97-63RESOLUTION
�sented
Refetred To
QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESQTA
y9
Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves the decision of the Legisiafive
2 Hearing Officer based on the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation concerning the
3 Revocation o£ Certificate of Occupancy for L& S, Inc., d!b/a The Emporium, 1Q75 Hudson Road.
n
LI
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayot for Submission to Council
�
Approved by Mayar:
Date
Conncil File # ���
Green Sheet #'-�U'�
�
Adopted by Council: Date � a� ���
� doprion Certified by Council Secretary
y: - fi�� �- . t-�,,,.�..,��_
��1 �e�j
�ri�s��i
DER1R7A1ENTAFFlCE/COUNCIL DATE INIT7ATED � v v v •
crtycourrcu, ifists� GREEN SHEE
INITIAVDATE INRIAVDATE
CANTNCf PEflSON & PHONE � DEPAPTMENT OIRECTOR � CIT' COUNCIL
eRY SLI'aulID2n ZGG"8575 ASSIGN � C(TY ATiORNEY � CITY CLERK
BE ON CAf1NCiL AGENDA BV (DATE) p � O BUDGEf DIRECTO � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES OIR.
January 22, 1997 ONDEft � �{pyOR (OR ASSISlAN n ❑
TO'i'AL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCA'ffONS FOH SIGNASURE)
ACT10N AE�UESTED:
Accepting the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendarion of the Legisla5ve Hearing OfCcer on the Revocation of Certificate
of Occupancy for L& S, Inc., dlbla The Emporium, 1075 Hudson Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Faject (P) pERSONAI SERVICE CONTRACTS MUS7 ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING OUEST�ONS:
_ PLANNING CqMMI5510N _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this person/firm ever workad under a wMrect for this tlepaAmerrt?
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ �'ES NO
_ STAFF _ 2. H851I1i5 P2150i1��T 2Vef bEe�l 2 C1ty BmPIOyEe?
YES NO
_ 01STRIC7 COUR7 _ 3. Does this personrtirm possess a skill n0t nOrmalfy possessed
by any current city employeel
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explafn all yes answers on separate sheet antl ettach to green shcet
INITIATING PROBLEM, fSSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM. Whffi. When, Whera. WFry):
TAGES IFAPPROVED:
R ������
C'/�� A � r� ,y9,
��
DISA�VANTAGESIFAPPRWED: �
�_6A�� eeY � be,a�S`�
�.4>-m _. . _e �,v� � �f�
�rii� 1 � (��/
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED'
iOTAL AMOUNT Of TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED iqRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIiBCa SOURCE ACTWI7Y NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFOR6nAT10N' (EXPL0.IN)
�—� b3
•
C� oF s� pA�.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER
FOR THE CITI' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
In re the Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy FINDINGS OF FACT.
L& S, Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND
d/b/a The Emporium RECOMI�IENDATION
1075 Hudson Road
The above-enfifled matter came on for hearing before Gerry Strathman, Legislative
Heaiiug Officer, on October 28, 199b and was continued to December 13, 1996. The hearing
concluded on December 13, 1996.
Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevazd, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55102, appeazed on behalf of the Saint Paul Fire Department, Mark Vaught,
Attorney At Law, Suite 700, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeazed on behalf
of L & S,Inc.
� This Report is submitted to the Saint Paul City Council, pursuant to Chapter 18 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code.
The report is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Saint Paul City Council will
make the final decision after a review of this record. The City Council has the authority to
approve, modify, reverse, revoke, wholly or partly, the hearing officer's orders, decisions or
deternunations and shall make such order, decision or determinarion as ought to be made.
S�'ATENIENT OF ISSUES
The issue in this case is whether or not the Saint Paul Fire Mazshal acted properly in
revoking the Certificate of Occupancy for 1075 Hudson Road.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On July 19, 1996 Inspector Fhillip Owens delivered a Notice of Special Revocation
letter to 1075 Hudson Road.
2. On August 6, 1996 Mazk Vaught appeazed befare the Legislative Hearing Officer on
behalf of L& S, Inc, on this matter.
• 3. On August 14, 1996 Mazk Vaught appeared before the City Council as counsel on
behalf of L& S, Inc. on ttris matter.
�� �3
• 4. On October 28,1996 and on December 13, 1996 Mark Vaught again agpeared before
the Legislarive Hearing Officer on behalf of L& S, Inc. on this matter.
