04-933Council File # (7�
Green Sheet # ���Z,
Presented
Referred To
Committee Date
1 BE TT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the August 24, 2004,
2 decisions of the Legislative Heazing O�cer on Appeals for Letters of Deficiency, Conection Notices, and Correction
3 Orders for the following addresses:
4 Propertv Anpealed
Appellant
5 870 Pavne Avenue Melvin C. Reaney, Owner
6 Decision: Extension granted to August 30, 2004 for everything except the venting and an extension granted to September
7 30, 2004 for the venting of the laundry pipe.
8 396 Burgess Street Nancy Watkins and Scott Van Wert
9 Decision: Appeal denied on Correction Notice dated July 26, 2004.
10 994 Vir t�nia Tracey Smith, Owner
11 Decision: Extension granted to October 11, 2004 to replace the collapsing retaining wall with gravel / rock.
12 2118 Grand Avenue
13 Decision: Appeal denied.
Mike Fitzgerald, Owner
Benanav ✓
Bostrom ,i
Harris �
Helgen �
Lantry �
Montgomery ✓
Thune ,i
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SA1NT PAUL, M{NNESOTA
Id
Requested by Department of:
�
� I �
AdoptedbyCouncil: Date �/G�D�� Lo, a0
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
�
Approved l�/N�ayor: D2te
— i s_ -�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green S�h�eef
Depar6menUofficelcouneil: Date Initiated:
co �,��� 29SEP-04 Green Sheet NO: 3022942
Contact Person & Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person InitiaUDate
Marcia Mcermond � 0 ouncii
2 ��� Assign 1 ouncil Deoarlment Director
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z �ty Clerk � I
For 3 I
Routing
Order 4 �
5
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for SignaWre)
AcGon Requested:
Approving the August 24, 2004 decisions of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters of Deficiency, Correcrion Norices,
and Correction Orders for the following addresses: 870 Payne Avenue, 396 Burgess Sueet, 994 Virginia Street, and 2118 Grand
Avenue.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
Planning Commission 1. Has this personffirtn ever worked under a wntrect for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
� 3. Does this personffirm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
- wrrent city employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on sepa2te sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Probiem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantapes If Approved:
DisadvanWqes If Approved:
Disadvantages if Not Approved:
Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted:
Transaction:
Fundinst Source: Activity Number:
Financiai Information:
(6cplain)
O�{- `l33
NOTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES & CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, August 24, 2004 - 130 p.m.
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Boulevazd West
Marcia Moerxnond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called order at 130 pm.
STAFF PRESENT: Pat Fish, Fire Prevention; Ed Smith, Neighborhood Housing & Property
Improvement (NHPI); Dennis Senty, Vacant Buildings Program Jean Birkholz, City Council
Offices.
OTHERS PRESENT: Melvin C. Reaney, 870 Payne Avenue; Nancy Watkins, 396 Burgess
Street; Tracey Smith, 994 Virginia Street; and Mike Fitzgerald, 2092 Iglehart Avenue;
Mazcia Moermond introduced herself and explained that these informal afternoon hearings tend
to be appeals of Orders that the City has written for somethang to be repaired. The goal of these
hearings is to develop a recommendation for the City Council. These are matters repairs of
properiy and enforcement actions; they don't involve due process rights, so the City Council will
not be holding a public hearing on these issues. By one resolution, the City Council will adopt
the findings, usually without discussion.
870 Payne Avenue
Melvin C. Reaney appeared.
Pat Fish, Fire Inspector, provided a staff report. This deficiency list resulted from a July 21, 2004
inspection. Five (5) items on the list are being appealed. Dennis Waters, a plumbing inspector
with LIEP, was asked to verify:
#5. BASEMENT - SPLC 3411 (4), 3434 (1): Connect or cap the sewer piping in
accordance with the plutnbing code.
Mr. Waters stated that the laundry tub upstairs needs to have legal waste and vent.
#11. MSFC 605.53: Immediately, discontinue use of frayed, deteriorated, damaged or
spliced electrical cords. (Temporary Wiring).
The Electrical Code specifies that temporary wiring can be used for only ninety (90) days.
There's a lot of Christmas lights strung throughout the bar with a heavy layer of dust around it.
The wiring appeared to be old and in poor condition.
# 12. MSFC 1010.1, 1003.210: Provide and maintain at least 60 minutes of illumination
to the exit signs in case of primary power loss.
0`�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Page 2
The exit sign is flat against the wall above the front door as opposed to protruding over the door
so that it can be seen from any azea. This is very important in an assembly occupancy.
#17. SPCL 3410(7), 3433 (6): Repair and maintain the floor in an approved manner.
The tile on the floor and steps should be patched to provide a level surface. Some of the tile is
damaged to the point of being a hip hazazd. It's a liability issue for one thing.
