15 West Kellogg Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55102

City of Saint Paul

Minutes - Final

Rent Stabilization Appeal Hearings

Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer

rentappeals@ci.stpaul.mn.us

651-266-8568

Thursday, August 10, 2023

10:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House

Appeal of Sumeya Mohamed to a Rent Stabilization Determination at 200

WINTHROP STREET SOUTH, APT. 313.

RLH RSA 24-4

Johnson

Sponsors:

Lynne Ferkinhoff & Demetrius Sass, Rent Stabilization staff at the Department of

Safety and Inspections

Sumeya Mohamed, appellant appeared

James Poradek, Abbie Hanson and Jack Cann of the Housing Justice Center,

attorneys representing Ms. Mohamed appeared

Greg Myers, expert on behalf of appellant, appeared

Jason Wood, G & I Phoenix Apartments, LLC, Marquette Management, appeared

Moermond: I hear a number of kinds of appeals including appeals on Chapter 193A,

rent stabilization ordinance. I need to hear the appeal being made of the city’s

determination of an exception to the rent cap. It’s an appeal of that determination

made by the Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI). I need to take the

information I hear and see and come up with a recommendation for the Council to

consider. If everybody is ok with what I'm recommending to the City Council, the

Council will go ahead and adopt the recommendation as a part of its public hearing

consent agenda. Note, anybody can come to testify. The Council will deliberate and

may or may not come to a decision at that time. I don't know if we are going to finish

our discussion today. I did receive a fair bit of additional information yesterday

(Wednesday) which I will admit is a very busy day with Council meetings on

Wednesdays. We have people in the room I would like to identify. First, we have staff

from DSI who have nameplates: Lynn Ferkinhoff and Demetrious Sass. I am assuming

that we have Sumeya Mohamed, who is the appellant today, who I will be checking in

with from time to time. I understand you are represented, and I have 3 attorneys names

appearing in the paperwork. We have 3 chairs in front, and we'll try to keep things

moving in a way that whoever is talking is in a chair with a microphone. Ms. Romero is

organizing the notes for this meeting. I recognize you Mr. Cann, of course. Also, we

have Abigail Hanson. It looks like the actual person who filed an appeal on your behalf

Ms. Mohamed was James Poradek. I'm simply a hearing officer who makes

recommendations, not final determinations. Essentially, my job is to create a record of

findings and a recommendation. Finally, I'm also looking for Mr. Jason Wood and Ms.

Delisle.

Wood: She will not be in attendance today.

Moermond: Would you have anybody else with you today?

Wood: No.

Moermond: You are from G & I Phoenix Apartments, LLC. Do you have a title with

that?

Wood: That’s the ownership entity that owns the property. I work for Marquette

companies. I am the director of asset management along with 34 other assets

throughout the Midwest.

Moermond: The way I normally conduct these hearings is to start with the staff report. I

would like staff to lay the groundwork about what they looked at, what process they

use to review the application, how they came to the determination that they did. Then I

would like to talk to the appellant, find out why you are appealing what you're looking

for in the appeals process and talk to anyone else who's an interested party.

Obviously, you as the owner who represent ownership are an interested party. Is there

anybody else who would want to talk who isn't somehow connected already? This is a

public record and I want to emphasize public in the sense that I want the record, the

notes from the meeting and the way we talk about things to be understandable to not

be using terminology that isn’t generally understood, so that somebody can look

through the notes in the meeting and can understand what we were talking about. The

Council obviously deals with appeals of thing, but this is something of a larger public

interest. If we can make that successful for not using not understood terminology or

not defining it when we use it. If you need to a specific term just define it. That's true

when City staff speak and when other people speak. If you don't have any questions,

we'll turn it over to you Ms. Ferkinhoff. Where would you like to draw my attention to

first?

Ferkinhoff: I’ll start off with the staff report. On January 2, 2023, DSI received a Just

Cause Vacancy application to allow the owner of The Haven of Battle Creek to

increase the rent for vacated units by the Consumer Price Index plus 8% per the Rent

Stabilization Ordinance. The intake form is part of the record and Cheron Eich is listed

as the applicant. Ms. Eich represents Marquette Management and submitted the

application on behalf of G & I Phoenix Apartments, LLC (the owner of the property).

