Griffin: first, I was in touch with the subsidy Department, it isn’t in escrow. It just wasn’t
paid to the landlord because of the conditions. It is being held and will not be paid
moving forward. Regarding speaking with the lawyer, we asked Ms. Carpenter to sign a
release of information so we could speak with him and she refused at that time. So we
haven’t spoken with him. The lawyer did reach out to the subsidy administrator and he
was told we couldn’t speak to him without that release.
Moermond: Mr. Ellefson, tell me, your client isn’t interested in signing that release so
Lutheran Social Services can work with you?
Ellefson: we had some emails back and forth and we haven’t done it, but it will happen.
Moermond: I do see there has been progress since the last time we spoke. Both in
terms of the orders being shorter and items being removed, the extermination was
done. I assume if the exterminator said that there needs to be a repeated visit that will
be followed through on. I’d look for that to be done according to their recommendation.
I’m comfortable giving an extension on the vacate date to allow for time for the rest of
the list to be addressed. Mr. Ellefson, I don’t think I’m going to venture into the waters
of determining what is landlord vs. tenant caused problems within this list. The fact the
problem exists is what the City concerns itself with, and not attributing it to landlord or
tenant. A backed up sewer causes sanitation issues whether it’s a break in the sewer
system or a t-shirt was flushed. The resolution of the problem needs to be worked out
between you and the owner. Mr. Imbertson, any other comments?
Imbertson: I would agree with those comments. We don’t determine on our inspection
whether the issues are caused by tenant or landlord. Looking through the pictures I
can assume there is a combination of both unless it was rented with some of the
sanitation issues or dirty carpet and trash on the floor. Some is related to use and
occupancy of the property but we don’t make a determination who is responsible, what
is normal wear and tear and requires the carpet being replaced. We deal with this
being the issue and this is what needs to be done. I haven’t been to the property
personally but after speaking to the inspector the most recent inspection orders do
appear to be accurate.
Griffin: I was present last week and I may have missed something. I asked what we
needed to do to get out from under the condemnation I was told the combustible items
needed to be removed from home and front porch and the exterminator. I thought we
remedied those and now we’re talking about other things. Am I confused or did I
mishear?
Moermond: what I intended to communicate, and perhaps didn’t do well enough, was
that I’m happy to continue the conversation on the order to vacate without vacating if
those major items were dealt with and that was an act of good faith in addressing those
items that were the worst in my view. In doing that we bought time to talk about the
rest of this. That was my thinking. It gave us some breathing room to deal with the rest
of this. I wasn’t trying to parse out which ones would result in an ongoing order to
vacate. I am seeing things that are concerning but I am also thinking that the
breathing room we bought continues to be there. I know it will be better if the property
continues to be under an order to vacate with a longer deadline in terms of the ETRA
to illicit a response. Mr. Ellefson?
Ellefson: I do agree with you. Can we do a condemnation but not an order to vacate? It
does let the court know the seriousness. I don’t have an objection as long as there is
not an order to vacate.
Griffin: I will say we did reach out to the landlord and they are back around. We
reached out via email. Not sure that makes a difference.