Loading...
05-642Council File # � U�1 Green Sheet # 3aZ t3S 2� RESOLUTION Presented by_ Referred To Committee Date WHEREAS, on Apri16, 2005, the Council of the City of Saint Paul adopted Council File #OS-302, said Resolurion being the Ratification of Assessments for Excessive Consumprion of Inspection Services for Properry Code Violations during August and part of September 2004 (File No. J0405E, Assessment 8043); and Excessive Consumption of Inspection Services for Properiy Code Violations during September and part of October 2004 (File No. J0406E, Assessment 8044), and; WHEREAS, the property at 338 Burgess Street being described as: Alabama Addition No. 2, St. Paul, Minn., Lot 4 and Lot 5 Block 2 with the properry identification number 25-29-23-42-0154 was assessed amounts of $130 and $95 respectively for excessive consumption of inspection services; and WHEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommends reducing both assessments to a total of $70 because an agreement for the corrections was reached in District Court; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the total amount of $225 be reduced to a total of $70, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reduction of $155 be funded by the Exempt Assessment Fund. Benanav Bostrom Harris Helgen Lantry Montgomery Thune Yeas Nays Absent ✓ ✓ ✓ v ✓ ✓ ✓ Adopted by Council: Date Adoption By: Approved By: OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �Z Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attorney C-� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � a.c _ I 11'I DepartrnenUoffice/couneii: Date Initiated: �� � f � � �ouncil 12.lUL-05 Green Sheet NO: 3027352 Contact Person 8 Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person Initial/Date Marcia Mcertnond � 0 ooncil z ��'� Assign 1 oancil De ar�entD'rector Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 �n• Clerk I For Routing 3 Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Reducing ffie assessment for Excessive Consumption of Inspecrion Services at 338 Burgess Street. Recommendafwns: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Perso�af Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contrad for this departmenY? 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 nortnally possessed by any current city employee? , Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheM and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Advanta9es If Approved: . Disadvantapes If ADproved: �:ounc3i R ch Certter JuL i 2 ��� Disadvanhges If Not Approved: Total Amount of Cost/Revenue Budgeted: Transaction: � Funding Source: Activity Number: Fi nancial I nformation: . (6cplain) �- (o�IZ LEGISLATIVE HEf�RING NIINUTES OF NLSY 17, 2005 Page 2 really like to get through this in the next two weeks. On June 1, she will want to see that the document has been filed with court so that the ownership can be cleaned up. ff the ownership paperwork is not done by June l, she needs to move on this property. If it is done by June 1, they can talk about getqng the other items done, such as the bond, the work plan, and the Code Compliance Inspection. The fact that the windows were broken out undemunes the cleanup that was done. Mr. Ma�er stated the building needs to be registered as a vacant buildine and the fees are due. In suimnary, Ms. Moermond recommends the owner provide court documents re�arding the ownership paperwork by noon of Wednesday, June 1. If that is done, she will recommend that the City Council lay over this matter to the June 7 Legislative Hearing. Referred Back to Legislative Hearing: 338 Bur2ess Street. (J0405E, J0406E) The following appeazed: Ann Wiberg, owner; and Paul Gazding, friend. Steve Magner stated he understands that this has to do with an Excessive Consumption, and this has already been passed by the City Council. Mr. Garding stated that this seems to boil down to peeling paint. There were other things that were taken caze o£ The hole underneath the porch and a broken door had been replaced, and trees had been cut down. The inspector, however, got fixated on the peeling paint. This whole property is going to be redone. They have gone through court and reached an agreement about what needs to be done and when. Ms. Moermond asked if he has any of those court materials with him today. Mr. Garding responded no. Mr. Maa er added that he has the manifold from court which indicates the position of the tag. It looks like there were two counts of failure to maintain the gazage and failure to maintain the exterior structure of the house. The orders were issued on 6-22-04. The inspector was at the property and issued a Correction Notice at 338 Burgess Street to do the following: 1) replace the rotting and missing fascia boards on the garage, 2} scrape and paint the gazage, 3) replace the defective window on the west side, 4) replace rotting flooring on the east side porch, 5) replace rotting east side porch door, 6) scrape and paint the wood exterior surface. The inspector went back, and the yazd was not clea�. It was reinspected after 8-2-04. On 8-20- 04, there was no change, photographs were taken, and a$50 Excessive Consumption was issued. On 10-4-04, an inspection of the property was made. When they issued an Excessive Consumption letter, the letter indicated there is a time frame, and there is an indication that the property would be reinspected on 9-20-04. On 10-1-04, the house and gazage were not in compliance, so another photo was taken, and a$75 Excessive Consumption bill was issued. Ms. Moermond asked was there communication during this time period. Ed Smith responded that he did not have conversation with the owner until she contacted Mr. Dawkins (NHPI), which was probably after the two Excessive Consumption bills were issued. pS-Ca�L LEGTSLATIVE F3EARING NIIN`CJTES OF MAY 17, 2005 Page 3 iVlr. Magner continued: On 11-17-04, Mr. Smith went to the