5. On Mazch 18, 1996 Robert Donald Kalabunder told Sgt. Holtz of the St. Paul Police
Department that a woman at 1075 Hudson Road agree to give him oral sex and told him it would
cost $100. He staxed that he received oral sex. No arrest was made.
6. On June 28, 199b Curtis Wright Baker told Sgt. Holtz of the St. Paul Police
Department that he had intercourse with a woman at 1075 Hudson Road at a cost of $100. No
arrest was made.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The St. Pau1 City Council and the Legislafive Hearing Officer haue authority to
consider the issues raised in the appeal of L& S, Inc.
2. L& S, Inc. has had sufficient notice of the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy
for 1075 Hudson Road.
3. The uncorroborated and unsworn statements of two men to a St. Paul Police Sergeant
do not, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient basis for the Fire Mazshal to determine that this
. building may constitute a nuisance as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 617.81 as
required by SPLC 33.02 (c)
RECONIMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED the a�Ceal of1 L
�
Hearing Officer
`J
��e3
r-�
LJ
Ir1�ITCl7:7\�ITf17i
During hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer, the appellant claimed that the service of
the norice was defective in that the notice was addressed to R B Holden Et al. rather than to L&
S, Inc. Without deteruiiniug if this initial service of notice was correet, it is obvious that L& S,
Inc. was aware of the Fire Marshal's detetmination on a timely basis. This is evidenced by the
fact that an appeal was filed by L& S, Inc. on July 3, 1996 and L& S, Inc. has been represented
by counsei at all of the hearings which have taken place on this matter between August 6, 1996
and December 13, 1446. There can be no doubt that L& S, Inc. has been and continues to be
well-informed regarding to the City's actions with respect to 1075 Hudson Road.
L&S, Inc. has argued that there is an insufficient factual basis for revocarion of the Certificate of
Occupancy far 1075 Hudson Road. The unconoborated and unsworn statements of two men to
a St. Paul Police Sergeant that they engaged in prostitution-related acts withiu the premise at
1075 Hudson Road is not sufficient to determine that this building is a pubiic nuisance and
deprive ats owner of full use of the property. There has been no opportunity to assess the
credibility of these informants nor to determine the circuxnstances under which these statements
of wrong-doing were made. It is also noted that the Police Sergeant receiving these reports did
not use them as a basis for anesting either of these men ar the alleged prostitutes at 1075 Hudson
Road.
� It is recommended that, in the future, the Fire Marshal take more care in determining the facts
when declaring a building a public nuisance pursuant to SPLC 33.02 (c) and that specific details
regarding these facts be included with the notice of revocation.
•
RESOLUTION
�sented
Refetred To
QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESQTA
y9
Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves the decision of the Legisiafive
2 Hearing Officer based on the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation concerning the
3 Revocation o£ Certificate of Occupancy for L& S, Inc., d!b/a The Emporium, 1Q75 Hudson Road.
n
LI
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayot for Submission to Council
�
Approved by Mayar:
Date
Conncil File # ���
Green Sheet #'-�U'�
�
Adopted by Council: Date � a� ���
� doprion Certified by Council Secretary
y: - fi�� �- . t-�,,,.�..,��_
��1 �e�j
�ri�s��i
DER1R7A1ENTAFFlCE/COUNCIL DATE INIT7ATED � v v v •
crtycourrcu, ifists� GREEN SHEE
INITIAVDATE INRIAVDATE
CANTNCf PEflSON & PHONE � DEPAPTMENT OIRECTOR � CIT' COUNCIL
eRY SLI'aulID2n ZGG"8575 ASSIGN � C(TY ATiORNEY � CITY CLERK
BE ON CAf1NCiL AGENDA BV (DATE) p � O BUDGEf DIRECTO � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES OIR.
January 22, 1997 ONDEft � �{pyOR (OR ASSISlAN n ❑
TO'i'AL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCA'ffONS FOH SIGNASURE)
ACT10N AE�UESTED:
Accepting the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendarion of the Legisla5ve Hearing OfCcer on the Revocation of Certificate
of Occupancy for L& S, Inc., dlbla The Emporium, 1075 Hudson Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Faject (P) pERSONAI SERVICE CONTRACTS MUS7 ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING OUEST�ONS:
_ PLANNING CqMMI5510N _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this person/firm ever workad under a wMrect for this tlepaAmerrt?
