07-557Council File # D7—,Sj
Green Sheet #�� Q��jZ
Presented by
RESOLUTION
CITY C,�F SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
i�
1 BE IT RE50LVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby certifies and approves the Apri13,
2 2007 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Conection Notices and Correction
3 Orders for the following address:
4
5 Propertv Appealed A�vellant
6
7 842 Clear Avenue Thomas Rogge
8
9 Decision: Deny the appeal on the property tax assessments. Refund the $25 filing fee since the assessment
10 could not be appealed under this legislative hearing process.
11
12 118 George Street West Keith Maahs
13
14 Decision: Deny the appeal on the Deficiency List.
15
Yeas
I
Thune
✓
Adopted by Council: Date
Absen�l Requested by Department of.
Adoption Certified by Co il Secretary
BY� / �' /L/1I�AGsIi�l��-�JrI
Approved by May . Date ✓ � o �b6-�
BY� �� Y /
�
Form Approved by CiTy Attorney
By:
Form Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
�
O� s��
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
co ����
Conqct Person & Phone:
Marcia Moemiond
6-8570
Doc. Type: RESOLUTION
E-Document Required: Y
Document Contact: Vicki
ConWct Phone: 6-8561
18-JUN-07
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
Green Sheet NO: 3040952
0 omcil
I omcil De atYwentDirec[or
2 ' Clerk I Cti Clerk
3
4
5
Resolution approving the decisions of the Legislative Aearing Officer on Appeals of Letters, Coaecrion NoSces and Correction
Orders for properties at 842 Cleaz Avenue and 118 George Street West
Planning Commission t. Has this person/firm everworked under a contract for this department?
CIB Committee Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a city employeel
Yes No
- 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not nortnally possessed by any
curtent cily employee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separele sheet and attach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Advantages If Approved:
DisadvanWges If Approved:
Disadvantages If NM Approved:
Transaction:
Funding Source:
Financial Infortnation:
(Explain)
Activity Number:
CostlRevenue Budgeted:
June 18, 2007 10:56 AM Page 1
li�-ss�
M1NY7'I'ES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING
ON LETTERS OF DEFICIENCY, CORRECTION NOTICES
AND CORRECTION ORDERS
Tuesday, Apri13, 2007
Room 330 City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West
Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer
The hearing was called to order at 2:00 p.m.
Staff Present: Bazb C»mm;ngs, Fire Preven6on; David Palm, City Attomey's Office; and Paula Seeley,
Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement
Appeal of Thomas Rogge to a Correction Notice for property at 842 Clear Avenue.
Ms. Seeley stated there had been on-going orders at this property since July, 2005. Joel Essling had
been the inspector on this property and he transferred the file to her in October, 2006 to take over as a
case managed property due to failure to comply. On October 27, 2006, a work order was sent and
Pazks did a clean up at the property removing a pile of shingles, wood and to remove improper storage
in the dog kennel. She believed this was what Mr. Rogge was appealing. Ms. Seeley provided a video
of the clean up that was done.
Ms. Moermond stated that what she had in the file was a Correction Notice dated March 5, 2007 with a
compliance date of Apri130, 2007.
Thomas Rogge, appellant, stated that he was a carpenter by trade and did painting and drywalling as
his business. He had a roof that was leaking so he tore off that azea of the roof to replace it and then a
tree damaged the roof. At that time, he did not have the money to get a dumpster to get rid of the
building materials. He then received a work order to remove his son's pool and to remove items that he
stored in the dog kennel in the backyard. He had worked very closely with Joel Essling on any orders
that he received and then received the notice from Paula Seeley. At that time, he was still in the
process of tearing off the roof and had gotten permission to stack the materials which he thought was
in code compliance. He did not believe he was given enough time and he called Ms. Seeley to come
out and look at his house. Ms. Seeley showed up at his house with a bodyguazd, Police officer and he
tried to explain to her that he had been working with Joel Essling and asked her what she wanted him
to do. It was his intention to finash repairing the roof on his house and to remain in code compliance.
