Loading...
09-56� �. Presented by Council File # � � Green Sheet # 3065375 RESOLUTION 3 b SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, based on a review of the legislative 2 hearing record and testimony heard at public hearing on December 17, 2008 hereby memorializes its 3 decision to certify and approve the December 2, 2008 decision of the Legislative Hearing Officer for the 4 following address: 5 6 ADDRESS � 8 280 Ravoiix Street #414 9 10 APELLANT Andrea Jepsen, SMRLS, olblo Irene Allshouse 11 Decision: Appeal denied on the Condemnation and Order to Vacate stayed pending the completion of two 12 successfulexterminations. Requested by Department of. Adoption Certifie �by Counc Secretary BY' !1'//�1/ � /n�i.(�Stai2/ Approved by Mayor: D� ate ��7_�� p� By: t�,�,r�.i � Form Approved by City Attomey By: Fottn Approved by Mayor for SUbmission to Council By: Adopted by Council: Date f �i��d -rj � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � lepartmentlOfflce/Council: , Date Initiated: ' �� co -��°°G� I 19 ! Green Sheet NO: 3065375 Contact Person & Phone: Marcia Moermond 6-8570 Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Doc. Type: RESOLUTION E-DOCUment Required: Y Document Contact Mai Vang ContactPhone: 6-8563 � Assign Number For RoUting Order ToWI # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature) 0 1 2 3 4 5 Resolution memorializing Ciry Council action taken Aecember 17, 2008 denying the appeal on the Condemnarion and Oider to Vaca[e stayed pending the wmpletion of two successful exterminations for property at 280 Ravoux Sheet #414, per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission GIB Committee Givil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/frm ever worked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why�: Advantages If Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If NotApproved: Total Amount of Transaction: Funtling Source: Financial Information: (Explain) December 24, 2008 9:17 AM CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: Page 1 V ♦ ' 1' C<' 4 � ' December l, 2008 Fax: 297-6457 CITY OF SAINT PAUL by�� OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Andrea Jepson Southem Minnesota Regional Legal Services 166 Fourth Street East, Suite 200 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Re: Appeal to a Condemnation and Order to Vacate 280 Ravoux Street #414 Dear Ms. Jepsen: Ms. Moermond has reviewed your letter concerning the above-entitled matter and has asked me to schedule a hearing for an appeal per the requirements under the Legislative Code. The hearing will be on Tuesday, December 2, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 330, City Hall. If you have any questions, please contact me at 6� 1-266-8561. ,�tncerely, � y 1 '��,`� �R-, Vicki Sheffer, �etary Legislative Aearing Officer CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD SAIIVT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1615 � AA-ADA-EEO Employer s �- � � LAW OFFICES OF ' i / SOUTHERN MINNESOTA REGIONAL LEGAL SERVICES, INC. SLIITE 200 ] 66 EAST FOURI'H STREE7 SAIlV"I' PAUL, ML7VI�TESOTA 55101 (651) 222-5863 FAX (651) 297-6457 CHSEF EXECU'3'IVE OFF[CER IESSIE R HICHOI,SON CHLEF OPERATING OFFICER GARY M.EDRD PRO BONO COORDINATOR PATRICIA ANN BRUMMER PARALEGALS/COMMUNTCY WORKERS SARAH ANDERSON TAh1ARA COLLN`S AI. }L1RRL5 NANfI'A HIIiNANDEZ ANN SUCLIVAN SAI YANG IEANNIE M wll1,L1AMS November 26, 2008 St. Paul City Council Attn: Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer 310 City Hall 15 Ke3logg Blvd., West Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE: 280 Ravoux Street, Apartment #414, St. Paul, MN, 551 Q2 Dear Ms. Moermond: L.4W WORK MANAGER srEV�x wo� ATTORNEYS MOMCA DOONER MARIIiA 0. EAVFS KA'IHf.EpV M EVESI,AGE KEt� C�LLCEIRLST IAPAUL HARRIS WSA HOLCINGSR'OAIH I,AURA IEI.➢VEK ,.nvae.. �rsw SHARON 10NES GERALD G. KAL[1ZNY HOCLY [{NIGHT IAMES LAURENCE uuxa �cx &ON hIlCHAIISON IAWRINCE a MOIANEY LEAH MOn'T('iOMEAY JANE MORGAN CASSANDRA NEITAE RARA R�RE REBECCA ROSSOW LRVDSAY SHAW VALERIE K SNYDER IAMES 1. SIRFEI' CO[,[.EEN WAI.BRAN BENSATIIN L WESSS Our office requests a hearing on the condemnation of the above-mentioned rental unit. The unit is locaYed in a St. Paul Public Housing Agency PHA) building. The clienYs name is Irene Allshouse, and she is a seventy-seven year old woman who is recovering from heart surgery. Her unit is infested with bedbugs, and Fire and Safety Services condemned her unit because of the infestation on November 14, 2008. The vacate date far the condemnation was to be Novemher 30, 2Q�8, as I understood it, but I received ward from Councilman Melvin Carter's office today that the client will not be required to .