After receiving the application, staff exchanged several emails with Ms. Eich about the

process to request a rent increase exception to the 3% cap using staff determination,

self-certification and Just Cause Vacancy. On January 24, 2023, DSI received an

email with multiple attachments comprising a staff determination request for an

exception to the 3% rent increase cap per Ordinance 193A. The request is for The

Haven of Battle Creek. Ms. Eich submitted the email and attachments. Staff used the

information provided by Ms. Eich to create an application, which is part of the record.

The original Just Cause Vacancy application was marked as “Abandoned” in the Rent

Stabilization SharePoint. The reasons listed for the increase include: 1) An

unavoidable increase in operating expenses; and 2) A capital improvement project.

According to information provided by Ms. Eich, G & I X Phoenix Apartments, LLC

purchased The Haven of Battle Creek on May 17, 2021 and began an extensive

building and unit renovation program. Ms. Eich indicated that the apartment buildings

were built in 1988 and many of the units still had the original amenities and décor. The

application submitted by The Haven of Battle Creek included a brief description of

several interior and exterior capital improvement projects, including exterior completed

projects: 1) paint; 2) asphalt; 3) concrete; 4) roof (new on 200 side); 5) balcony; 6)

drainage; 7) landscape (repairs). Completed interior repairs listed were: 1) new leasing

office; 2) renovated indoor pool; 3) fitness center; 4) model; 6) lobbies; 7) painting

(hallways, stairwells, doors); 8) door locks (new). In progress interior work included: 1)

package room; 2) mailboxes (new on 200 side); 3) garage (power washing / striping); 4)

fob and camera systems installation (new); 6) outdoor patio (off the pool); 7) outdoor

eating / veranda area.

Upon reviewing the application, staff decided to meet virtually with Ms. Eich and Jason

Wood (Director, Asset Management at Marquette Companies). During the meeting on

March 2, 2023, the application was reviewed and discussed, including open items for:

1) interest allowance; and 2) planned capital. As this was a complex application, a

substantial amount of financial analysis was required. A significant level of

communication took place between DSI staff and Marquette representatives between

January 2023 and May 2023.

City staff issued a determination letter on May 25, 2023, granting approval of the

requested rent increase at varying percentages, depending on the unit. In the

determination letter, staff included an attachment to show the percentage in rent

increase that was allowed by unit. The allowed amount was separated to show the

percentage that could be attributed to renovation and the percentage that could be

attributed to net operating income. The allowed rent increases ranged from 26.48% to

80.61%. Unit 313 was approved for a 26.48% increase or a new maximum rent of

$1,823.84 per month. The increase was entirely attributed to net operating income with

no increase allowed for renovation. At the City’s request, Ms. Eich provided a Rent Roll

to the DSI on February 1, 2023. The rent roll was used to mail notification postcards to

the tenants to inform them that their landlord. Notices were as follows: on February 1,

2023 there was a requested for an exception to the rent increase cap; and on May 24,

2023 an exception to the rent increase cap was which included advisement of appeal

rights. The Haven of Battle Creek comprises two addresses: 200 Winthrop Street

South and 215 Kipling Street.

The last Fire Certificate of Occupancy was approved in February 2023 as a Class A

property. Complaints include: January 10, 2023 – mouse infestation; June 15, 2023 –

fire alarm issue (fire alarm resets, but indicates it’s in trouble mode); and August 2,

2023 – rodents, flooding, broken glass and garbage on the property. All issues have

been remedied or are in the process of being remedied.

Moermond: I'm going to pause for a second just to clarify for the record. In January,

you received an application, a just cause vacancy application to increase rent and

found out that was not the appropriate type of application to be made in these

circumstances that were being described in the just cause vacancy. The appropriate

application would have been staff determination.

Ferkinhoff: That's correct. There was confusion and I can see that in the emails

between myself and Ms. Eich. She was asking questions like if she would be present

for the appeal for just cause vacancy. There was a lot of process information and

remember that on January 1st the amendments had gone into place for the just cause

vacancy. It was new not just for her, but for everybody. We took some time to walk

through and explain just cause vacancy, staff determination, and self-certification. At

some point in in the process, they opted for staff-determination because the just

cause vacancy did not make sense for them.

Moermond: So you provided that information, the decision was made. They would go

forward with an application that would be for an increase in excess of 8%. You said

that you had information already and you just transferred it, meaning you had

information that you normally would have been asking for as a part of staff review.