properry and found the porch door and floor repaired. A photograph was taken. There was a$150 Excessive Consumption letter sent and a crinvual citation as per office policy. On 2-2-05, Mr. Smith indicated the court had given a date for compliance and the sentence was to suspend prosecution of the citation if the following is done: no same or similar violarions in one yeaz, pay $100 fine, reach compliance by 6-13-OS for the gazage, and start to remodel the house by 6-1-05. Mr. Gazdi.ng responded that is also his understanding, as well. Mr. Magner stated he does not think this is a fixation on paint. The Correction Notice is very cleaz on Item 1 about replacing the rotting or missing fascia boazd and painting the garage. (Mr. Magner submitted photographs.) In response to questions, Mr. Magner responded that the Excessive Consumption is specific to an item on an order. Mr. Smith made the Excessive Consumption relative to the garage, so it was consistendy the reinspection on the garage violations that were not corrected. The tag was issued for both items. Ms. Moermond asked several questions. Mr. Wiberg responded she bought the house in 1988. They had a car tagged which was removed prompdy. This excessive consumption is a minor offense compared to other properties he has seen. They took care of about 90% of the problem. Ms. Moermond asked what initiated this inspection. Mr. Smith responded it was a sweep requested by the district's community council. Ms. Moermond stated she does not think there is targeting going on. She is seeing rotting wood. She sees corrections that need to be made, and they were written up. It sounds like the owner is working to address this. T`here is financing in place to do the rehabilitation. They have committed to the court system that they will have the garage fixed by June 13. Mr. Garding responded yes they will have the pernut in place to begin the remodeling process or they will paint the trim on the house. In the end, it will ail be torn off again if it is remodeled. The reason he has been resisting is because he does not want to just patch things together to satisfy the inspector. He would rather do it once and do it right. Ms. Moermond responded they are looking at a code violation, and there has been a correction order issued on it. They are talking about the trip charges for the inspectors coming out and inspecting once the initial violation was written up. The owner needs to fix these violations. There is a procedure for appealing the original order (before it becomes an assessment). In the future, if they get Conection Orders, there aze two steps to be taken: 1) talk to the Andy Dawkins, Director, or the inspector; 2) appeal the orders to the Legislative Hearing Officer. Ms. Moermond asked will the items be addressed by the end of the suimner. Ms. Wiberg responded yes and Mr. Garding respended they will be fixed one way or another. Ms. Moermond stated they were able to find $225 in tax assessments related to this (note: J0405E is $130 and J0406E is $95; the $150 assessment is not before Ms. Moermond). Mr. Q�-(�y LEGISLATNE HEARING �JTES OF MAY 17, 2005 Page 4 Smith responded there are three assessments: $75 letter was dated 10-4-04, the $50 letter was dated 8-23-04, and the $1501etter was dated 11-18-04. Ms. Moermond reduced the total assessment of $225 to a total of $70, but there still is another assessment for $150 plus processing fees. When the owner gets that letter, she should send back the gold cazd and appeal it. Appeal of Summary Abatement Order and Vehicle Abatement Order at 741 Mount Curve Boulevard; owner: Patrick Speltz. (NFiPn Patrick Speltz, owner, appeazed and stated the items aze still out there. (Photographs were shown.) Ms. Moermond stated she is seeing bricks and a caz seat. Mr. Schiller added there were bricks, wood, and screens against the shed, but the screens were not part of the original orders. Mr. Speltz stated he called Petco because he got tired of picking up their trash. Petco is across the alley. A neighbor called the City, and the City inspectors went down the alley. Mr. Schiller stated it is a hidden alley there, and orders were written to pick it up. They had to ca11 the Pollution Control Agency to take care of 16-five gallon pails of something across the alley. He saw the qualiry of the other properties, but he did not get to see what kind of cleanup occurred. Properties were written up. Someone brought in concrete steps and dumped them on Petco's property. It defuutely needed to be called in. Mr. Speltz stated he is working on a patio. The brick is from that. He has fiuther work to do, as he is demolishing his bathroom and kitchen. He is completely landscaping. The car seat was left behind by his previous tenant. There will be fiu�ther debris out back. He would like to wait until June when the work is done and then have it all hauled out at one time. Ms. Moermond stated she is seeing a pile of bricks and various things. Mr. Speltz stated he cleaned everythiug. He had new windows put in, so put the old ones in the grass and hasn't removed them. He got another order from Mike that his bricks and pallets were encroaching on his property. He put Class 5 down. He has a tag from License, Inspections, Environmental Protection. Mr. Schiller responded he cannot address that tag because it is from a different department. Mr. Speltz stated that he was going to make arrangements to have the property surveyed. He was hoping to not rent a dumpster and Bobcat twice because it is expensive. Ms. Moermond responded she is not seeing remodeling stuff; she is seeing piles of junk, wood, brick, and chairs. Mr. Schiller stated he put all the bricks in one pallet. Mr. Schiller responded he is only addressing things that are not on the orders. He is not worried about pallets or bricks. He is concerned with the things he took a picture of and the car, but the caz was taken care of.