He then received a stop work order from the City to stop worlang on the roof because he did not have a
permit. He had been in court over trus matter for a tag that had been issued to him and he pled guilty
to not keeping his yard clean. He received a$378 bill from the clean up that was done in October and
which he believed he should not be responsible far since he understood that he had permission from
Joel Essling to stack the items that he removed from his roof.
Ms. Moerxnond questioned what the disposirion was from the court hearing on the criminal tag.
Mr. Palm stated he was present at this hearing at the request of Ms. Seeley. He was familiar with Mr.
Rogge as he had several dealings with him and that there had been three citations issued against him;
one in 2002, one in 2005 and the most recent one in October, 2006. The other two matters had been
resolved, however, Mr. Rogge's property had on-going issues with being in a constant state of
disrepair. The citation from October, 2006, Mr. Rogge pled guilty to failure to maintain an exterior
structure due to the condition of the roof as well as the exterior condition of the property. The
d� ss�
Apri13, 2007 Property Code Minutes
Page 2
ageement that was reached in court was that Mr. Rogge was to complete the roof by May 15, 2007
and he needed to keep the yard clean for the next year. The judge stayed $1,000 of the fine as well as
the 90-day jail sentence. If Mr. Rogge did not abide by the judge's order, it was his intention to take
him back to court to serve the 90-day jail sentence.
Ms. Moermond asked for a copy of the written court agreement. Mr. Palm stated that since Mr. Rogge
had been in court previous times, he did not qualify for any programs and all he had was a case
number, T801680, that was associated with this file.
Ms. Moermond asked what precipitated the correction norice that was issued on March 5, 2007. Ms.
Seeley stated that since the tag was in warrant and the court appearance had not occurred yet, she
issued the same notice that had been issued 'm 2005 by Joel Essling concerning the exterior of the
property. Mr. Palm explained that the tag was in warrant because Mr. Rogge failed to appeaz in court
on December 28, 2006 and the judge issued a warrant for his arrest. He believed Mr. Rogge was
arrested and that he had posted bail. The most recent court appearance in which Mr. Rogge pled guilty
was March 29, 2007.
Ms. Moermond asked Mr. Rogge about his plans for his fixing his property. Mr. Rogge stated that it
was his intention to fix the roof that was in disrepair, however, it was his intention to repair the entire
roof when he had the money. He was contesting the clean up that was done on his property as he
believed he had permission from Joel Essling to store the shingles on his property.
Ms. Moermond told Mr. Rogge that he should have received a tas assessment letter with a gold
postcard and at that time, he should haue retumed the postcard requesting a legislative hearing to
appeal the tas assessment. The only matter that was before her for consideration was the Correction
Notice that was issued on March 5, 2007. Since the Court made it's ruling on this matter on Mazch 29,
2007, the agreement was to repair the roof and to maintain the exterior of the yard for one year with no
same or similaz violations. Since the taac assessment had been approved by the City Council in
January, the only recourse Mr. Rogge would have at this time would be to have the councilmember
refer the matter back to a legislative hearing.
Mr. Rogge requested his $25 fee for appealing this matter be refunded since he could not appeai the
tax assessment.
Ms. Moermond recommended the City Clerk refund the $25 filing fee.
2. Appeal of Keith Maahs to a Certificate of Occupancy with Deficiencies for property at 118
Geor¢e Street West.
Ms. Cummings stated that this was a single-family duplex with two units; one upstairs and one
downstairs. Previously, there had been complaints concerning the exterior of the building so
consequently, the interior had never been inspected. This inspection was based on a complaint from
one of the tenants and a number of deficiencies were found, however, she was only able to inspect the
downstairs unit. Concerning the fire rated doors and providing one hour rating for the ceiling in the
basement, items #14 and #15 on the list, these were not necessary and should be removed from the list
of deficiencies.