Ferkinhoff: What they had done was filled out the online in-take form. We were able to

take that information and moved it over into our staff determination application and

they subsequently provided some additional information which we included in that staff

determination application.

Moermond: Thank you, that helps. Are there existing orders, at least from August? I'm

assuming that the June issues would have been resolved, how about the existing

August 1st orders.

Ferkinhoff: Well, I know that last one, the rodents, flooding, broken glass, and

garbage on the property. That complaint was dated 8/2/2023. I can check that out.

Sass: When I last checked there wasn’t anything it was too new.

Ferkinhoff: It was fairly new, so we haven't seen anything come through.

Moermond: Do you have any other comments? Anything that makes this particularly

different and unusual? We know the complex is huge. I have to say the largest one

that we had in this hearing room that we had to review.

Sass: Certainly, one of the largest, probably the most financially complex with the

scale of renovation going on.

Moermond: Any other comments that you both want to make while reviewing the

report?

Sass: I did look up to the most recent complaint from the second of this month and it

is currently marked as closed. I will just read out what it says here in the Fire

Prevention: “I took a look at all 3 floors spoke with the manager and maintenance. No

one was aware of flooding in the garage, flooding or standing water on the property. I

knocked on 4 doors, and no one said they had mice or roaches. The grounds people

were cleaning around the building.” This was around noon on August 3, 2023, the

following day.

Moermond: Obviously you're there to ask questions of. I'm going to invite Ms. Hanson,

Mr. Poradek, Ms. Mohamed and anybody else. I am going to turned over to you folks

and ask you all to draw my attention to those things that you think need to be

considering, not only yesterday’s submissions, but to overall present your information.

I'm asking for an overview in a couple paragraphs would go a long way too inviting

others to understand what is going on.

Poradek: There are several elements to our main arguments, one of them just

developed in the last couple weeks when we had a chance to review DSI data practices

production. That's the reason it was so late we got it the 21st [July]. I do apologize it

was so late. I would like to focus a little bit maybe more on that at some point today

because this is probably new to you. The big thing that was driving this from the

beginning, and there’s many issues with that property, but the one that we think is the

one that needs to stop this rent increase and its tracks is the comprehensive lead and

asbestos violations at the property connected to the very renovation that is driving the

rent increase. They're in a position now where capital improvements, which is largely

this renovation, and then effects on the budget cause by the amortization of those

capital improvement projects. Those are all very clear violation in our view. We have an

expert report to this extent of the lead and asbestos laws that are at the core of health

and safety and therefore, the core of habitability in code 161. These are buildings with

wide issues that is happening in individual units now. It's also been happening since

they started the renovation, and you can see millions of dollars that are already been

expended. That was all done in violation of asbestos laws. We have our expert Greg

Myers here today and I will ask him to focus on a couple things, perhaps educate your

honor on the basics and let you ask him questions if that's okay. I'll maybe wait to

address that more fully right now. The other main thing that has come to light is what

we see in the documents we got from DSI and the process that occurred here in terms

of the approval ultimately of these huge rent increases. We see a process in which

DSI did not fulfill its legal duties. There's a number of them and we write what they are

in our letter but the two biggest ones that jump out with respect to lead and asbestos

violations are the following. First, there needs to be a reasonable investigation that's a

requirement by DSI and it needs to be not just for appeals, but it has to be for

complaints. In this case, we filed in February an initial complaint that gave a heads up

that this was an issue, and then the expert report at the end of February. We filed a

thorough complaint, as I've ever filed in federal court. It's an expert report that would

pass certainly. We wanted to make sure that when the city was evaluating this

application, it understood what was at stake. It isn't just a technical legal violation it is

the health and safety of every tenant family there, including children. What we

discovered in the documentation is that there was an initial concern. We have an

e-mail from Angie Weise sent an email shortly after we submitted on March 2, 2023.

Ms. Weise send an e-mail to a lot of her senior staff and to Mr. Sass and Ms.

Ferkinhoff, saying in the passing of Steve Ubl who is the City Building Official, and

said that she's concerned and says, “has the contractor tested for lead and asbestos?

