the bw7ding(s) at 948 Duchess Street. If
the owner faiis to comply with the resolution, Neighborhood Housing and Property
Improvemenf is ordered to remove the bnilding(s).
(No one appeared on behalf of the properry.)
Steve Magner reported that this is a two-story wood-frame single family dwelling with a
detached trvo-stail waod-frame garage. The lot is 8,265 sq. ft. The building was condemned in
Apri12004 Code finforcement and has been vacant since August 14, 2003. The current owner is
Eloise Filipkowski. An inspection of the building was conducted and a list of deficiencies was
compiled, which constitutes the nuisance condirion, and photos were taken. An order to abate a
nuisance building was issued on Apri127, 20fl4 with a compliance date of May 12, 2004. As of
this date, the property remains in a condi6on which comprises a nuisance as defined by the
I,egisla6ve Code. The City has had to secure the building against trespass, the vacant building
fees are due, and real esTate taxes aze unpaid in the amount of $1,654. Taxafion has placed an
esrimated mazket value of $45,100 on the laad and $65,Q00 on the building. As of July 13, 2004,
neithea a cocie inspection nor a bond have been applied for or posted. NHPI estimates the repairs
to the structure to be between $80,000 and $90,000 with demolition between $8,000 and $9,000.
Ms. Moermond questioned the esrimated amount for the demolition. Mr. Magner responded the
higher amount is due to the clutter. There is at least $2,000 worth of clean-out in ihe house.
When there is mixed municipal waste in a groperty, it has to go to a separate landfill.
Ms. �vloermond asked if there was water damage or mold in the building. Mr. Magner responded
that tl�ere is mold, mildew and water in the basement and part of the sidewall was opening and
ailowing elements to go directly into it The house would have to be totally gutted for repairs if it
is not demolished. His recommendation was to demolish both the honse and the gazage. The
foundation of the house is significantly dilapidated.
Ms. Moernaond recoanmends approval of the r�oPution
The hearing was adjoumed at approximately 1130 a.m
me, rn