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ �'ES NO
_ STAFF _ 2. H851I1i5 P2150i1��T 2Vef bEe�l 2 C1ty BmPIOyEe?
YES NO
_ 01STRIC7 COUR7 _ 3. Does this personrtirm possess a skill n0t nOrmalfy possessed
by any current city employeel
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explafn all yes answers on separate sheet antl ettach to green shcet
INITIATING PROBLEM, fSSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM. Whffi. When, Whera. WFry):
TAGES IFAPPROVED:
R ������
C'/�� A � r� ,y9,
��
DISA�VANTAGESIFAPPRWED: �
�_6A�� eeY � be,a�S`�
�.4>-m _. . _e �,v� � �f�
�rii� 1 � (��/
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED'
iOTAL AMOUNT Of TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED iqRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIiBCa SOURCE ACTWI7Y NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFOR6nAT10N' (EXPL0.IN)
�—� b3
•
C� oF s� pA�.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER
FOR THE CITI' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
In re the Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy FINDINGS OF FACT.
L& S, Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND
d/b/a The Emporium RECOMI�IENDATION
1075 Hudson Road
The above-enfifled matter came on for hearing before Gerry Strathman, Legislative
Heaiiug Officer, on October 28, 199b and was continued to December 13, 1996. The hearing
concluded on December 13, 1996.
Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevazd, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55102, appeazed on behalf of the Saint Paul Fire Department, Mark Vaught,
Attorney At Law, Suite 700, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeazed on behalf
of L & S,Inc.
� This Report is submitted to the Saint Paul City Council, pursuant to Chapter 18 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code.
The report is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Saint Paul City Council will
make the final decision after a review of this record. The City Council has the authority to
approve, modify, reverse, revoke, wholly or partly, the hearing officer's orders, decisions or
deternunations and shall make such order, decision or determinarion as ought to be made.
S�'ATENIENT OF ISSUES
The issue in this case is whether or not the Saint Paul Fire Mazshal acted properly in
revoking the Certificate of Occupancy for 1075 Hudson Road.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On July 19, 1996 Inspector Fhillip Owens delivered a Notice of Special Revocation
letter to 1075 Hudson Road.
2. On August 6, 1996 Mazk Vaught appeazed befare the Legislative Hearing Officer on
behalf of L& S, Inc, on this matter.
• 3. On August 14, 1996 Mazk Vaught appeared before the City Council as counsel on
behalf of L& S, Inc. on ttris matter.
�� �3
• 4. On October 28,1996 and on December 13, 1996 Mark Vaught again agpeared before
the Legislarive Hearing Officer on behalf of L& S, Inc. on this matter.
5. On Mazch 18, 1996 Robert Donald Kalabunder told Sgt. Holtz of the St. Paul Police
Department that a woman at 1075 Hudson Road agree to give him oral sex and told him it would
cost $100. He staxed that he received oral sex. No arrest was made.
6. On June 28, 199b Curtis Wright Baker told Sgt. Holtz of the St. Paul Police
Department that he had intercourse with a woman at 1075 Hudson Road at a cost of $100. No
arrest was made.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The St. Pau1 City Council and the Legislafive Hearing Officer haue authority to
consider the issues raised in the appeal of L& S, Inc.
2. L& S, Inc. has had sufficient notice of the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy
for 1075 Hudson Road.
3. The uncorroborated and unsworn statements of two men to a St. Paul Police Sergeant
do not, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient basis for the Fire Mazshal to determine that this
. building may constitute a nuisance as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 617.81 as
required by SPLC 33.02 (c)
RECONIMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED the a�Ceal of1 L
�
Hearing Officer
`J
��e3
r-�
LJ
Ir1�ITCl7:7\�ITf17i
During hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer, the appellant claimed that the service of
the norice was defective in that the notice was addressed to R B Holden Et al. rather than to L&
S, Inc. Without deteruiiniug if this initial service of notice was correet, it is obvious that L& S,
Inc. was aware of the Fire Marshal's detetmination on a timely basis. This is evidenced by the
fact that an appeal was filed by L& S, Inc. on July 3, 1996 and L& S, Inc. has been represented
by counsei at all of the hearings which have taken place on this matter between August 6, 1996
and December 13, 1446. There can be no doubt that L& S, Inc. has been and continues to be
well-informed regarding to the City's actions with respect to 1075 Hudson Road.