Are they taking precautions, as is required if there's lead and asbestos present.” You'll

hear Greg Myers say those are 2 of the 3 right questions to ask. Has there been

testing to confirm there is a lead and asbestos, and if there hasn't been, is there a

presumption led and asbestos being there? The law dictates what that will be

fundamentally if it’s for lead its before 1978, and for asbestos I don't think there's a

strict timeline from what I can remember, but you look at the materials that are going

to be disturbed. In both situations she's asking the right questions and there would be

a presumption that much of the renovation work they're doing, and we can see it's

millions of dollars through the renovations of its exteriors, its new pool area, new units,

new common area, a new office. That's major stuff, and even if you don't have to drill

down, you'll see that's implicating those laws. Then when you drill down which Greg

Myers did as best as he could in his report, then you're like no this is a no go right

here. The first thing we did long before this rent increase appeal when we noticed this,

I think last June and July, is when we started to get alarmed. We wrote a letter and

said can you provide the same questions that Ms. Weise is asking? Can you give us

the inspection reports, or can you give the documentation that you need to keep and

maintain that you're doing all the precautions? Because when we interviewed people,

we saw none of it. In fact, we saw ongoing renovation, which there is none of that

signage, there was none of the different things you need to do in order to make it safe

for this community of 216 families, many of them with children and elders, we were

concerned. They just never sent to us the documentation, Mr. Mark at Marquette. This

is back last year, and I just want to say we've been concerned about this for a while.

Mr. Myers at that point is when he began looking into things. I think in late June of last

year he toured the facility and interviewed different people and gathered information.

This was a long-standing concern we raised with Haven, with Marquette, the property

owners, and Ms. DeLisle. We wanted to make sure when this application was being

filed that the city was fully aware was at stake there. That's why we submitted the

report. What we find is that after Ms. Wiese expressed a very professional concern, we

go into a black hole largely. What we do have is on April 7th, an email from Mr. Sass

to Ms. Ferkinhoff. On 4/7/2023, Mr. Sass writes, “Good Day, Ashely (probably meant

Angie) is wondering about the status of DSI’s investigation into the report on Haven.

We don't see any other evidence on DSI investigation into the report on Haven except

for some building stuff. We're not sure what that means but could suggest there's

much more going on that we know. This is our legal theory since their habitability

concerns and habitability is key to an approval we need to get this sorted out to avoid

being sued.” That's what he writes continuing from email, “Angie moved our meeting to

the morning. I figure we can ask her then.” I assume that's Ms. Wiese but I'm not

sure. Let's break this down, there is an investigation into the expert report on lead and

asbestos at Haven. I mean, it’s something you don’t necessarily see in many of the

documents from DSI. There's an admission that they have a duty to make sure that

habitability is key to approval, so we need to get this sorted out to avoid being sued. I

don't know what that last phrase means to get it sorted out. Do we mean to finish the

investigation to make sure it's safe or is it that we need to get it sorted out in some

other way, so it doesn't become a technical issue. I don’t know but that's the end of it.

That's the last internal document we have on the investigation until the report that was

issued, or not the report more like an internal briefing, on the 25th of May, one day

after the application was granted. This is the only other information that we would have

been able to find. There's a date in that report which is exhibit S-2 that is in our

supplemental material. It's dated February 28, 2023, Housing Justice Center submits

an expert report and quotes, “and the company exhibits which suggest that lead and

asbestos may not have been properly abated.” It's not really saying that it is absolutely

violating the law and it's not about abatement, it's about disturbance of that. In our

briefing, the question isn't are you formally there to handle lead and asbestos? That's

not the concern. It's when you're doing this kind of renovation, it necessarily disturbs

substances that have lead paint and then have asbestos if the building is of a certain

age, and what you're disturbing is of a certain type. That's where if it's a pre-1978

building, which this is 1976 building, then you need to follow all the precautions under

these federal and state rules. That doesn't quite say it right. Here's the end point, it's

unclear if lead-based paint removal and asbestos removal actually took place during

the renovation. The City would not be the appropriate authority on this matter that's it.

Our position is and I think what they're saying is this is something that other state

entities do. For example, asbestos you have Department of Health and the Department

of Minnesota Pollution Control, they're the people that would normally do it. But it

doesn't mean that the Department of Safety and Inspection who has an affirmative

obligation to make sure that habitability violations in this context, that absolutely that's

their job. If they don't know and it is tricky, then you contact somebody who knows. I'll

just give one suggestion you can contact Greg Myers who had submitted a report in

connection with a complaint from a tenant. We know from the ordinance that once that

complaint is submitted, they have a duty to conduct the necessary investigation, and

at the very least that involves calling us up or calling Ms. Mohamed up, and then Greg

Myers, he's the experts expert. He trains people who work for cities and state

government on lead and asbestos. I'm proud to have him as our expert, he is top notch

and is completely available. He consults with government agencies all the time, which

that didn't happen here. What we do have is dozens of communications about financial

issues with Mr. Wood and Marquette, which we think is weird. But what's really weird, is

contrast the dozens of communications with the amount of communications with Ms.