# 16. SPLC 310.02: Post the LIEP/Licensing issued license in an approved location.
This is just a general requirement that the license be posted in a conspicuous space so that it can
be seen. The logacal place to post it would be behind the bar. No posted license could be found;
perhaps it was kept in the locked office. It is supposed to be kept out in the open and easily seen.
The Certificate of Occupancy is also required to be posted because it has emergency numbers on
it.
Mr. Reaney provided photographs to illustrate what he has done to make improvements. He
noted that the only problem he has with the list is with #5. Two (2) plumbers were sent out to
take a look at the pipe and both said they had no problem with it. It's a pipe that the City had
him cap. The water used to run from the roof and it would go down the sewer, so the City had
him cap it. Mr. Reaney then cemented it, but when it rained really hazd, the water wouid still
leak through the wall. Then, Mr. Reaney took out the cement and replaced it with a piece of tin.
Now, the water runs off of that into a bucket, then into a hose and down into the drain.
Otherwise, the water runs off and seeps through the wall. If the water keeps seeping through the
wall, the wall will eventually fall down.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Fish if this Order was on the rain leader. Ms. Fish replied that this
Order was on the laundry tub and vent, not on the rain leader. The waste and vent on the upstairs
laundry tub needs to be plumbed under a permit. The rain leader probiem will need to be dealt
with by Public Works. Ms. Fish said that she will contact Public Works about this issue.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Reaney if the laundry used the same piping as the rain leader. Mr.
Reaney responded that it does not. IYs a separate item. The laundry water drains into the wash
tub and comes out the drain. There's a 5-gallon bucket with holes in it underneath the drain, it
runs out of the bucket slowly into the drain, about 12 inches away. Ms. Fish stated that a legal
waste and vent need to be installed on the laundry tub directly rather than rwuiing it into a 5-
gallon pail.
Ms. Moermond stated that this order will stand. Mr. Reaney will need to install a legal waste and
vent to satisfy this deficiency.
Regarding the Christmas lights, Mr. Reaney said that they have been up for a couple of years, and
he was going to replace them anyway, so if he needs to take them down, it's no big deal. He
O�1-933
LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Page 3
changes them every couple of years. Ms. Moermond stated that Christmas lights should be up
for no longer than ninety (90) days. She added that the City needs to be pretty strict with bars,
clubs and gathering places. When there are problems and a fire results, people come down the
City's throat for failure to inspect properly.
Regarding #12, Mr. Reaney provided a photograph that shows he changed the exit sign to meet
code.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Fish if someone had been out to re-inspect. Ms. Fish responded that
they normally do not re-inspect until after the hearing.
Regarding #16, Mr. Reaney reported that the LIEP/Licensing issued licenses have been posted on
a bulletin board behind the bar.
Regarding #17, Mr. Reaney stated that they have been in that bar for twenty (20) years and that
floor has been the same way for twenty (20) yeus. Before that, the bar was called Zanzebaz and
the floor was like that. Before that, the baz was called the Blue Belt and the floor was like that.
It's not a trip hazard. Ms. Moermond replied that the photographs are only two (2) dimensional;
they do not reveal depth. Mr. Reaney said that for as old as the building is, the terrazzo floor
doesn't look too bad and that he wouldn't know what to do with it. Ms. Moermond added that it
looks as though he had done nearly everything on the list already. She wasn't sure why he had
filed an appeal. He responded that he filed mainly because of the plumbing issues. Mr. Reaney
stated that he had been inspected last year and now, he was inspected again. He didn't
understand why. Ms. Moermond replied that inspectors are rotated, and this year they haue been
paying a lot more attention to exit lighting, probably because of some of the disasters that have
happened in recent years to night clubs where people have been trapped inside of buildings and
died.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Fish to give her assessment of the terrazzo floor situation. Ms. Fish
stated that she considered it a trip hazard, particularly about the steps by the back door. She said
there were more than just cracks; there were chunks out of the flooring, making it uneven. She
was more concerned about it in this occupancy than if the area were totally lit up. Mr. Reaney
contended that the place on the steps that Ms. Fish is talking about has been filled in.
Ms. Moermond asked if the plumbing job required a permit. Ms. Fish responded that a waste
and vent is a permit job. Ms. Moermond stated that the venting is the main issue left for Mr.
Reaney to do.
Ms. Moermond recommended that everything except the venting be done by August 30, 2004;
and the deadline for the venting for the laundry trap be September 30, 2004.
OL{- �33
LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, August 24, 2004
396 Burgess Street
Nancy Watkins appeazed, appealing a Correction Notice mailed July 26 as a result of an
inspection done on July 23, 2004.