Keith Maahs, appellant and co-owner of the property, stated he concurred with the list of deficiencies
as outlined by the inspector. It had been his intenrion to rehabilitate the building and sell it, however,
�� �5�
Apri13, 2007 Property Code Minutes Page 3
he was not prepared to make all of the repairs as listed under the tnnelines that were given. He
purchased the property in December 2003, and at this point, he was willing to walk away from the
property as the building was a$10,000 financial loss per year to him. He accepted Secrion 8 tenants
and had inspections done every yeaz and there had never been a problem with passing an inspection.
The upstairs had been rehabbed and was in exceptional condition. The lower tenant, however, suffered
a disability and when she discontinued taldng her medication, she became difficult, angry and caused
damage to the building. At flus point, he was willing to give his tenants notice to vacate the building.
Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Cnmmings to go through the entire list of deficiencies that needed to be
cosected and perhaps Mr. Maahs could come up with a work plan to address the necessary repairs.
Ms. Cummings stated that she circled the items on the list that she considered life/safety items which
would need to be completed first. Some of the items on the list were the owner's responsibility and
others were the tenanYs responsibility to remedy.
Mr. Maahs stated that he was opposed to having to move the water heaters as they had been in the
same location for the past 30 to 60 years. Ms. Cummings stated that he was not required to move the
water heaters, he was simply required to move the items 30 inches away from the water heater and all
mechanical equipment for safety reasons.
Mr. Maahs stated that concerning the requirement to provide outside electrical outlets, he was unaware
of the cost of this and he did not understand the term "one foot candle" or what it meant. Ms.
Cuminings stated that it simply meant that there had to be enough light to be able to see anyone in the
parking areas and entrances to the building. Some of the light bulbs were broken and needed to be
replaced and there was also a broken light switch which needed to be replaced. He also needed to
provide lighting in the hallways in the building. The use of extension cords in the basement and the
needed to be disconrinued and light bulbs needed be replaced. The use of extension cords in the first
floor unit needed to be discontinued. The east interior porch needed to be cleared of accumulated
items. Repair the holes and cracks in the wall. The remainder of the items for the first floor unit
would be the responsibility of the tenant such as clearing the exitway, cleaning and sanitizing the unit.
Mr. Maahs stated that the items on the porch belonged to the first floor tenant and he had told her she
needed to remove them. She had indicated that the Disabled Vets were going to pick up the stuff,
however, she had been telling him this for the past year. As for the light bulbs in the basement, the
first floor tenant would take them when bulbs in her unit needed to be replaced. He would make sure
that there were light bulbs available for the basement. He was aware that there a couple of electrical
outlets that were not working properly and needed to be repaired. He had talked to a master electrician
and was going to contract with him to do the repairs to the electrical work.
Ms. Moermond requested Mr. Maahs draft a work plan which included deadlines on when all the work
on the deficiency list could be completed and continued the hearing to April 17, 2007. She stated that
if Mr. Maahs had an approved work plan and had all of the life/safety issues were addressed, she
would recommend granting him a 90 day extension to complete the remainder of the repairs. If he
chose to walk away from the properiy, he would not be under an obligation to come up with a work
plan.
The City Clerk forwarded letters received from Mr. Maahs on April 13, 2007 regarding his inability to
attend the April 17 Legislarive Hearing as well as a letter sent to Ms. Cu�xunings and notices he sent to
both of his tenants indicating that he no longer desired to continue ownership of this property due to
the deficiencies listed at the property. Said letters aze attached and made a part of these minutes.
�� ��
You made another appointment for me to come down to anothet Appeals Hearing on the
17�` of April. It is not convenient for me to come down there a ain. I run a business. I
have too many people to schedule around. I would be happy to schedule you guys to meet
me up here.
My upstairs tenant who started this has stated to me he has decided to move out at the end
of this month. I just told him that this is fine.
I will also be giving my downstairs tenant her notice to move. I just need to know how
long I should give her for a notice to vacate. I was intending on giving her a 60 day notice
tlus month so she would have to be out by the end of June.