Mohamed, who has a very professional complaints submitted with real evidence, a real

concern, and the amount of the conversations we had with DSI either with the

inspection and safety or with rent stabilization. This is our communication, we've got

automatic reply saying, “we received your stuff.” When Ms. Hanson, because it was

silent for months, called Mr. Sass, he essentially says the inspectors are looking into

it. That was it, there was no we need more information or we need help. There's nothing

that is just cataclysmic in this context, it is a cataclysmic failure of their duty. So that's

kind of the sum and substance of where these two things come together. The two

issues, at the very least a strong prima facia case of very significant lead and

asbestos violations. We think it's undisputed if you're an expert and looked at it, but

understand people get their say. Then there is a rent increase of 25 to 75% based in

large part on the economics of the capital improvement project. This is the great irony,

the capital improvement project they're getting paid for and their getting to charge the

tenants for it is the one that put all those tenants in harm's way. They've had to live

through years of renovation that is unsafe to them under our theory of the case and

that's bad enough, and illegal. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has heavily

penalized people for much less. The second shoe to drop is that by the way after

you've lived through this you don’t get the benefit of this, you are going to get displaced

through this enormous rent increase. When you go back to the purpose of this

ordinance I don't think anybody would believe what's going on here, and by the way

nobody is more aware of the stake in terms of displacement here then DSI. I strongly

encourage if you're going to focus on a few things, the first memo in which is dated

January 1, 2023, that DSI sent to the mayor apparently initial thoughts for mayor

meeting. This meeting was a meeting with tenants organized by Isaiah to talk about all

the concerns that tenants have about the way they're being treated, including

habitability issues. Right before this meeting which the mayor is going to have a

listening session, this is what DSI writes and apparently submits to, we don't have the

actual email to the Mayor but I'm assuming and went to him, “Well, Haven Battle

Creek's business practices have left many taken aback. Yes, they have there's many

tenants who think there's a big problem. Haven Battle Creek's application is very

polished, well put together and without question represents a business deserving of an

allowable rent increase per ordinance 193A.” This happen in January, and it sounds

like that there may have been some advice giving on the proper application to give but

this is at the very beginning of the process. They made up their mind. It doesn’t matter

that these tenants are concerned about this. This is a heck of an application, and that

doesn't just get said at the beginning of the process before they had our complaint or

Ms. Mohamed’s complaint. We can go back to exhibit 2 supplemental 2, where they

use that very same language in discussing the appropriateness of this enormous rate

increase. That mindset never went away and we walk through as best as we can in that

supplemental letter, it absolutely infected the process and compromised it. This is a

very much an appeal about how DSI messed this up. That's very much what this is

now. Even if it weren’t, it shouldn't be granted because there are clear habitability

violations. When you put these two together, this needs to stop, this can't happen.

That's our fundamental position. DSI knew what was going on and it’s not like they

were blind to their being problems here. We have Angie Wiese’s emails saying lead

and asbestos. This is a big deal are they doing the right things? We also have them

saying in that memo they knew there was a large Somali population that would likely

be displaced at the property. There's a large East African community and the

unfortunate thing about this is that this rent increase will likely displace people. Well,

that's the reason we have this ordinance to avoid that exact problem. Remember, in

addition to a large Somali population, there are also a number of Section 8 recipients

who are housed there. It sounds to me like Haven has decided not to do Section 8

anymore but there are people there with vouchers in those units. This is what was said

literally in the report, “They suspect that Marquette was letting Section 8 units degrade

so that they could support a just cause vacancy.” I don't have the exact language in

front of me, do you have it?

Hanson: It’s on top of page 4 of the supplemental letter.

Poradek: This is the exact quote, "This is about Haven and about Marquette. They

purposely be failing Section 8 inspections to get to just cause vacancy.” Purposely

failing section 8 inspections means you're allowing the maintenance to degrade to a

point where Section 8 people can't live here anymore and that's been happening, that's

like major habitability issue. That's right in front of them that they acknowledge,

nonetheless, they're getting a 25 to 75% rent increase. I'm saying a lot right now but

those are kind of putting together the key themes that we see. I know that was more

than 2 paragraphs.