�zcute :,^ti? ;;e�.:, ret::m *e :he nffi�e. If '�. P.?i�::; .s s !;e� �., •° h�_ .u,^:• ,:': :�.� _ �<se s vzca,,, . , she � _ have no place to go. This is a rather complicated case, and some background information may be helpful to you. As you likely know, bedbugs have been an issue in apartment buildings all over the Twin Cities, and they are a problem in the PHA's build'angs, as well. Our office believes and has successfully argued in court that where the tenant did not introduce the vermin to the unit, it is a landlord's obligation to address the infestation, wherever it is located in the unit. As well, where there is a defect in the unit that damages the tenant's belongings, it-is a well-accepted legal position that the landlord is responsible for addressing those damages. Under either legal theory, this means that the PHA is responsible for treating Ms. Allshouse's belongs as a part of the extermination so that the infestation can be eradicated, and for otherwise preparing the unit to be exterminated. 69-� You may be awaze that the process of dein£esting an apartment involves extensive and physically demanding preparation. To ask Ms. Allshouse to take on this burden would be like asking her to install scaffolding and tear open her own ceiling to addzess a plumbing problem not caused by her. In any case, the PHA did not prepare, Ms. Allhouse's unit to be exterminated, and Ms. Allshouse was unable to do so because of age and disability. "I'he PHA's position has been that the tenant is responsible for preparing for unit for extermination, and when Ms. Allhouse was unable to so, they began the process of evicting her. Ms. Allhouse has lived in her well-kept apartment for eighteen years, appazently without incident. After initiating the eviction process, it appears that the PHA contacted Fire and Safety Services, which resulted in the condemnation. I do not know whether Ms. Allshouse received any information about her appeal rights. I received notice that Ms. Allhouse's unit was condemned on November 19, 2008, and I spoke with Leanna Shaff from Fire and Safety Services immediately thereafter. Our office is fortunate to have a good working relationship with Fire and Safety Services, and it was our hope that we could resolve this issue without exercising Ms. Allshouse's appeal rights. Ms. Shaff told me that she would lift the condemnation if Ms. Allshouse's unit was fuily prepared for extermination on November 25, 2008. In order to make sure that Ms. Allhouse's unit was ready, our office sent two paralegals to her unit the day before the exterminator was to arrive to prepare the unit. The same paralegals were present at the extermination in the event that any additional preparations were required. They believed that the unit was ready; however, the PHA has taken the position that the unit was not ready. Because of this, the condemnation was not lifted. Our office is preparing pleadings for an action we intend to file against the PHA to prevent the agency from shifting its burden to fully treat the infestation in the unit to Ms. Allshouse. In the meantime, all of the parties are attempting to work collaboratively to address Ms. Allshouse's problem. The only silver linfng in this issue is that Ms. Allshouse's skin does not react to bedbugs, so she experiences no discomfort when she is bitten, and there are no marks on her skin of which I am aware. However, Ms. Allshouse has now endured ten treatments (20 weeks of extermination) and she has been asked to discard two sets of box springs and mattresses. She sleeps in a chair, although she has mos± recen+.1_y been told she must discard her cha+r and her small c�uch—the 1_ast t���o pieces of upholstered furniture that she has. If we cannot obtain a bed for Ms. Allshouse, I do not know where or how she shall sleep as she cannot lower herself to the floor because of a knee replacement. This ordeal has been extremely stressful far Ms. Allshouse, and the threat of condemnation is probably the most stressful aspect of the ordeal. Our office is doing all that we can to force the PHA to address the situation, and we respectfully request that the CiTy Council suspend Ms. Allshouse's condemnation un61 we can address the problem before the Housing Court. Sincerel n • L. ttorney at Law DEPARTMENT SAFETY AND INSPECT[ONS