07-1156Council File #07-1156
AMENDED 12/19/07 Green Sheet #3045132
Presented by
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
��
WHEREAS, Depariment of Safety and Inspections has requested the City Council to
hold public hearings to consider the advisability and necessity of ordering the repair or wrecking
and removal of a two story wood frame duplex located on property hereinafter referred to as the
"Subject Properiy" and commonly known as 610 MAGNOLIA AVENUE EAST. This
property is legally described as follows, to wit:
ARLINGTON HILLS ADDITION TO ST. PAUL 40/45 THRU 49 LOT 8 BLK 5
WHEREAS, based upon the records in the Ramsey County Recorder's Office and
information obtained by Department of Safety and Inspections on or before March 31, 2007, the
following are the now known interested or responsible parties for the Subject Property: IB
Property Holdings Llc/Co Bayview Loan Servicing Llc, 4425 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Coral
Gables, FL 33146-1839; Garth Johnson, 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd, Minneapolis, MN 55439;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
District 5 Planning Council.
WHEREAS, Department of Safety and Inspections 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 August 1, 2007; and
WHEREAS, this order informed the then known interested or responsible parties that the
structure 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 August 31, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the enforcement officer has posted a placard on the Subject Property
declaring this building(s) to constitute a nuisance condition; subject to demolition; and
WHEREAS, this nuisance condition has not been corrected and Department of Safety
and Inspections requested that the City Clerk schedule public heazings before the Legislative
Hearing Officer of the Ciiy 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 Paui Legislative Code, of the time, date, place and
purpose of the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Legislative Hearing Officer of the Saint Paul
City Councii on Tuesday, November 13, 2007 to hear testimony and evidence, and after
receiving testimony and evidence, made the recommendation to approve the request to order the
67�//h?�
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
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
altemative 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 fdteen
(1� days after the date of the Council Hearing; and
WHEREAS, additional hearin¢s were held before the Le�islative Hearin� Officer when
the proposed purchaser of the propertv. Mr. Wamou Lee backed out of the nurchase
arrangement, and the seller accepted the nurchase offer of Mr. Michael Cassidy, who presented
to the Le�islative Hearin�Officer rehabilitation nlans for the �ronertv: and
WIIEREAS, the initial rehabilitation nlans nresented bv Mr. Cassidv were deemed to be
inadequate in a review conducted bv the vacant buildingpro¢ram manaeer and the Legislative
Hearing Officer and: there£are, the City Council referred the matter back to leeislative hearina
where more fullv develo�ed and complete vlans were presented and
WHEREAS, based on this subsequent review of the rehabilitation ulans the Letislative
Hearing Officer recommends that Mr. Michael Cassidv be granted one-hundred twentv (120�
days far the rehabilitation of the properiy, on the condirion that the monthlv renorts from
Department of Safetv and Insnections staff confirm that he is meetinP his self-developed
deadlines outlined below, and with the understandinq that failure to meet these deadlines will
result in the matter beinQ referred back to the Citv Council by the LePislative Hearin¢ Officer for
further action to abate the nuisance;
Workplan Deadlines:
Weeks 1-4 Framing $8,000
Weeks 1-7 Window Reuair and Renlacement $3 700
Weeks 1-7 Exteriorpoors $500
Weeks 1-7 Landscanina, etc. $400
Weeks 2-8 Sidina & Trim Repair/Replacement $800
Weeks 2-8 Roofine $7 700
Weeks 2-8 Gutters $1 200
Weeks 2-8 Electrical $3.900
Weeks 3 Demo Wall Coverings $200
Weeks 3-8 HVAC $3300
Weeks 3-10 Pluxnbine $8 300
Weeks 7-13 Drywall $4 500
Weeks 10-14 Interior Wall Finishin¢ $3 200
Weeks 10-16 Cabinets. Counters, etc. $3 850
Weeks 12-16 Exterior Paint $2,900
Weeks 14-16 Floorin� $3 200
d7-//��
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
WHEREAS, a hearing was held before the Saint Paul City Councii on Wednesday,
December 5, 12 and 19, 2007, and the testimony and evidence inciuding 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 610 MAGNOLIA AVENUE EAST.
1. That the Subject Property comprises a nuisance condition as defined in Saint Paul
Legislative Code, Chapter 45.
2. That the costs of demolition and removal of this building(s) is estimated to exceed
five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
3. That there now exists and has existed multiple Housing or Building code
violations at the Subj ect Property.
4. That an Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s) was sent to the then known
responsible parties to conect the deficiencies or to demolish and remove the
building(s).
Q
7
That the deficiencies causing this nuisance condition haue not been conected.
That Department of Safety and Inspections has posted a placard on the Subject
Property which declares it to be a nuisance condition subject to demolition.
That this building has been routinely monitored by Department of Safety and
Inspections, Vacant/Nuisance Buildings.
8. That the known interested parties and owners are as previously stated in this
resolurion 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 ail applicable codes and ardinances, or in the alternative by demolishing
and removing the siructure in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances. The
rehabilitation or demolition and removal of the structure must be completed within
r.r�«c„�7 one-hundred twenty (120) days after the date of the Council Hearing.
o�-r��"�
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
2. If the above correcrive acrion is not completed within this period of time Deparlment of
Safety and Inspections is hereby authorized to take whatever steps are 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, ail
personal property or fixtures of any kind 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.
142 4. It is further ordered, that a copy of this resolution be mailed to the owners and interested
143 parties in accordance with Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
Requested by Depart�iient o£
Adoprion Certified by Council Secretary
By: �
Approved by Date
By:
Safety and Inspections
Code Enforcemern / Vacant Building
B
Form Approved by CiTy Attomey
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �a/fG//��_
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
117- //�lo
Departme�rt/office/council: Datelnifiated:
S , -��of��.&�� ,2-�-0� Green Sheet NO: 3045132
CoMaet Person & Phone:
Bob Kessler
26Cr9013
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-0ocumeM Required: N
Document ConWct:
CorMaet Piane:
�
0.ssign
Number
For
Routing
Order
ToW I# of Signature Pages _(Clip AII Loeatiore for Signature)
0 t of Ss & Ias 'oas
1 L of Sa & Ins ctlore rtment DireUOr
3 or'sOffice Ma or/Assisdnt
4 ouncil
5 C7uk ' Clerk
�
City Council to pass this resolution which will order the owner(s) to remove or repair the referenced building(s). If the owner fails to
comply with the resolurion, the Depattment of Safety and Inspections is ordered to remove the building. The subject propedy is
tocated at 610 MAGNQLIA AVE E.
iaauons: approve (n) or n
Plannirg Commission
CIB Committee
Civil Service Commission
1. Has ihis perso�rtn ever worked under a coMract for this departmeM?
Yes No
2. Has this personffirtn ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person�rm possess a skili not rwrtnaiy possessed by any
curzent ciry employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attaeh to green sheet
Inkiating Problem, lssues, OppoRunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
1'his building(sj is a nuisance building(s) as defined in Cl�apter 45 and a vacant building as defined in Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code. The owners, iaterested parties and responsible parties known to the Enforcement Officer were given an order to
repair or remove the building at 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E by August 31, 2007, and bave failed to comply with those orders.