L&S, Inc. has argued that there is an insufficient factual basis for revocarion of the Certificate of
Occupancy far 1075 Hudson Road. The unconoborated and unsworn statements of two men to
a St. Paul Police Sergeant that they engaged in prostitution-related acts withiu the premise at
1075 Hudson Road is not sufficient to determine that this building is a pubiic nuisance and
deprive ats owner of full use of the property. There has been no opportunity to assess the
credibility of these informants nor to determine the circuxnstances under which these statements
of wrong-doing were made. It is also noted that the Police Sergeant receiving these reports did
not use them as a basis for anesting either of these men ar the alleged prostitutes at 1075 Hudson
Road.
� It is recommended that, in the future, the Fire Marshal take more care in determining the facts
when declaring a building a public nuisance pursuant to SPLC 33.02 (c) and that specific details
regarding these facts be included with the notice of revocation.
•
RESOLUTION
�sented
Refetred To
QF SAINT PAUL, MINNESQTA
y9
Committee Date
1 BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby approves the decision of the Legisiafive
2 Hearing Officer based on the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendation concerning the
3 Revocation o£ Certificate of Occupancy for L& S, Inc., d!b/a The Emporium, 1Q75 Hudson Road.
n
LI
Requested by Department of:
�
Form Approved by City Attomey
�
Approved by Mayot for Submission to Council
�
Approved by Mayar:
Date
Conncil File # ���
Green Sheet #'-�U'�
�
Adopted by Council: Date � a� ��-(
� doprion Certified by Council Secretary
y: - fi�� �- . t-�,,,.�..,��_
��1 �e�j
�ri�s��i
DER1R7A1ENTAFFlCE/COUNCIL DATE INIT7ATED � v v v •
crtycourrcu, ifists� GREEN SHEE
INITIAVDATE INRIAVDATE
CANTNCf PEflSON & PHONE � DEPAPTMENT OIRECTOR � CIT' COUNCIL
eRY SLI'aulID2n ZGG"8575 ASSIGN � C(TY ATiORNEY � CITY CLERK
BE ON CAf1NCiL AGENDA BV (DATE) p � O BUDGEf DIRECTO � FIN. & MGT. SERVICES OIR.
January 22, 1997 ONDEft � �{pyOR (OR ASSISlAN n ❑
TO'i'AL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCA'ffONS FOH SIGNASURE)
ACT10N AE�UESTED:
Accepting the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendarion of the Legisla5ve Hearing OfCcer on the Revocation of Certificate
of Occupancy for L& S, Inc., dlbla The Emporium, 1075 Hudson Road.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Faject (P) pERSONAI SERVICE CONTRACTS MUS7 ANSWER 7HE FOLLOWING OUEST�ONS:
_ PLANNING CqMMI5510N _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �• Has this person/firm ever workad under a wMrect for this tlepaAmerrt?
_ CIB COMMITTEE _ �'ES NO
_ STAFF _ 2. H851I1i5 P2150i1��T 2Vef bEe�l 2 C1ty BmPIOyEe?
YES NO
_ 01STRIC7 COUR7 _ 3. Does this personrtirm possess a skill n0t nOrmalfy possessed
by any current city employeel
SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE4 YES NO
Explafn all yes answers on separate sheet antl ettach to green shcet
INITIATING PROBLEM, fSSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM. Whffi. When, Whera. WFry):
TAGES IFAPPROVED:
R ������
C'/�� A � r� ,y9,
��
DISA�VANTAGESIFAPPRWED: �
�_6A�� eeY � be,a�S`�
�.4>-m _. . _e �,v� � �f�
�rii� 1 � (��/
DISADVANTAGES IF NOTAPPROVED'
iOTAL AMOUNT Of TRANSACTION $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED iqRCLE ONE) YES NO
FUNDIiBCa SOURCE ACTWI7Y NUMBER
FINANCIAL INFOR6nAT10N' (EXPL0.IN)
�—� b3
•
C� oF s� pA�.
LEGISLATIVE HEARING OFFICER
FOR THE CITI' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL
In re the Revocation of Certificate of Occupancy FINDINGS OF FACT.