The property will be vacant at that point.
The city of St. Pau1 may buy the duplex at 118 George Street for what I owe, $196,000.
I am sad that Code Compliance inspections have been decided to be the rule of the day.
Codes change based on �Yh�kbuilding deparlxnents and what other members of city hall y
decide they should be. - — , --
This is why we (Glenn and I) have decided to throw our hands up. All you haue to do is
change a code and then enforce it, and then we spend time and money either doing the
repair or spending time and money appealing it. Either way, we lose.
You can't fight city hall. We will be destroying our credit and finances. In a few years, I
will hopefixliy pull out of this mess.
In the meanwhile, as I stated before, you are welcome to buy the building and providing
affordable housing. But you'll have to get the Code Compliance issues taken cate of.
I will fill out the necessary paperwork and pay, once again, more money to the city to
register the home as a vacant building.
With a 1 due respect,
Keith Maahs �
3495 Northdale Blvd. NW.
Coon Rapids, MN 55448
CC:
Glenn Necklen
City of St. Paul, Department of Fire and safety
Legislative Hearing Department, LEIP
D �-.5'.S�
RE: 118 George Street W
Follow up letter after my conversation with Inspector �mmings:
Inspector ��mmings was at the duplex at George Street with Glenn Necklen who is my
co-owner of the building doing her walk through of the unit upstairs that she had not been
ableto getinto previously.
Inspector CS�mmings got on the phone with me and I told her that it just was a waste of
time for me to drive down an hour to the City hall and drive an hour back for this hearing
again on the 17`�. I have� d her that the building is going to be vacant.
Inspector Cunuuings repeated hersel£ that I should just come down stili.
"Just come down..."??!! I work for a living.
.�-�'_
I suggested that everyone come and see me and she said, this is in St. Paul.
-Fine.
Enclosed aze the copies of the norices to vacate. I will fill in the paper you require and
send in more money with the piece of paper to state that it is vacant when the time comes.
Keith Maahs
763-412-1203
D� 5�57
�LCEI!/�D
4/9/2007
Antonio 7ackson
118 George Street W
5t. Paul, MN 55107
i �
APR 1 3 2�07
CITY CLERK
Due to the latest Code Compli�Ce �SP�hons that the city of St. Paul is requiring now
for non-owner occupied buildings, it is our unfortuuate news to tell you �at you must
vacate your unit bY the end of 7une 2007. "I'his shall serva as YouT 60 day riotice.
As per our conversation, you stated that you will be out of the unit by the end of tha
month, by Apri130�`, 2���• T�s is our wntten agreement to accele IIo� ce eri a e of
intent to move. Both landlord and tenant agree to waive the 60 day P
required• e d osit.
You agree to provide a change of address or forwarding address for yo�' d�ag �
The reason for this is because we can not comply with all of the codes that have been
created over the past several decades. Codes can change whenever the City of 5t. Paul
tllinks that something should be changed or added. T'his will always create more work to
do on a building. b t
Good luck with Yo�' new home.
your tenancy with us.
Keith Maahs
Glenn Necklen
763-412-1
We will have good remarks for anyone callmg a ou
�
�� ss�
4/9/2007
Monique Bourg�e
118 George Sueat W
St. Paul MN 55107
/i �
�EC�Iy,��
A �R � 3 2007
��' CLERK
Due to the latest Code Compli�Ce �pecrions that the city of St. Paul is requiriug now
for non-owner occupied buildings, it is our unfor�ate news to tell you that you must
vacate your unit bY the �d of 7une 2007. This shall serve as your 60 day notice.
The reason for tlus is because we can not comply with all of the codes that bave been
created over the past several decades. Codes can change whenever the City of St. Paul
thinks that something should be chang� or added. This will always create more work to
do on a building. �l• about
Good luck with yo'�' new home.
your tenancy �n� �•
Keith Maahs
Glennl�eck
763-412-1
We wi11 have good remarks for anyone c mg