Advantages If Approved:
The City will eliminate a nuisance.
DisadvaMages If Approved:
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 properry taces.
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight the community.
DisarNaMages It Not Approved:
A nuisance condition will remain unabated in the City. This building(s) will continue to blight [he communiry.
Transaction:
CosflRevenue Budgeted:
Fu�d�ng source: Nuisance Housing Abatement--- �"^b Nu°?bQr 001-00257 �
Pinaneial IMortnation:
(Explain)
.
i
October 12, 2007 9:49, AM Page 1
���E���
�t � i � -_° 2��7
1, � . � �����
L�c�"•"w
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS
' Dick Lippert, Manager of Code Enforcement
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christopher B. Coleman, Mayor
1600 GYhite Bear Ave N
SarntPaul, MN 55106
October 12, 2007
�_.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Nu.isance Buildtng Enforcement
�7' ���
Council President and
Members of the City Council
Tel (651j 266-1900
Fax. (651) 266-19?6
y„�„ r-nn�(?!'
�a:�� � 2 �'
Department of Safety and Inspections , Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Enforcement Division
has requested the City Council schedule public hearings to consider a resolution ordering
the repair or removal of the nuisance building(s) located at:
610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
The City Council has scheduled the date of these hearings as follows
Legislative Hearing — Tuesday, November 13, 2007
City Council Hearing — Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The owners and responsible parties of record are:
Name and Last Known Address
IB Property Holditigs Llc/Co Bayview Loan
Servicing Llc
4425 Ponce De Leon Blvd
Coral Gables FL 33146-1837
Garth Johnson
5120 Edina Industrial Blvd
Minneapolis, MN 55439
District 5 Planning Council
d5-director@visi.com
Interest
Foreclosure Purchaser
Interested Party
District Council Contact
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
610 Magnolia Ave E
October 12, 2007
Page 2
The legal description of this property is:
07- !/57.0
ARL-INGTON HILLS ADDITION TO ST. PAUL 40/45 THRU 49 LOT 8 BLK 5
The Department of Safety and Inspections has declared this building(s) to consritute a
"nuisance" as defined by Legslative Code, Chapter 45. The Aeparhnent of Safety and
Inspections has issued an order to the then known responsible parties to eliminate this
nuisance condition by correcting the deficiencies or by razing and removing this
building(s).
The property was re-inspected on September 5, 2007. There was no compliance and the
nuisance condition remains unabated, the community continues to suffer the blighting
influence of this property. It is Che recommendation of the Department of Safety and
Inspections that the City Council pass a resolution ordering the responsible parties to
either repair, or demolish and remove this building in a timely manner, and failing that,
authorize the Department of Safety and Inspections 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,
Steve Magner
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Manager
Department of Safety and Inspections
SM:nm
cc: Judy Hanson, City Attomeys Office
Mary Erickson, Assistant Secretary to the Council
Cindy Carlson, PED-Housing Division
Stacey Millett, Invest St. Paul
District Council — Community Organizer
pubhrng60183 06/09
��-�/�
SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC HEARING
610 Magnolia Avenue East
Legislative Hearing — Tuesday, November 13, 2007
City Council — Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The building is a rivo-story, wood frame, duplex on a lot of 4,792 square feet.
According to our files, it has been a vacant building since December 15, 2006.
The current property owner is IB Property Holdings LLC, per AMANDA and Ramsey county
property records.
There have been five (5) Si_JMMARY ABATEMENT NOTICES since 2006.
There have been three (3) WORK ORDERS issued for:
- Removal of improperly stored refuse
- Removal of snow and ice
The city has had to board this building to secure it from trespass.
On June 17, 2007, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies which
constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An ORDER TO
ABATE A NUISANCE BUILDING was posted on August 1, 2007 with a compliance date of
August 31, 2007. As of this date this property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance
as defined by the legislative code.
The Vacant Building registration fees are paid.
Tasarion has placed an estimated market value of $40,000 on the land and $110,000 on the
building.
As of May 25, 2007, a Code Compliance inspection has been completed.
As of November 12, 2007, the $5,000.00 performance bond has not been posted.
Real Estate tases are current.
Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this shucture is $60,000 to $70,000. The
estimated cost to Demolish is $10,000 to $12,000.
NI3PI, Division of Code Enforcement Resolution submatted for consideration orders the property
owner to repair or remove this structure within fifteen (15) days, if not the resolution authorizes
the Division of Code Enforcement to demolish and assess the costs to the property.
Tax & Properiy Characteristic Information - Structure Description
Page 1 of 2
D7- //�
Home SiYe Map Cantact Us
Tax & Property Characteristic Information -
Structure Description
RRInfo Hame � � Insiqhts � � Property Look up � � Record Documents � � Contact Us
New Pr�erty Search
Back to Search Results
Quick Info
Pr_operty Information
Tax�ayer Name and
Add ress
Value Information
Value Historv
Structure Description
Sale infiormation
Speciai Assessments
Praoerty Tax Payr�ent
Information
Pronerty Tax Pavment
History
Current Property Tax
StatemenilVa{u2 Notice
2006 Property Tax
StatemenJVaiue Notice
ZdQS Properiv Tax
StatemenlVafue Notiee
Z004_Prop�rt�ax
Statement/Value Notice
> Structure Description
Property Identification 29.29.22.13.0040
Number (PIN)
Property Address 610 Magnolia Ave E
St. Paul 55130-3839
Residential Property:
Year Built 1885
# of Stories 1.50
Style One And 3/4 Story
Exterior Wall Frame
Total Rooms 8
Total Family Rooms 0
Total Bedrooms 4
Fuil Baths 2
Haif Baths 0
Attic Type
Finished SQ Feet 1813
Foundation Size 1036
Basement Area Finished
Finished Rec Area
Garage Type
Area (sq.ft.)