Page 4
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Ed Smith what had precipitated this inspecrion. Mr. Smith stated that
he went back to this properiy to do a re-inspection on previous orders and found additional
violations so, a second set of Orders were issued.
Ms. Watkins noted that she had a tenant problem. She explained that one lady gave notice that
she was moving. Ms. Watkins' friend's son and girlfriend had given notice where they lived but
didn't have any place to go. They begged Ms. Watkins to rent to them, which she did. So, the
first tenants were moving out the back door while the new tenants were moving in the front door.
Consequently, Ms. Watkins had no time to look over the space the first tenant had lived in far
five (5) years. The new tenant did not ask Ms. Watkins to fix anything. Instead, she called the
City because she had heard from her boyfriend's mother that if you do something like that to the
landlord, you might get out of paying the rent; and they may have to pay for another place for you
to live while they fix the apartment.
Mr. Smith noted that he disagreed with that explanation. He found multiple serious violations at
this properry. Ms Moermond asked Mr. Smith to go through the list of violations. Mr. Smith
began by saying that the original inspection was done May 14, 2004, and there were twenty-four
(24) items on that list. He added that the fiunace had been red-tagged by Xcel Energy this past
week. Ms. Moermond noted that a red-tagged furnace is a lack of a basic facility, which means
that this house could be condemned. Instead of issuing a Conective Notice, the inspector could
have issued a Condemnation. Mr. Smith continued to say that on July 23 he found more
violations and issued the following orders:
1) Remove non-GFCI outlets near the kitchen sink;
2) Install flooring under the kitchen cabinet where the dishwasher was removed;
3) Patch all cracks in the e�terior walls of the house to eliminate leakage into the interior
walls;
4) Replace/repair missing plaster on the east wa11 near the front entryway; and
5) Eliminate mold in the basement.
Ms. Watkins contended that the outlets near the kitchen sink were GFCIs. She challenged Mr.
Smith's supervisor to come with a tester and prove that they were not GFCI. Mr. Smith said that
GFCI ouflets all have reset buttons and when he was out there on 7uly 23, 2004, the outlets neaz
the sink were not GFCIs.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Watkins if this were her only rental property. Ms. Watkins replied
that it was. She added that she is a recent widow and she feels that this inspector is picking on
her. Mr. Smith interjected that he believes Ms. Watkins has more than one rental property; she
C�t-�33
LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Page 5
puts the rental properties into her children's names. Ms. Watkins responded that she does not.
Mr. Smith noted that the rental registration is listed as Scott Van Wert; he is the listed owner of
this property. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Watkins who Scott Van Wert was. Ms. Watkins
replied that he was her son and he's an engineer who works out of the country most of the time.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Watkins how long her son has owned this house. Ms. Watkins
replied, "About ten (10) yeazs." Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Watkins how often she goes to this
property. Ms. Watkins responded that she goes there every month to collect the rent but the
renter doesn't allow her into the space and there's nothing she could do about it. Ms. Moermond
told Ms. Watkins that there was a lot she could do about it. She could evict the renter, she could
bring along a sheriff or she could call a City inspector to accompany her. All of which could get
her into the building. Legally, all Ms. Watkins would need to do is to provide notice that she
wants access to that space. Ms. Watkins has an obligation to enter that space.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Smith who his immediate supervisor was. Mr. Smith answered that it
was John Betz. He added that his department thinks this should be a TRA (Tenant Remedies
Action).
Ms. Watkins added that she had talked with Harold Robinson, who told her that she would have
until October to get heat in there. She wants until that date to get the furnace installed. As far as
flooring under the dishwasher, Ms. Watkins stated that a cabinet was going to be installed where
the dishwasher had been. These tenants say that they aze going to move out; they haven't paid
any rent for months. Ms. Watkins said that she found out they had done the same thing to the
landlord they rented from before this. They have six (6) kids and they pull this over and over;
they go from place to place not paying their rent.
Ms. Moermond commented that Ms. Watkins bought some time by filing this appeal. The
compliance date on the Order is August 9, 2004; the new compliance date will be August 27. All
of the items on the list will need to be addressed by Friday, August 27, 2004. Ms. Watkins
argued that she would need more time than that. Ms. Moermond replied that she would not have
more time. Ms. Watkins asked Ms. Moermond if she, too, was against her. Ms. Moermond
responded that she is recommending denial of the appeal. Ms. Watkins stated that she would get
a lawyer.
Appeal denied.
994 Virginia Street
Tracey Smith, owner appeared.