Moermond: A couple of things here. Number one, what’s your current rent Ms.

Mohamed?

Mohamed: Can I pull it up, so I can give you an exact number?

Moermond: Yes. The other question I have related to this is the lease cycle.

Mohamed: Yes, so my lease ended I have been month to month right now.

Moermond: Which is to be expected in the situation that has been ongoing appeal. We

have this happen when rent increases are stayed. I think that's a reasonable thing.

Poradek: There is another significant issue here that does go to § 161 but also other

parts. It's the improper pass through of utilities under Minnesota Statute § 504.B.215

and that's explained in our briefing. You'll recall that one of the concerns that is

addressed in the ordinance is the implementation by a landlord of the pass-through

utility and if that's a new thing during the period that you're evaluating for the rent

increase. That's something that specifically says they need to be complying with § 215

through it.

Moermond: We had the issue we worked on. It is these baby steps, and they get

rewritten again. I'm sure everything does. Bringing this back to the month-to-month

lease and you're concerned, you said utilities.

Poradek: There's a piece that's being added to the lease that we think is absolutely

illegal.

Moermond: Pending the final determination, there has been an addition of a utility

amount that exceeds the 3% increase.

Poradek: That may be happening some places, but my concern is when Marquette

took this over in May of 2021, there were no pass-through utility cost to the tenant.

After they took it over, they started to implement it with new leases. We think that Ms.

Mohamed was one of those people. However, as you probably recall section 215 has a

certain requirement that you're going to be adding to a lease you're going to be adding

pass through utility charges, you need to give the right disclosures to the tenant. That

including the historic cost for that building or for that unit or for that one year. That

never happened here. That is a flat-out violation of § 215, and § 215 says violations of

§ 215 are also violation of § 161. I bring that up because in our biggest opposition here

is that DSI has not complied with this requirement to make sure that the landlord is

complying with § 161 and lead and asbestos is easily the biggest one but the failure

due to the utilities is also one.

Moermond: Do we have the current rent?

Mohamed: Yes, I currently pay $1,455, and that's not including utilities.

Moermond: How long have you been paying that amount? What was your lease cycle?

Mohamed: My lease started last year in about June. It is from July 1, 2022 to June 30,

2023.

Moermond: Tell me a little bit about the utilities, and what kinds of cost goes into that

amount?

Mohamed: I'm on my portal so I can give you exact numbers. We pay about $40 a

month for water, about $10 a month for trash, and then they charge us $4.50 for a

service fee. I have no clue what the service fee is about. We pay $12.38 right now for

gas but it usually goes up during the winter and is around $40.

Moermond: That went into effect for you on July 1st of last year? Or was that the case

in July 1 of 2021? When did you start to get billed separately?

Mohamed: I believe it started in 2022, a year ago.

Poradek: She was operating under the prior owner’s lease until that point.

Moermond: in August your lease would have concluded. You are on a month to month

right now. Everything else stays the same, no bumps there?

Mohamed: We were never offered a new lease and we were never told that our lease

was going to end. We just kind of presumed it is month to month.

Moermond: You have attorneys who can show you. It does exactly that month-to-month

transition. [inaudible, multiple people talking at once]

Poradek: Yes, that would be the standard language.

Moermond: I was referring to Minnesota’s standard lease forms, that most landlords’

kind of roll out and modify. Big corporation I'm sure they have their own. You indicated

that you filed a complaint, or you file the complaint on behalf of Ms. Mohamed in

January for February?

Poradek: February 15th I believe it was filed with The City.

Moermond: it was filed because of lead and asbestos concerns?

Poradek: We filed the complaint raising the lead and asbestos concerns but had

already received notice that the landlords were applying for a significant rent increase.

We wanted to make sure this was part of that decision-making process. We filed the

complaint also as a challenge to the requested amount. There are 2 different ways the

complaint could be viewed as a rent stabilization report or as a direct habitability

complaint. We documented everything, we weren't 100% sure, but we see a number of

other tenants submitted complaints either informally at these meetings or formally

through the portal. We know that we've been able to talk to a couple tenants and we've

looked for documentation but no response from Department of Safety & Inspections.