Parcel Size .li Acres
Parcel Width 40.00 Feet
Parcel Depth 125.00 Feet
Land Use Code 510
Land Use Description R- Single Family Dwelling,
Piatted Lot
http://rrinfo.coramseymn.us/public/characterisric/Parcel.pasp?scrn=Dwelling&pin=2929... ] 1/12/2007
DEPARTNIENT OF SAFETYAND INSPECTIONS D�,� //��
Bob Kess[eq Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
ChristopherB. Coleman, Mayor
COMMERCEBUILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
8 Fourth Sbeet East, Suite 200 Facs�mile: 6�]-166-9099
S1Paul,Minnesota55701-1024 Web wwwst�ul.zov/dsi
May 25, 2007
GARTHJOHNSON
1NTERBAY FUNDING
5120 EDiNA INDUSTRIAL BLVD
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439
Re: 610 Magnolia Ave E
File#: 06 287357 VB2
Dear Property Owner:
Pursuant to your request the above-referenced property was inspected and the following report is
submitted:
BUILDING
1. Both front and back stairs need to be rebuiit or repaired, and uniformly leveled.
2. Replace all rotted or decayed posts and beams in basement — insure footings.
3. Remove all wall and ceiling covering in basement. Replace all framing and foundarion
as needed.
4. Remove all old roof covering and replace. Also, replace all rotted roof boards and rafters,
with permit and inspections.
5. Remove east side addition that is falling away from building. Replace or rebuild as needed,
with plans and permits.
6. Remove a11 basement floor covering and household carpet.
7. Insure basement cellar floor is level, is cleanable, and all holes are filled.
8. Install hand and guardrails on all stairways and steps as per attachment.
9. Strap or support top of stair stringers.
10. Install plinth blocks under posts in basement with footings, to Code.
11. Tuck Point interior/exterior foundation.
12. Install floor covering in the bathroom and kitchen that is impervious to water.
13. Install tempered glass in window on stair landing to Code.
14. Install tempered glass in window over bathtub to Code.
15. Provide thumb type dead bolts for all entry doors. Remove any surface bolts.
16. Repair or replace any deteriorated window sash, broken glass, sash holders, re-putty etc. as
necessary.
17. Provide complete storms and screens, and repair all door and window openings.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
D�-l/S�
Page 2
610 East Magnolia Avenue
18. Repair walls and ceilings throughout, as necessary.
19. Re-level structure as much as is practical.
20. Where wall and ceiling covering is removed, attic, replace doors and windows, (insulation,
glass, weather stripping, etc.) shall meet new energy code standards.
21. Prepaze and paint interior and exterior as necessary (take the necessary precautions if lead
base paint is present).
22. Any framing members that do not meet code (where wall and ceiling covering is removed,
members that are over-spanned, over-spaced, not being camed properly, door and window
openings that are not headered, etc.) are to be reconstructed as per code.
23. Provide general clean-up ofpremise.
24. Provide smoke detectors as per the Minnesota State Building Code.
25. Repair soffit, fascia trim, etc. as necessary.
26. Provide proper drainage around house to direct water away from foundarion.
27. Install downspouts and a complete gutter system.
ELECTRICAL
1. Ground the electrical service to the water service within >'of the entrance point of the water service.
2. Bond around water meter with a copper wire sized for the electrical service per Article 250 of the NEC
3. Provide a complete circuit directory at service panels.
4. Verify that fuse or circuit breaker amperage matches wire size.
5. Close open knockouts in service panel or junction boxes with knockout seals and breaker blanks.
6. Properly strap cables and conduits in basement or service conduit on the exterior of the house.
• /l„o l�rThf w� �gf hP c�i»4�h
i . i � , ., -i�. .. —
at top of stairs.
• 8. Ground batt�room light in first bathroom.
9. Tnstall globe-type enclosed light fixture on all closet lights.
10. Repair or replace all broken, missing or loose light fixtures, switches & outlets, covers and plates.
11. Check all 3-wire outlets for proper polarity and verify ground.
12. Install hard-wired, battery backup smoke detector, as specified in Bulletin 80-1, and other smoke
detectors as required by the IRC.
13. Install exterior lights at front entry door.
14. Remove andlor rewire all illegal, improper or hazazdous wiring in basement.
15. Replace second floor panel. (one phase over-heated)
D�-!lSlv
Page 3
610 East Magnolia Avenue
PLUMBING
All plumbing work requires permit(s) and must be done by a plumbing contractor licensed in
Saint Paul.
Basement:
1. Water heater is not fired or in service.
2. Temperature and pressure relief valve discharge piping and gas venting are incorrect.
3. Water heater does not have a gas shut-off.
4. Repair or replace all corroded, broken or leaking water piping.
5. Water piping/fittings are improper and pipe sizing is incorrect.
6. Remove and cap a11 unused gas lines.
7. Soil and waste piping has no front sewer cleanout; no soil stack base clean-out.
8. Piping has improper connections, transitions, fitting or pipe usage.
9. Remove saddle tee to main stack.
10. Bath room waste is incorrect.
11. Remove and cap all unused piping to Code.
First Floor:
12. Laundry waste and water piping are incorrect.
13. Lavatory, kitchen sink and water closet have incorrect venting and waste.
Second Floor:
14. Bathtub and water closet have inconect venting and waste.
HEATING
1. *Duplex (?) There appears to be a second furnace in the attic for second floor. Provide
access and verify furnace is installed to Code and rated for attic installation.
*If this is a duplex a separate heating system is required.
2. Clean and Orsat furnace burner. Check all controls for proper operarion. Submit
report from licensed contractor.
3. Check furnace heat exchanger for leaks and provide documentation.
4. Install chimney liner.
5. Replace furnace flue venring and provide proper pitch for gas appliance venting and
rie furnace and water heater venting into chimney liner.
6. Provide adequate clearance from flue vent pipe on furnace/boiler to combustible materials or
provide approved shielding according to Code.
7. Recommend adequate combustion air.
8. Provide support for gas lines to Code. Plug, cap and/or remove all disconnected gas lines.
9. Clean all supply and return ducts for wann air heating system.
1 Q. Repair and/or replace heating registers as necessary.
11. Provide heat in every habitable room and bathrooms.
12. Appropriate mechanical gas permits are required for this work.
b�.-//5�
Page 4
610 East Magnolia Avenue
ZONING
L This property was inspected as a single family dwelling.
NOTES
**See attachment for permit requirements.
Provide plans and specifications for any portion of the building that is to be rebuilt.
There was considerable storage/clutter within property at the rime of the inspection. Property is
to meet appropriate Codes when complete.