L& S, Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND
d/b/a The Emporium RECOMI�IENDATION
1075 Hudson Road
The above-enfifled matter came on for hearing before Gerry Strathman, Legislative
Heaiiug Officer, on October 28, 199b and was continued to December 13, 1996. The hearing
concluded on December 13, 1996.
Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, 400 City Hall, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevazd, St.
Paul, Minnesota 55102, appeazed on behalf of the Saint Paul Fire Department, Mark Vaught,
Attorney At Law, Suite 700, Six West Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 appeazed on behalf
of L & S,Inc.
� This Report is submitted to the Saint Paul City Council, pursuant to Chapter 18 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code.
The report is a recommendation, not a final decision. The Saint Paul City Council will
make the final decision after a review of this record. The City Council has the authority to
approve, modify, reverse, revoke, wholly or partly, the hearing officer's orders, decisions or
deternunations and shall make such order, decision or determinarion as ought to be made.
S�'ATENIENT OF ISSUES
The issue in this case is whether or not the Saint Paul Fire Mazshal acted properly in
revoking the Certificate of Occupancy for 1075 Hudson Road.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On July 19, 1996 Inspector Fhillip Owens delivered a Notice of Special Revocation
letter to 1075 Hudson Road.
2. On August 6, 1996 Mazk Vaught appeazed befare the Legislative Hearing Officer on
behalf of L& S, Inc, on this matter.
• 3. On August 14, 1996 Mazk Vaught appeared before the City Council as counsel on
behalf of L& S, Inc. on ttris matter.
�� �3
• 4. On October 28,1996 and on December 13, 1996 Mark Vaught again agpeared before
the Legislarive Hearing Officer on behalf of L& S, Inc. on this matter.
5. On Mazch 18, 1996 Robert Donald Kalabunder told Sgt. Holtz of the St. Paul Police
Department that a woman at 1075 Hudson Road agree to give him oral sex and told him it would
cost $100. He staxed that he received oral sex. No arrest was made.
6. On June 28, 199b Curtis Wright Baker told Sgt. Holtz of the St. Paul Police
Department that he had intercourse with a woman at 1075 Hudson Road at a cost of $100. No
arrest was made.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The St. Pau1 City Council and the Legislafive Hearing Officer haue authority to
consider the issues raised in the appeal of L& S, Inc.
2. L& S, Inc. has had sufficient notice of the revocation of the Certificate of Occupancy
for 1075 Hudson Road.
3. The uncorroborated and unsworn statements of two men to a St. Paul Police Sergeant
do not, in and of themselves, constitute sufficient basis for the Fire Mazshal to determine that this
. building may constitute a nuisance as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 617.81 as
required by SPLC 33.02 (c)
RECONIMENDATION
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED the a�Ceal of1 L
�
Hearing Officer
`J
��e3
r-�
LJ
Ir1�ITCl7:7\�ITf17i
During hearings before the Legislative Hearing Officer, the appellant claimed that the service of
the norice was defective in that the notice was addressed to R B Holden Et al. rather than to L&
S, Inc. Without deteruiiniug if this initial service of notice was correet, it is obvious that L& S,
Inc. was aware of the Fire Marshal's detetmination on a timely basis. This is evidenced by the
fact that an appeal was filed by L& S, Inc. on July 3, 1996 and L& S, Inc. has been represented
by counsei at all of the hearings which have taken place on this matter between August 6, 1996
and December 13, 1446. There can be no doubt that L& S, Inc. has been and continues to be
well-informed regarding to the City's actions with respect to 1075 Hudson Road.
L&S, Inc. has argued that there is an insufficient factual basis for revocarion of the Certificate of
Occupancy far 1075 Hudson Road. The unconoborated and unsworn statements of two men to
a St. Paul Police Sergeant that they engaged in prostitution-related acts withiu the premise at
1075 Hudson Road is not sufficient to determine that this building is a pubiic nuisance and
deprive ats owner of full use of the property. There has been no opportunity to assess the
credibility of these informants nor to determine the circuxnstances under which these statements
of wrong-doing were made. It is also noted that the Police Sergeant receiving these reports did
not use them as a basis for anesting either of these men ar the alleged prostitutes at 1075 Hudson
Road.
� It is recommended that, in the future, the Fire Marshal take more care in determining the facts
when declaring a building a public nuisance pursuant to SPLC 33.02 (c) and that specific details
regarding these facts be included with the notice of revocation.
•