DSI probably talked to Marquette at least 50 times in that period. We have a timeline

we can provide at a very high level. As far as we know, they never talked to a single

tenant about their actual complaints or did any follow-up.

Mohamed: DSI was actually at one of the meetings where ISAIAH was in attendance

for assisting people to file complaints.

Poradek: ISAIAH played a critical role, as did other organizers, in getting to the City’s

awareness of the scope of the problem. It is incredibly frustrating to see that the work

and effort that all these entities did, have people encourage to stick out, like Ms.

Mohamed is. That's a place where we have allegations of significant retaliation, and to

have that not listened to and not taken into consideration. Putting aside the legality of

that, it's not the way the system should work, but we also think it's a violation of the

ordinance. This is the first time we have seen this staff report. You'll note that the

reasons for the rent increase included a capital improvement project. That capital

improvement project is what we think severely violates lead and asbestos law. There's

a statement below that on the first page that begins with the paragraph, “According to

information provided by Ms. Eich, from the landlord. Ms. Eich indicated that the

apartment buildings were built in 1988 and many of the units still have the original

amenities and décor.” The actual construction date, that's a misrepresentation by the

landlord. They were built according to every record we've seen in other public

statements from the landlord it was built in 1976. This is important because in 1988

would not lead to the presumption of lead paint, however 1976 does. I think it’s

interesting the application provided by the Haven of Battle Creek where it is understood

that as a business they want to make sure that they are maximizing their rent increase

through whatever procedures made available by the City. They were really building up

how much renovation they've done. There are a number of e-mails that are in the

documents showing that they did extensive work on the exterior. This is noted here in

the report on paint, of course implicates lead paint. The outside is just as important to

be careful about it as the inside. Asphalt is actually presumed to contain asbestos.

Under many laws you have to assume there's asbestos in it. You need to actively test

or take extraordinary precautions. There's a new roof here and roofing classically

disturbs significant amounts of potential asbestos and lead paint material. Balconies

were refurbished and there was new work, and additions made to those which can

implicate lead and asbestos issues. Then you go to the interior.

The part to be most concerned about renovating are the common areas because of air

flow. There's a new leasing office, a completely renovated indoor pool, a new fitness

center, they are working on lobbies, and painting hallways, stairwells and doors. Greg

Myers and I think those are red flags. That's interesting because it's in the report but

again we're not having anybody look at lead and asbestos. Another thing that jumped

out was it says, “as this was a complex application, a substantial amount of finance

around and analysis was required. Significant level of communication took place

between the Department of Safety and Inspection staff and Marquette representatives

between January and May 2023.” I guess that's fair, there could be some level of

communication. What we see in the documentation now there's a level of partnership

between DSI and the landlord in getting numbers that will work. We can talk in

different ways, and you look at many of those documents. But the one that truly

concerns us the most is an e-mail that was sent, this is in our letter in Section 5, page

8. We put the e-mail in here because it was so alarming. It's a March 31st, email from

Mr. Sass to Marquette executive Jason Wood. It was sent 7 weeks before the actual

determination was made. The official determination was made to increase rents from

25 to 26%. That's where we ended up 7 weeks later. To position you on March 31st,

that's the exact same time that you're seeing e-mails about there being an

investigation into lead and asbestos violations. There is an ongoing, theoretically

neutral, investigation going on to the most important health and safety violation, and

this is the e-mail that was sent by DSI to Jason Wood and Cheron Eich. It says, “I

have essentially finished my portion of the process and calculated the potential rent

increase allowances. I cannot share, yet the full results with you but the rent increases

for the units range from roughly 25 to 75% when capital improvements are accounted

for.” Seven weeks before there's a final determination he says that's still being

reviewed. There's an e-mail that goes out to Marquette that is essentially telling them

here's the increase you can expect and really essentially saying, “we think it's going to

be okay.” It is utterly improper on its face. You never want to see that in a in a

supposedly neutral process.