All items noted as recommended do not have to be completed for code compiiance but should be
completed at a later date. Possible purchasers of property sliall be made aware of these items.
**VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION FEES MUST SE PAID AT
NEIGHBORHOOD AOUSING AND PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT (NHPII FOR
PERMITS TO BE ISSUED ON THIS PROPERTYxx. For further information call, NHPI at
651-266-1900, located at 1600 White Bear Avenue.
Sincerely,
James L. Seeger
Code Compliance Officer
JLS:ld
Attachments
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS
DickLippert, Manager ofCode Enforcernent
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Christapher B. Coleman, Mayor
Nuisance Building Enforcement
I600 i�htte Bear Ave N
SaintPaul, MN i5106
��� ���
Tel: (65I) 266-1900
Fax: (651) 266-1926
August l, 2007
Ib Property Holdings Llc
/Co Bayview Loan Servicing Llc
4425 Ponce De Leon Blvd
Coral Gables FL 33146-1837
Garth Johnson
5120 Edina Industrial Blvd.
Mpls., MN 55439
Order to Abate Nuisance Building(s)
Dear: Sir or Madam
The Vacant/Nuisance Buildings Unit, Department of the Department of Safety and
Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement, hereby declares the premises Located at:
610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
and legally described as follows, to wit:
ARLINGTON HILLS ADDITION TO ST. PAUL 40/45 THRU 49 LOT 8 BLK 5
to comprise a nuisance condition in viotation of the Saint Paul Legislative Code,
Chapter 45.02, and subject to demolition under authority of Chapter 45.11.
On June 17, 2007, a Building Deficiency Inspection Report was compiled and the
following conditions were observed.
This �ist of deficiencies is not necessarily all the deficiencies present at this time. As
first remedial action, a Code Compliance Inspection must be obtained from the
Building Inspection and Design Section, 8 Fourth Street East, Suite 200, Commerce
Building (651)266-9090. That inspecfion will idenfify specific defects, necessary
repairs and legal requirements to correct this nuisance condition. You may also be
required to post a five thousand dollar ($5,000.00) performance bond with the
Building Inspection and Design Office before any permits are issued, except for a
demolirion permit.
This building(s) is subject to the restrictions of Saint Paul Ordinance Chapter 33.03 and
shall not again be used for occupancy until such time as a Certificate of Compliance or a
Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.
This is a two-story, wood frame duplex.
AA-ADA-EEO Employer
August 1, 2007
610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
page 2
Interior
��%/ �`O
The interior ceilings are defecrive. Repair all ceiling defects and finish
in a professional manner.
2. The interior walls aze defecrive. Repair all wall defects and finish in a
professional manner.
There is evidence of a rodent infestation. Immediately exterminate and
eliminate all rodents from the entire building. Remove rodent
harborages in the yard azeas. Tuckpoint the foundation if necessary to
rodent-proof the building to prevent re-infestation. Immediately remove
any dead rodents from the premises.
4. The bathroom floor covering is deteriorated or inadequate. Provide
floor covering which is impervious to water and easily cleanabie
throughout the bathroom and seal around the edges and fixtures.
5. Lack of basic facilities. Electric and/or gas service shut off.
6. Evidence of improper wiring. Have a licensed electrician certify
system,.
7. FURNACE: Have a licensed heating contractor service and clean the
furnace or boiler and make any necessary repairs. Perform a C/O test on
the heating plant. Then, send the attached form back to the Inspector.
Repair of gas fired appliances requires a permit.
8. The kitchen floor is deteriorated. Repair/replace.
Exterior
9. The zoof is deteriorated, defecrive, or in a state of disrepair. Repair or
replace the roof covering to a sound, tight and water nnpervious
condition. Permit may be required.
10. The foundation is deteriorated, defective or in a state of disrepair.
Repair all foundation defects in a professional manner to a
weather-right, water-right and rodent-proof condition. Permit may be
required.
11. The window and/or door screens are missing, defective or in a state of
disrepair. Provide proper window and door screens for all openable
windows and doors. Screens must be tight-fitting and securely fastened
to the frames.
August1,2007
610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
page 3
��'��J(%
12. The windows and/or storm windows aze in a state of disrepair. Replace
all missing or broken window glass. Make all necessary repairs to
frames, sashes, hardware and associated trim in a professional manner.
Perxnit may be required.
13. T'he exterior walls of the house and/or garage are defective. Repair all
holes, breaks, loose or rotting siding, to a professional state of
maintenance.
14. The eaves and soffits are in a state of disrepair or deterioration. Repair
all defects, holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards, to a professional state
of maintenance. Permit may be requued.
As owner, agent or responsible party, you are hereby notified tt�at if these deficiencies and
the resulring nuisance condition is not corrected by August 31, 2007 the Deparhnent of
Safety and Inspecrions, Division of Code Enforcement, will begin a substantial abatement
process to demolish and remove the building(s). The costs of this action, including
administrative costs and demolition costs will be assessed against the property taxes as a
special assessment in accordance with law.
As first remedial action, a Code Compliance Inspection Report must be obtained from the
Building Inspection and Design Section, 8 Fourth Street, Suite #200, Commerce
Building, (651)266-9090. This inspecfion will idenrify specific defects, necessary repairs
and legal requirements to correct this nuisance condition.
As an owner or responsible party, you are required by law to provide full and complete
disclosure of this "Order to Abate" to a11 interested parties, all present or subsequent
renters and any subsequent owners. If you sell, transfer, or convey in any manner, the
ownership or responsibility for this property, you must within seven (7) days, notify the
Enforcement Officer with the names and addresses of any new owners or responsible
parties.
The Enforcement Officer is required by law to post a placard on this property which
declares it to be a"nuisance condition", subject to demolition and removal by the City.
This placazd sha11 not be removed without the written authority of the Department of
Safety and Inspections, Division of Code Enforcement. The department is further
required to file a copy of this "Order to Abate" with the Ciry Clerk's Office.
If corrective action is not taken within the rime specified in this order, the Enforcement
Officer will notify the City Council that abatement action is necessary. The City Clerk
will then schedule dates for Public Hearings before the City Council at which time
testimony will be heard from interested parties. After this hearing the City Council will
adopt a resolution stating what action if any, it deems appropriate.
If the resolution calls for abatement acrion the Council may either order the City to take
the abatement action or fix a tune within which this nuisance must be abated in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 33 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code and
August1,2007
b10 MAGNOLIA AVE E
page 4
D7� ��> �
provide that if conecrive action is not taken within the specified time, the City shall abate
this nuisance. The costs of this acfion, including administrative costs will be assessed
against the property as a special assessment in accordance with law.