Mr. Smith explained that this Correction Notice is for a short retaining wall on the south side of
the property that is collapsing and the top soil around it is eroding. It's very close to the
neighboring property. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Smith if there were other ways to deal with the
Oy-�3S
LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Page 6
erosion there besides putting in a retaining wall. Mr. Smith responded that the retaining wall
could be completely removed and replaced with ground cover. Ms. Smith added that at the time
Mr. Smith casne out, she had started to remove the retaiuiug wall, and Mr. Smith had told her
that either she needed to replace it or repair it. Ms. Smith said that it doesn't pay to repair it and
right now, she can't afford to replace it. Ms. Moermond suggested a gravel or small rock could
replace it at approximately $50.
Ms. Moermond recommends granting an extension until Monday, October 11, 2004.
2118 Grand Avenue
Mike Fitzgerald appeazed.
This is an appeal of registering this property as a Type 2 Vacant Building and the subsequent
inspection.
Ms. Moermond asked if she could see the first set of Orders.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Fitzgerald what type of building this was. Mr. Fitzgerald responded
that it was a duplex. Ms. Moermond asked if it had ever been used as a triplex. Mr. Fitzgerald
replied that it never was used as a triplex. After studying the material before her, Ms. Moermond
noted that this building was used as student housing. These Orders are a result of a Code
Compliance Inspection. Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Fitzgerald if he had read through both lists to
see how consistent they were. Mr. Fitzgerald replied that on the general building stuff, some of
them are the same but a lot of them aren't because nearly everything's been completed on the
first list (from Fire and Safety). Ms. Moermond noted that different codes come into play when
it's a Vacant Building.
Mr. Dennis Senty stated that the Vacant Buildings Program did not compile or take part in the
first inspection; Fire and Safety did. The compliance time for the first inspection was eight (8)
days. A Vacant Building file was opened on this address on about December 22, 2003. There is
an appeal time of ten (10) days from the date of that notice. On January 7, 2004, someone from
? spoke with Mr. Fitzgerald and encouraged him to file an appeal in a timely
manner. Seven (7) months is not a timely. Mr. Fitzgerald responded that his understanding was
that he should appeal just the Vacant Building. At the time he had no tenants. IPs student
housing and he wasn't going to have tenants again until June 1 or September 1, 2004. Mr.
Fitzgerald stated that he took this time to not only conect the items on the list but to go above
and beyond that to do more improvements to the house. Now, they're telling him that he should
have appealed, but he did not have any understanding of what a Type 2 was and how it was
determined to be a Type 2. Mr. Fitzgerald said that this is the first time he has seen Mr. Senty.
He was told by the City Clerk that Type 2 indicated the severity of the condition. Mr. Fitzgerald
questioned how severity could be determined when there was no inspection. Ms. Moermond
�y-93�
LEGISLATIVE HEARING - Tuesday, August 24, 2004 Page 7
responded that it sounded to her as though he was appealing the Code Compliance Inspection
itsel£ That's what makes this different from other kinds of Registered Vacant Buildings. For
example, if Ms. Moermond moved out of her house today, laiowing that it is code compliant, she
could move�back into it anytime. There wouldn't be anythiug major that needs to be fixed. In
this case, when they assessed the building, they found enough wrong with it to make it a
Category 2, which triggers the Code Compliance Inspection requirement, which is why there is
this new laundry list of items. This listing is not something that can be appealed. If you have a
Registered Vacant Building, you need to address the Code Compliance List. Ms. Moermond
explained that because this building is student housing, it's throwing everything off. She will
discuss this issue with Jim Seeger, Inspector of Code Compliance and also with Fire and Safety
because it appears that that's where the communication problem lies and that's why Mr.
Fitzgerald received another list.
Ms. Moermond estimated that Mr. Fitzgerald spent approximately $125 on this inspection. Mr.
Fitzgerald corrected that estimate; it cost $172. Ms. Moermond noted that $172 still beats the
cost of the Tnxth in Housing Inspection.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the Code Compliance inspectors aze saying that all the plumbing
throughout the house needs to be re-done, and that's unreasonable. Many things were repaired
following the first inspection and re-doing the plumbing would nullify what was done initially.
Walls and floors would need to be ripped open in order to re-plumb the house. Mr. Fitzgerald
also finds #13 unreasonable:
Any framing members that do not meet code (where wall and ceiling covering is
removed, members that are over-spanned, over-spaced, not being carried properly, door
and window openings that are not headered, etc.) aze to be reconstructed as per code.
Ms. Moermond said that a conversation with Jim Seeger and also Fire and Safety is in order
because Mr. Fitzgerald has received mixed messages. Ms. Moermond noted that Mr. Fitzgerald
did the right thing by filing an appeal; however, she cannot really accept this appeal and Mr.
Fitzgerald should get a refund. At the same time, there should have been an opportunity to
appeal earlier.
Ms. Moermond denied the appeal on the Registered Vacant Building status. A conversation with
Jim Seeger and Fire and Safety will follow either tomorrow (August 25, 2004) or soon after.
The hearing was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
jab