F�re Inspection D�vision Robert KessZer, Director �/���1 n V - I r� �. CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christapher B. Caleman, Mayor 3i5Jackson Street,Suite220 Telephone.651-266-9090 Saint Paul, MN5510T-1806 November 14, 2008 PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY BETTY LOU AUTHIER 200 ARCH ST E SAINT PALTL MN 55101 RE: REFERRAL 280 RAVOUX ST Re£ # 11320 Dear Property Representative: An inspection was made of your building on November 14, 2008 in response to a referral. You are hereby notified that the following deficiency list must be corrected immediately. A reinspection will be made on November 19, 2008 at 1:00 PM. Failure to comply may result in a criminal citation or revocation of the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The Saint Paul Legislative Code requires that no building shall be occupied without a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The code also provides for the assessment of additional reinspection fees. DEFICIENCY LIST Unit 414 - Bedbugs - SPLC 34.23, MSFC 110.1 - This occupancy is condemned as unfit far human habitation. This occupancy must not be used until re-inspected and approved by this office. 2. Urut 414 - SPLC 34.10 (6), 3433 (5) - Exterminate and control insects, rodents or other pests. Provide documentation of exterminarion.-Bed bugs 3. Unit 414 - MN 3tat 299F.18 - Immediately remove and discontinue excessive accumulation of combustible materials.-Tmmediately remove the materials harboring bedbugs per the exterminator's report, and be ready for the extermination on 11/18/08. You have the ri;ht to appeal these orders to the Legislative Hearing Officer. Applications for appeals may be obtained at the City Clerks Office, Room 310, (651-266-8688}, and must be filed within 10 days of the date of the original orders. If you have any questions, please contact me at 651-266-8980 between 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Please help to make Saint Paul a safer place in which to live and work. Sincerely, Leanna Shaff Fire Inspector STAMP - Activity Detail STAMP - Activity Detail New Search He� using this report ZS Helo Page 1 of 1 ��'� 280 Ravoux St Ctick here to access other applications using this address - GISmo, MapIT, and Ramsey County Info Run Date: 12/O1/08 11:50 AM Fofder ID#: AS 200304 in Date: Status: In Process Type: RF - Referral - Citizen Complaint Reference#:11320 11/14(OS Issued Date: Closed: Description: Unit 414, Excessive clutter, bedbugs Documertt: Referral Response=Letter 5 S0; - Generated: 11/14/2008 - Sent: 11/14/2008 * Note: Clicking on above document links may not reflect the exact formatting of the original document. People: Owner: St Paul Public Housing Agency/Attn: Comptroller 555 Wabasha St N Ste A00 St Paul MN 55102-1602 651-292-6084 Responsible Party: Public Housing Agency Betty Lou Authier 200 Arch St E Saint Paul MN 55101 651-298-5518 Pr�perty: 280 RAVOUX ST, PIN: 362923430013 Info 1falue: Possible Student Housing?: No C of 0 Renewal Due Date: Sep 25, 2011 C of O SYatus: Pending Inspection Date: Nov 19, 2008 Inspection Time: 1:00 PM Last Inspection Date: Nov 14, 2008 Primary Occupancy Group: R-2 Primary Occupancy Type Name: Residential High-Rise Total Residential Units: 220 Contact: 24 hour emergency 651-227-9919 ii f�rral Resnonse Assigned To: Shaff, Leanna IClosed: 11/14/08 I Result_ 11/14/2005: Orders Issued - Inspection .. Referral Re-Iflspection Next Schedule: 11/25/08 http://sparaci.stpaul.mn.us/STAMPProperty/Proj ectViewer?devDatabase- 12/1 /2008 December 2, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 7 6y��P 4. Appeal of Andrea Jepsen, SMRLS, on behalf of Irene Allshouse, to a Condemnation and Order to Vacate property at 280 Ravoux Street #414. Cassandra Netzke, Southern Minnesota Rea onal Legal Services (SMRLS), appeared on behalf of the appellant, Irene Allshouse. Ms. Netzke said that she was filling in for Andrea Jepsen who was out of town. Leanna Shaff, Supervisor Inspector, DSI - Fire Prevention, stated a complaint was received on November 12 for excessive storage of materials and bedbug infestation. She inspected the unit on November 13 and found live and dead bedbugs and according to the documentation she had received from the Public Honsing Agency (PHA), this problem had been going on for quite some time. She talked to the tenant and the acting manager of the residence and asked that the unit be prepared for extermination treatment for the following Tuesday, November 18. Apparently, there had been some mix up as management had believed the extermination had been ordered and it had not. The tenant was not ready far extermination so the treahnent was rescheduled to the following week. The following Tuesday, November 25, the unit still was not completely prepared for extermination treatment and the infestation was found to be worse than originally expected. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms, Allshouse was present far the inspection on November 13. Ms. Shaff responded that Ms. Allshouse was present and that the reason for the extension was because of the mix up in communication with management. Ms. Moermond asked whether the extension granted was verbal or in writing. Ms. Shaff responded that when there was an agreement, they do not always confirm an extension in writing. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Alishouse was still living there. Ms. Shaff responded that she was. Ms Moermond clarified for the record that any appeal for an order should go through the legislative hearing process and that it was inappropriate to involve the councilmember as the councilmember has a quasi-judicial capacity in determining the outcome of such matters on appeals. She asked Ms. Netzke why they were appealing this matter. Ms. Netzke responded that she did not disagree with the staff report and explained that Ms. Allshouse has experienced this problem far a number of years; however, would now lose her housing and Section 8 qualification if the condemnation remained in place. It was her understanding that Ms. Allshouse had an over accumulation of "things" and had difficulty in preparing her apartrnent for extermination without some outside assistance to help her. She believed PHA had many services that were available for Ms. Allshouse to utilize and they were working with them to put those services in place. She was requesting that the condeinnation be lifted so that Ms. Allshouse could remain living in the unit while they wark out the extermination treatments to bring the unit back into compliance. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Shaff what date the unit was required to be vacated. Ms. Shaff responded that no new date had been negotiated. The last conversation she had with Ms. Jepsen was that she had requested to talk to the exterminator. She did not hear from the exterminator until the following day and Ms. Jepsen then went on vacation so nothing was resolved. Ms. Netzke expressed concern because PHA was also terminating Ms. Allshouse's tenancy. Ms. Shaff responded that in conversations with the inspector, these problems go back to June, 2008 and Ms. A1lshouse was noY helping her situation. December 2, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 8 bq�� Ms. Netzke stated that she was aware that Ms. Allshouse was elderly, had heart surgery over the summer, and suffered from a number of disabilities. They were attempting to work on a reasonable accommodation plan for Ms. Allshouse; however, she was not prepazed to offer dates or names of the people from the different services that would be assisting Ms. Allshouse. Ms. Shaff expressed concem in tbat her conversations with Ms. Jepsen, she had indicated that Ms. Allshouse was "just fine" and didn't "need or wanY' services for the short amount of time necessary because it would cost her too much money. She asked Ms. Netzke why Ms. Allshouse now needed those services when she had refused them in the past. Ms. Netzke stated that it was her understanding that PHA had asked Ms. Allshouse to sign a six- month agreement to have someone come in and clean her unit for $200 per month. Ms. Allshouse is on a fixed income, could not afford $200 per month, and did not believe she would need those types of services for six months so she re}ected that agreement. She believed that Ms. Allshouse now was in need of assistance and she believed they could find services which were less costly. Ms. Moermond asked what would be the nature of those services. Ms. Netzke said she believed it would primarily be housekeeping services to assist Ms. Allshouse to prepare for the extermination of her unit. She said that two paralegals from SMRLS, Adrian Weiss and A1 Harris, went to the unit to assist Ms. Allshouse prepare for the extermination. Ms. Weiss had related to her that she was unsure of some of the items on the list that needed to be done. She believed there needed to be some clarification on the instructions on what preparation was expected. Ms. Shaff