If you have any questions or request addirional information please contact Joe
Yannarelly between the hours of 8:00 and 9:30 a.m. at 651-266-1920, or you may leave
a voice mail message.
Sincerely,
Steve Magner
Vacant Buildings Program Manager
Division of Code Enforcement
ca Mary Erickson - Council Research
Cindy Carlson - PED Housing
Amy Spong — Heritage Preservation
ota60135 6/07
67'//5
r
O
0
N
ri
e�r
d
�
�
O
�.
a�+
R
A
bA
.�
�
�
x
u
�
�
a,
�
O
O
N
N
e-�
i.
v
�
0
v
O
d
�
A
•�
�
r
0
O
N
�
�
G
u
d
A
�
�
Q
'u
�
0
U
�
U
W
�
7
F,"
Y
i
�
�
0
bA
R
�
�
�
�
d
"�
�
0
0
N
�
d
�
�
�
�
�
�
a
O
u
d
a
C
.ti
e�
a
y J
O y�., �
U �' � �
� U � V]
� � •� � �
C
O
� � i�/] ��"' N
W ;7 c. U
V� N
"6
� � �
C�. N N
� -IYi .�+
T T
O �, �
� O O ,�
L U � �
� � N �
� � O
� � �
�
a �
pp M
w ^' Q 'rJ � ^d
. V U ,? ' . -y+
� � ���� ��
'� � "� � � � �, �a �,
0 o v�
� � •� b � a � N
� �� o a v w � � �
x' (� �; o ..
� �
w � � °' == � � '
v, ° � • C c�a � ° a.
O -C
U� p �' P. �'-' W a`�i
� 'i7 P�- � N s�, � � �
Q � O � O � ,� �
-a � o v U C7 �n
Y��' v
� � i+
O � .Ci
a U �
q '" � �,
' � � a" �
`U p y� p"
a' � O �
C U �
r" '� y s�,
^� O y
I� �1 IH
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354 07— /��
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 292922130040
�- �
; „� : 8; . x ,; �-.. -�:;
� , � � c � .
A'� m �� ��� C ' � ' � � � �'ic�� �- � ,' Y
.' q � �
_� 1 F -"Y?L�i�
' �� � . w' .. �.ti.���� Z., `�—, �1.. -1
�'� � .� '
-:��,� ,.: �e
. �`'+"�° � � .. �..�-� i 'v�?'
' �•" S �+N' `+ i
�h ' �$ . .�R. -�„ a �,- � .
� S�.
�- '�t z 5. �' �: ` '�"..� w��'§. '�' .
1- �
� �.,y .,� . + s
'�`� �: %'ra�.... � } y .'� .. `4.�'�.
♦ � �° p ,,-�' �
I � '7� � xr�� t �' �`
b � . � '' : t ,a . .r''r.i
D.� ✓� �T .. ��x,P h S �� �� �
l c � � 5
�f' r ,e *�a� _:L...umi�d �L�`'J1f; C�'
� `
.. :. ,�`�" � i � �ri14`R �g4 .
• � - " E �, St'ttn �
s � � � �
v
>
i �� � t5�2v0 r�,sPam3 '.
'� �.• � . yu� m.WUO:tPikr ! '"...�-'�EY[s�I
. ..�^ . :. ,�� �, . .
.. .eS ". 8 fav� �vr��
2 � I �!
�' l �{ ""�a' y+g���� '.
� ,� �� d
�-: � , �r. . '
,
� �. � M.°, :.� ��.:�u.. .�..3t4v.m:m:.auwa: vt� �� � i' �' ...�a_.:ii
F �� �
���� �
L � � d�
�� � �� ,
� � ��
+� � �. `�. i � � ,� � ,� ,s�.s�i >i
. _' ...,��'� s�-� �d� ar c� v�>;° 3 ��ms :`" ..�.
- � � � f s
. ,:._' ��v �;� .. usn�' �> >� � �� �._m�. .' �
�; `,_ ..�..._ ,...... �` ....;,''' __,.�n�...t, ° :,�. ..._....r
° 5
� :
�F ' '
� t
. . + (•
„i'�
.'f��
r:r .�. , �-� - _�.
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354 b �� ��5�
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354 ��� f ��Zy
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E ��.-���
PIN: 292922134040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
d����
PIN: 292922130040
�` . :
' .-,: �!
t; �' . . �
`
�' ����:�
;; �;
��,
�
;i
_ ,:
,,:
a�
t.
�,�
,..,.
T
_ .,
,
.. . . . , : .
i
'°-sc_"`e,�Y ...
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E D7� /�!]'�p
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
Rile #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E D'7� ���
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E D�— ���
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E 6�.� ���
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E b 7� ���
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E D�����
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2Q07
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E b�� �/r7„
PIN: 292922130040 ���
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E D� ���
PIN: 292922130040
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E /
PIN: 292922130040 �� �� f�
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E //�,,
PIN: 292922130040 b�' �1 %u'
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E �"
PIN: 292922130040 p�"��/(y
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E �
PIN: 292922130040 �� `��`� �
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E D � r t//
PIN: 292922130040 � /
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 292922130040 U?����
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 292922130040 6� �`�
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 242922130040 D�� ��fj�Q
Date: July 18, 2007
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E �
PIN: 292922130040 /� / "� ��
� _ �� � �_
r.� -. . � � _ : `
: . -" � � ..
. _ ` M - �� ` Y _ . '
�`� . . �"�� � � -
<
� . �� � � .. e'.
�'< • y ' • a.k. * .
_ ° s a
� . � � � � � �` * � ' �
�1! ?- � .�;,.
-:� - , w �:.���� " : ,
T'''-
{ �
A .r
� � �t R
� �
� 'i
� � � .
. �.�.. . v.,�.
, _.,��w, . -
. ri . _ . �►�;.., . �_ � -
;�, � �� '. ` _ ,:
+. _•
�. ° .. rt .Ya. . . ,. .
p!{` ry'
T ; _ 4 .
"� � ' ��
� '�
�� �.
< y � .
'� r,:.+:.i����'����
M � I �
i[: �
°� �.t .si_N N .. '. . . .
Date; July 18, 2Q07
File #: 06 - 287354
Folder Name: 610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
PIN: 292922130040 b7' ��LJ�D
Date:
File #:
Folder Name:
PIN:
July 18,2007
06 - 287354
610 MAGNOLIA AVE E
292922130040
�. " :i
r
r
' ,J°;"
- �' . t"'.��,> "-
� :� ,
. ��i:._ .-. ."
� ;
d�� I ��J�
November 13, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes b/�11 � Page 7
5. Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 610 Ma�nolia Avenue within
fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution.
Mr. Magner stated the building was a two-story, wood frame, duplex on a lot of 4,792 square feet
and had been vacant since December 15, 2006. A code compliance inspection had been done on
May 25, 2007 and the vacant building registration fees were current. The $5,000 performance bond
had not been posted. On June 17, 2007, an inspection of the building was done and a list of
deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed. An order to abate a nuisance
building was posted on August 1, 2007 with a compliance date of August 31, 2007. To date, the
property remained in a condition which comprised a nuisance as defined by the Legislative Code.
Ramsey County Taacation estimated the market value of the land to be approximately $40,000 and
the building to be $110,000. Real estate ta�ces were current. Code Enforcement estimates the cost
to repair the building to be approximately $60,000 to $70,000. The cost for demolition was
estimated to be approximately $10,000 to $12,000. There had also been five summary abatements
issued to this property since 2006, three of which went to work order: to secure the building and the
City had to boazd the building to secure it from trespass, remove improperly stored refuse, and
remove snow and ice. Code Enforcement recommends the building be repaired or removed within
15 days. Mr. Magner stated that a vacant building registration form wouid also need to be filled out
and filed with Code Enforcement by any potential purchaser. Mr. Magner presented photographs of
the property.
The property owner of record, IB Property Holdings LLC, did not appear. Wasnou Lee appeared
and stated ttiat he was in the business of purchasing and rehabilitaring properties.
Ms. Moermond asked how they became aware this was a vacant building. Mr. Magner stated that
the building went into foreclosure and Code Enforcement had been monitoring the property since
then. Subsequently, an REO, Garth Johnson, was assigned to the property and he was maintaining
the property. Mr. Johnson has indicated that he had a signed purchase agreement with Mr. Lee.
Ms. Moermond indicated to Mr. Lee that she would require that he maintain the property which
would be a condition as to whether she would grant him the additional six montl�s to rehab the
property. Mr. Lee stated that he didn't believe six months was enough time to compiete the repairs,
especially to the exterior of the house. He didn't believe he could wark outside during December,
7anuary, February or March. The porch was deteriorated and needed to be replaced which he
believed couldn't be done during the winter months.
Mr. Magner asked Mr. Lee why he didn't believe he could work on the exterior of the house during
the winter months. The only obstacle that he could see would be painting the exterior of the house
which he believed could be done at the end of the project. It was lus experience that Mr. Seeger,
Licensing, would either extend the compliance date or would give a partial sign-off on the
compliance report if painting the exterior were the only item which needed to be completed.
Mr. Lee stated that he was not planning to close on the purchase of the property until after the
December 5 Public Hearing. Ms. Moermond explained that the City Code only allowed for six
months time to rehabilitate a property. In this hearing process, he would need to demonstrate why
the Council should grant him six months to repair the property. He would need to show that he had
plans and the financial ability to rehabilitate the building. She stated that the six-month time period
would begin on the day the bond was posted. Under the State Building Code, the building official
November 13, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes ��'/ J� Page 8
had the authority to grant additional time to complete the repairs provided more than 50 percent of
the repairs were completed. If less than 50 percent of the repairs were made, he would need to
return to the City Council to request any additional time. Ms. Moermond stated that as part of the
conditions she would require the following: 1) the property must be maintained; 2) the vacant
building registration form must be completed; 3) a wark plan must be prepazed in accordance with
the code compliance inspection report which would include tunelines for completing the work.
Mr. Magner asked Mr. Lee whether he planned to convert the building as a single-family dwelling.
Mr. Lee responded that he did plan to rehab the bnilding into a single-fanuly dwelling. Mr. Magner
stated that the property was a legal non-conforming duplex and the code compliance inspection was
done as a single family; if it were to be rehabbed as a duplex, a new code compliance inspection
would need to be done. The lot size did not conform to the required 7,500 square feet which was
required of a duplex.
Mr. Lee asked if he would need to have closed on the purchase of the property prior to the City
Council hearing on December 5. Ms. Moexmond stated that a signed purchase agreement was fine
and that he could begin working on the property now if he so desired. There was no guarantee,
however, that the Council would be willing to grant him the additional time.
Ms. Moermond reiterated the conditions that she would require: 1) the property must be
maintained; 2) the vacant building registration form must be completed; 3) the $5,000 performance
bond must be posted; 4) a work plan must be prepared in accordance with the code compliance
inspection report which would include timelines for compieting the work; 5) a fmancial statement
indicating the wherewithal to complete the rehabilitation which staff had estimated the cost of the
repairs to be between $60,000 to $70,000. All of these conditions would need to be met by Friday,
November 30. She stated that she would have her paralegal send him a letter outlining the
conditions that he would need to meet.
Mr. Lee stated that he may need to re-negotiate the sale price with the sellers as he had believed the
cost of the repairs to be between $30,000 to $40,000. He thought the estimated cost of $60,000 to
$70,000 for the repairs was way too high. Ms. Moermond stated that her only goal was to abate the
nuisance condition and that would be far someone to either make the necessary repairs or to
demolish the building.
Leslie McMurray, District 5 Planning Council, appeared and stated that the Board had not made a
formai decision to date as to the disposition of this property. They had discussed the matter and
determined that the building would need to be repaired and brought up to code as quickly as
possible. They had not yet determined a district-wide criteria far demolition, which was why they
did not recommend demolition of this property. The neighbors, however, expressed their desire to
have the building removed. The blighting conditions are as follows: you can see into the building
through the broken siding; there are trees grow3ng out of the roof; there has been tree damage to the
roof; there was extensive water damage; windows were broken; and there is a bullet hole in the
front door. There were many other properties that were in this similar condition and they were
requesting an expedited process to either repair or demolish this properiy. She presented
photographs of the property.
Ms. Moermond recommended laying this matter over to the November 27 Legislative Hearing.
��-�«
November 27, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes '�"'�" Page 2
2. Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 610 Ma�nolia Avenue within
fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolurion. (Continued from November 13)
Mr. Magner stated that at the November 13 Legislative Hearing, Wamou Lee appeazed with Garth
Johnson, the representative of the mortgage company. At that time, Mr. Lee had a Purchase
Agreement to buy the properiy. On November 27, he received a call from Mr. Johnson indicating
that Mr. Lee had backed out of the purchase agreement. Mr. Johnson indicated that he had another
buyer who was interested in purchasing the property and he was hoping that he would have
something together soon.