said that in reviewing the prep sheet provided by PHA to Ms. Allshouse, it clearly explained what needed to be done and she was aware that Ms. Allshouse also had lengthy conversations with the exterminator wherein he explained exactly what she needed to do. She said that in conversations with Al Harris, he indicated that he had told Ms. Allshouse what needed to be done,and he told her that he believed she was a"hoarder," as she had too much stuff and it needed to go. Ms. Netzke acknowledged that Ms. Allshouse should have had services several months ago; however, she believed she was in denial of the existing problem and now that SMRLS had intervened to represent her, the main goal was to keep Ms. Allshouse from being evicted from basically the last place she could go. Ms. Moermond stated that it was her understanding that the original condemnation order issued November 13 gave five days to vacate the unit. Lacking new written orders based on the previous agreement to vacate the unit, which would have been issued around November 20, it would have granted another five days to vacate. Ms. Shaff responded that this was correct. She explained that in the past, they had a close, cooperative, working relationship with SMRLS. Unfortunately in this case, she had trusted that the extermination would have occurred and it did not. She agreed that she was remiss in not issuing new orders giving a time for compliance or to vacate the unit. Ms. Moermond asked Ms. Netzke when the court date had been set with PHA. Ms. Netzke explained that there wasn't a court date set as PHA had given a termination of tenancy notice on November 24 which allowed for a 10-day appeal process. Ms. Moermond asked what reason was given far the termination of tenancy. Ms. Netzke responded the reason was due to the condemnation. They had not yet decided whether to file an Emergency Tenant Remedies Action December 2, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 9 D 9�� (ETRA) or just a simple TRA. She believed that in reviewing the procedures, they had determined it would be best to file a TRA on behalf of Ms. Allshouse. It was their position that the landiord had some level of liability conceming the bedbug infestation issue, as did the tenant, which she believed needed to be sorted out by the Courts. She was unsure whether the TRA had been filed yet; however, a hearing would need to be held within 7 to 14 days of filing. Ms. Moermond asked what action they were requesting of the court. Ms. Netzke responded that they were requesting Ms. Allshouse be relocated during the treatment or that the preparation of the treatments be managed by the landlord. It was their position that if the manager of the property had been managing the preparation for the extermination, the problem would have been resolved some time ago. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ivls. Allshouse had communicated with management what assistance she might need in terms of a reasonable accommodation. Ms. Netzke responded that it was her understanding that what Ms. Allshouse needed was for someone to help the day before the extermination to move the items that needed to be moved and to have some sort of storage. She believed she saw a note from the exterminator that indicated Ms. Allshouse had papers and boxes of books/papers which either needed to be treated, removed and/or destroyed. It was her opinion that Ms. Allshouse needed the assistance to take care of these things. Ms. Allshouse also needed advance notification of the extermination dates. Ms. Moermond stated that according to the record, Ms. Allshouse did not take this matter seriously until the unit was condemned although this problem had been on-going for several years. Ms. Netzke stated that from what she could tell, it appeared Ms. Allshouse had made some efforts to cooperate to the best o£her ability and then things changed. She was unsure if this was due to the heart surgery that she had over the summer when she realized she couldn't handle doing things for herself or some other reason. She did not believe Ms. Allshouse had requested any reasonable accommodation in the past. Ms. Shaff said that she had talked to the exterminator and he told her this was the first time that there was not stuff stock-piled on the loveseat and it was actually pulled away from the wall. In the past, items were either not removed or were put away in dresser drawers. Ms. Moermond asked when the exterminator had last been at the unit for treatment. Ms. Shaff