Ms. Moermond requested a letter be sent to all interested parties indicating that the conditions still
needed to be met by Friday, November 30 if they wished to be granted time by the City Council to
rehabilitate the property.
December 11, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes
✓��
Page 9
12. Ordering the owner to remove or repair the building(s) at 610 Maenolia Avenue within
fifteen (15) days from adoption of resolution. (Continued from November 13 and
November 27)
Mike Cassidy, potential buyer, appeazed.
Ms. Moermond stated that she reviewed the documentation and she had found a note that she had
written and attached to the purchase agreement that had been faYed on November 30. The note
indicated that she had not received an acceptable work plan and that she had indicated to Mr.
Cassidy that he would need to have this done. It was her understanding that he had talked to Ms.
Sheffer and she wanted clarification for the record.
Ms. Sheffer stated that when Mr. Cassidy came to the office on Friday, November 30, she had
reviewed the documentation that Mr. Cassidy presented concerning his purchase of the property and
plans for rehabilitation. He had a copy of the code compliance inspecrion report and Ms. Sheffer
indicated to Mr. Cassidy that he would need to present a work plan that would need to be done in
conjunction with the code compliance inspection. He claimed that the one page letter that he was
presenting was his work plan. Ms. Sheffer indicated to Mr. Cassidy that the hearing officer wouid
likely not accept this as a work plan because it did not contain any detail. Ms. Sheffer then gave
Mr. Cassidy a copy of an example of a work plan that was generally given in these cases. Upon
giving Mr. Cassidy the wark plan example, he asked that Ms. Moermond call him concerning his
intention to rehab the property. Mr. Cassidy then left.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Cassidy what he understood from his conversarion with Ms. Sheffer. Mr.
Cassidy stated that he misunderstood that this was what he would need to complete in more detail.
He then wrote down estimates as outlined on the example of the work plan and faxed it to Ms.
Moermond.
Ms. Moermond asked whether he had filled out the plan in accordance with the code compliance
inspection. Mr. Cassidy responded that this was correct. Ms. Moermond asked where on the plan
he addressed the foundarion work that needed to be done.
Mr. Cassidy stated he had prepazed a more detailed work pian for the hearing which he presented.
Ms. Moermond reviewed the work plan and asked Mr. Cassidy who had prepared it. Mr. Cassidy
responded that he and a friend had prepared it.
Ms. Moermond asked who was going to be doing the work on the rehab. Mr. Cassidy responded
that he had a list of conh listed on the form. Ms. Moermond asked whether he had obtained
any bids on doing this work. Mr. Cassidy responded that he had done this type of work in the past
and generally knew the costs of the work. He did not have any bids yet; however, he believed the
cost of the work was approximately $60,000. He stated that he was purchasing the house for
$20,000 and since he had the funds, he didn't believe this project was that big a deal for him to
handle.
Ms. Moermond stated that she had a statement dated November 16, 2007 from CTX Mortgage
Company which indicated that he had applied for a loan. She asked whether he had been approved
for the loan. Mr. Cassidy responded that it was nothing for him to be approved for that loan but he
wasn't going to get it if the house was going to be torn down. Ae claimed that he could pay cash for
December 11, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes
the house and wouldn't need the loan.
��- ��`��
Page 10
Ms. Moermond stated that the work plan and the fmancial documentation was due on November 30
and they were not delivered on tune. All she l�ad was a one pazagraph statement from Mr. Cassidy
stating that he could do this proj ect which was not adequate. She had indicated to him that this was
not adequate for a work plan.
Mr. Magner asked to see the documentarion. Mr. Magner then read the statement into the record
from Mr. Cassidy: "Upon closing on the property at 610 Magnolia Ave. E. I will post bond and
begin rehab. I expect to complete all rehab within 4 to 5 months, at an estimated cost of $60,000.
Depending on weather conditions. I have done more than 20 rehabs in the past 10 years. And
currently in good standing with my rentals in St. Paul and So. St. Paul and Invergrove Heights.
Sincerely, Mike Cassidy" signed by Mike Cassidy. The letter from CTX Mortgage Company was
dated November 16, 2007 to Edina Realty, Attn: Garth Johnson stating the following: "Mike
Cassidy has applied for a loan with our organization to purchase the aforementioned property. I
understand a specific price has not been determined, but this letter is written to confirm Mike can be
considered pre-approved for 100% of his financing needs. We have reviewed income, assets, and
credit worthiness, and all criteria are favorable for this loan. This approval is subject only to clear
tifle and satisfactory appraisal. We will be using a construction loan to finance the home, so the
current condition of the home should be a factor." Mr. Magner stated that his concem was that the
letter indicated that they will guarantee the financing for the purchase but not for the rehabilitation.
He stated that the purchase price on the construction loan was only one-third to one-forth of the cost
of what needed to be done to rehab the property. Since Mr. Cassidy had indicated that he was
purchasing the house for $20,000 but was going to put $60,000 in repairs into the property, he asked
where the $60,000 was going to come from.
Mr. Cassidy responded that it did state that in the letter. Ms. Moermond responded that this was not
correct in that it stated he had only applied for a loan; it did not say he had received a loan. He had
indicated that he did not want to obtain the loan until the City had given him the time to rehab the
property. The City would not give him the time if he did not have the financing to do the rehab.
Mr. Cassidy stated that he was only buying the house with the bank's money and the bank's rehab
money. That would be the only way he would buy the property. He would not buy the property
with the bank's money if the house was going to be torn down.
Mr. Magner stated that Mr. Cassidy had stated earlier that he had indicated that he could buy the
house with cash; however, he needed the loan to rehab the house. This letter specifically states that
the loan was for acquisition of the property; it did not say it was for rehabilitation of the property.
What the City would require was that the documentation specifically stating that "on this date, we
will close on this loan and we will provide this amount of funding for the purchase of the property
and this amount of funding to finance the rehabilitation." Mr. Cassidy stated that he could do this;
however, that wasn't what he understood he needed.
Ms. Moermond stated that if Garth Johnson did not communicate this to him that was between
them. Mr. Johnson was present at the first hearing and was given this informarion that this was the
expectation. Ms. Mcermond stated that in reviewing the revised work plan, she did not see specific
timelines for completing the work and no contractors had been identified. What she had indicated
to the City Council at the Public Hearing on December 5 was that the bids'he had estimated that the
December 11, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes
��- ��5�
Page 11
work he was going to do himself were overbid and the work that was being contracted out was
underbid. She understood that he had indicated he had worked with these contractors; however, she
needed proof that these were the actual bids to do the work.