responded that the unit was treated the previous week, she believed November 25; however, it was not a complete treatment. The exterminator said that they spot treated the kitchen which was something they normally did not have to do; however, this was by far the most successfixl of the exterminations they have done at this unit so far. Ms. Netzke stated that it should be noted that Ms. Allshouse disposed of two beds, including box springs, and was currently sleeping in a chair. The only other remaining furniture that Ms. Allshouse had was the loveseat. Ms. Shaff stated that it was her understanding that Ms. Allshouse had been offered an air mattress which she refused. Ms. Netzke responded that it was her understanding that this was true; however, because of the surgery and given Ms. Allshouse age, she could not crawl down onto the floor to get onto the air mattress. Ms. Shaff also noted it was indicated that Ms. Allshouse did not react negatively to bedbug bites; however, the bugs obviously had migrated to other units and what about the tenants in those other units. Ms. Moermond referred to the following section of the Legislative Code which she believed applied: December 2, 2008 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 10 by�� Chapter 34. Minimum Property Maintenance Standards for All Structures and Premises''` Sec. 34.16. Responsibilities of occupants relating to the maintenance of dwelling units: (1) Cleanliness. Every occupant of a dwelling unit or rooming unit shall keep in a clean and sanitary condition that part of the premises thereof which the occupant occupies or controls. Ms. Netzke responded that she also believed that part of the responsibility fell on the landlord as well and what she was requesting was a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Allshouse. Ms. Shaff stated that she also believed the following section of the Legislative Code applied: Sec. 34.20. Duty of occupant to allow access to owner or operator: Every occupant of buildings, dwelling units, guest rooms, habitable rooms, premises, residential structures, rooming houses, rooming units and other structures ar premises shall upon receiving reasonable prior notice give the owner or operator or their agent or employee access to the premises at reasonable times for the purpose of effecting inspections, maintenance, repairs or alterations which aze necessary to comply with provisions of this chapter. She believed Ms. Allshouse had failed to participate in allowing the exterminator to successfully exterminate the bedbugs. Ms. Netzke responded that she believed Ms. Allshouse had previously made efforts to participate; however, she did not believe Ms. Allshouse was physically capable of handling all of the prep work by herself which was why she was now requesting assistance. Ms. Moermond asked whether Ms. Allshouse had a social worker assigned to her. Ms. Netzke xesponded that she did not and that at this point in time, SMRLS was acting on her behalf. Ms. Moermond recessed the hearing to review the records. Ms. Moermond stated that in this appeal process, Ms. Netzke was requesting help for Ms. Allshouse to prepaze her unit for extermination. It had been determined and that in the past, Ms. Allshouse had been difficult to work with and that this problem had been going on for some time. The issues, as she determined were as follows: money was needed for a place to stay; money to assist with preparation work; and money to help with moving costs. Ms. Netzke stated she did not believe Ms. Allshouse was in need of emergency relocation assistance at this point in time as it was her understanding that she had family living in the building that she would be able to stay with if it were a temporary situation. She believed she would need prep assistance, storage for the items she was unable to keep in her unit, and a better notification process needed to be in place in order to get the assistance to do the prep work. Ms. Moermond recommended staying the order to vacant conditioned on the unit be completely ready and prepared for extermination on or about Tuesday, December 9. She recommended continuing the matter to December 16 for follow up, to be done via-e-mail, on a successful extermination of the unit. If the extermination was not successful, she would recommend the unit be vacated within one week. If the extermination was successful, she recommended continuing the matter in Legislative Hearing (follow up to be done via-mail) to December 30 for compliance.