Mr. Magner stated that he could not read the first work plan that had been submitted. He asked who
the contractors were that were listed on the plan. Mr. Cassidy responded that it was Grove Electric,
and he listed himself as doing the construction rough fratning.
Mr. Magner asked Mr. Cassidy whether he was a licensed contractor in the City of St. Paul. Mr.
Cassidy responded that he was. He was contracting with Riley Plumbing to do the pluxnbing and St.
Paul Plumbing and Heating for the HV/AC.
Mr. Magner stated that what he would need to see on the work plan was a construction schedule and
the contractors' names listed as well. He would also need to see the financial documentation as the
current letter was only for acquiring the property and did not address the rehabilitation. He was not
comfortable making a recommendation with what documentation was presented.
Mr. Cassidy stated that was the way he wrote it up as he knows the building needs to be rehabbed.
Mr. Magner stated the problem was that they needed concrete statements, facts and documentation.
They couldn't request all the other property owners in this situation that they be required to give
clear documentation but that Mr. Cassidy would be exempt from this requirement. He believed 90
percent of the work plan was complete; however, timelines and contractor bids need to be brought
into one document. The financial documentation was also missing and therefore, he could not make
a recommendation. Mr. Magner stated that he would need this information by noon on December
12 in order for him to review and make a recommendation since this matter was on for Council
Public Hearing that aftemoon. He asked Mr. Cassidy how much time he would need to complete
the rehab.
Mr. Cassidy responded that he would need 120 days to complete the repairs. Mr. Magner stated
that he would make a recommendation to grant 120 days provided the financial documentation is
submitted and the revised wark plan was received by noon on December 12.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Cassidy whether he had a list of properties which he had rehabbed in St.
Paul. Mr. Cassidy responded that he was not sure as he did not have any of the property files with
him. To the best of his recollection, he had done 484 Edmund, he did one house on Burr, and one
on Mt. Ida. It had been a while since he had done these properties; however, the ones that he owns
currently that are rented was 75 East Maryland.
Ms. Moermond stated that she needed to know addresses far actual buildings that he had rehabbed
and not rental properties. Mr. Cassidy responded that he had rehabbed 75 East Maryland. He had
also done three new houses in Inver Grove.
Mr. Magner asked Mr. Cassidy when he rehabbed the house. Mr. Cassidy responded that he had
gone in and done the sheetrock. Mr. Magner asked when he had done this. Mr. Cassidy responded
he believed it was in 2005. Mr. Magner stated that according to STAMP, it showed that the
property was rental registered in 2005. He wanted to lrnow what Mr. Cassidy had actually done to
rehab the house. Mr. Cassidy responded that he had "spruced" it up.
December 1 l, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes
b�- ��SC�
Page 12
Ms. Moermond stated that she was looking for actual rehabilitarion work and not "sprucing" up
work. She asked whether any pernuts had been pulled for any work that was done. Mr. Magner
responded that there weren't any pemuts listed that had been pulled.
Mr. Magner asked Mr. Cassidy what other addresses he had rehabbed. Mr. Cassidy responded that
he couldn't remember. He had done 484 Edmund some tune ago; possibly 16 years aao. The house
was no longer there as it had burnt down. He could not recall any other address numbers.
Ms. Moermond said that Mr. Cassidy had stated that he had rehabilitated many properties to good
conditions; however, his information could not be corroborated.
Mr. Cassidy stated that he had gotten into the business as an apprenrice carpenter when he was 17
yeazs old and he fell three stories and broke his back. He then went into excavating and began his
own business. Priar to owning his excavating business, he had rehabbed a number of houses. He
claimed he had done a number of houses in Inver Grove. Business has been down in the housing
mazket which has hurt his business and he decided to try to go back to rehabbing houses as a result.
He had done these types of houses and knew what he was doing.
Ms. Moermond stated that he had not proved that in this hearing. Mr. Cassidy responded that he
came to the hearing with a financial statement that was "good as gold" and a work plan. All he
wanted to do was fix the house; he didn't want to come to a hearing to be drilled over doing it. He
stated that he did not need the bank to do the work; he could do it himself.
Ms. Moerxnond asked Mr. Cassidy for his personal financial documentation. Mr. Magner stated
that all Mr. Cassidy would need to do is show that he had $20,000 in a bank account to buy the
house and that he had another $60,000 in a bank account to rehab the house. He could also present
a line of credit from his bank.
Mr. Cassidy responded that he could run around in his caz to his five different banks; he had
$20,000 in one account; he had $60,000 in another account; $28,000 in another account. He had
$130,000 in cash. He asked if this was sufficient to prove he had the funds.
Mr. Magner responded that this was what they needed to see and if he didn't want to use his
personal funds, he could try to obtain a loan. He claimed he had the money but he needed to prove
that he had the money to the City Council in order to be granted the time to rehab the house.
Ms. Moerxnond stated that she wasn't seeing proof that he could complete the rehabilitation to the
property. Mr. Cassidy responded that he was telling the truth and that he didn't want to be at this
hearing and wanted nothing to do with "this place." He just wanted to do the work.
Ms. Moermond stated that the reason they requested a work plan and financial documentation
showing proof that he could do the rehab was so she could stand in front of the City Council and
state that she had confidence that Mike Cassidy was going to rehab this property. She needed to
have a statement from his bank indicating that they had signed a loan or there was a construction
line-of-credit. She needed to see actual proof that the money was available. She also needed to see
the wark plan indicating timelines. She stated that she was uncomfortable with the bid amounts
listed for the subcontractors that were going to do the work under the current plan. She wanted to
see actual estimates from the subcontractors listing out all of the items on the code compliance
o�����
December 11, 2007 Legislative Hearing Minutes
Page 13
report that needed to be done. Ms. Moermond stated that she would also require Mr. Cassidy to
meet six-week deadlines and if he failed to meet those deadlines, she would rescind the grant of
tnne as she was unconfident that he could do the work. She stated that she would need the revised
wark plan and the financial documentation by noon on Weduesday, December 12.
Mr. Magner clarified that the bids from the subcontractors needed to be received within the first six
weeks from the subconh�actors; Grove Electric, St. Paul Pluming and Heating, Riley Plumbing; as
well as from Mr. Cassidy as the general contractor. Ms. Moermond stated that she would also need
to see the closing documents on the purchase of the house.
Ms. Moermond recommended that Mr. Cassidy provide an amended work plan to include timelines
to complete the work and provide financial docuxnentation indicating the ability to complete the
repairs which needed to be received by noon on Wednesday, December 12.