Let’s contrast it to the information the tenants got. The tenants who are affected by

this recognize that they are likely going to be displaced. Absolutely no response that

we know of to any of the tenant complaints that have come in already. Do you think the

tenants got a heads up about this rent increase that they were going to say, “Oh yeah,

it's likely to happen in the future?”. No. They found out when a bunch of postcards

were mass mail to them after the decision was made, not 7 weeks ahead. We're going

to talk about those postcards and I'm sure you’re wondering why are people not

appealing and what's going on? There's plenty of sociological reasons for that. The

biggest one is they sent out a postcard with a bunch of text on it and was buried in

really small print saying “oh, by the way here's your rent increase.” Long before these

postcards went out we have this communication from Mr. Sass and then the letter that

was actually sent on the day it was approved. It's a very nice letter on Saint Paul City

letterhead, telling them, here’s your rent increase, and there's a graph at the end that

explains everything. We have no idea why the tenants at HavenBrook were

mass-mailed something that we are assuming many of the people either didn't

understand or ignored. We have some evidence to that effect rather than at least

getting a letter. The fact that they got it when they did, under the circumstances of

these communications with Marquette, isn't right. We think is another reason why this

rent increase can’t be approved.

Last couple comments on this staff report, we just don't understand why they're talking

about this 26-80% rent increase and unit 303 was 26.48%. The increase was entirely

attributed to net operating income with no increase allowed for renovation. That just

isn't true because number one, part of the reason for all the difficulty and challenge of

this process was the complexities of the financials due to the amount of renovation.

There's no question that the renovation played a direct role in these exorbitant rent

increases, it also feeds into the net operating income.

Cann: The operating expenses that were used to calculate the permissible 26.48% rent

increase included $323,455 of amortized capital expense. The cost of those

renovations that applied more or less across the board constitute a substantial portion

of the rent increase.

Poradek: the last Fire Certificate of Occupancy was approved on February 23, 2023,

as a class A property. This is something that's a big part of our litigation, at least in

the lawsuit we filed which we did provide immediately to the city because that's even

more detail about why there's habitability and other problems. We said to the city

immediately and that's when we asked to stay the proceedings until that had been

adjudicated. We think they did not have a Fire Certificate of Occupancy for most of the

period in which they own the property. At the beginning of the process in late 2015

when the last Class A Fire Certificate of Occupancy was issued there are e-mails and

notes before February 2023 in which I think somebody in Rent Stabilization made a

note the last Fire Certificate of Occupancy was way back in 2015. They didn't say what

the next thing is, that means they don't have an active Fire Certificate of Occupancy.

At the same time that they're applying for this rent increase they actually aren’t

complying with one of the core regulatory provisions in Saint Paul Health and Safety

Law for buildings. They don't have the Fire Certificate of Occupancy, so that's a huge

problem from a habitability perspective. If there's a new owner that takes over the

building, which they did in May of 2021, they don't get the benefit of the prior Fire

Certificate of Occupancy they would need to reapply.

Moermond: No, they don’t. They need to file a form with the Department of Safety

Inspections in the transfer of ownership. That’s not a reapplication. The Fire Certificate

of Occupancy is attached to the building not the person.

Poradek: We're on the same page.

Moermond: I wouldn’t say exactly on the same page.

Poradek: I didn’t mean to say same page. The issue is that there is no record of them

ever filing that application, and all the things you need.

Moermond: it isn’t an application.

Hanson: There's the form and I believe there's a fire alarm and carbon monoxide

affidavit.

Poradek: There are no record of those. For months were requesting information from

Department of Safety & Inspections about this but we never heard back. Finally, we

got the response from Department of Safety & Inspections that they don't have that

information. We don't have the new ownership document; we don't have the carbon

monoxide and the fire affidavit.

Moermond: from my years of experience, what happens when someone submits those

affidavits in the computer system the inspector will mark that order as having been

abated. The inspector reviewed the form found it to be acceptable and the form is

shredded. When the forms come in with the new ownership information it is put in the

computer system, so the form itself is gone. The computer system doesn’t maintain

the document. That's the bureaucratic process behind the scenes. We (the Legislative

Hearing Office) hand these forms out because I always want people to have current

information.

Poradek: This apparently is a very systematic issue.

Moermond: Ownership changes hands. There's a lot of people who've never done this

kind of thing before. Every city operates differently.

Poradek: It's something that should have been investigated, and one thing we know is

that there wasn't a Fire Certificate of Occupancy, a new one, until February 2023. Best

case scenario, even if the documents were destroyed, the record shows it wasn't until

2023, that they had received a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. It's a big problem. It is

our point. There have been many more complaints of that property that were listed, so I

don't know why those particular items made the list. There is this note of it being in the

process of being remedied, well these things have to be remedied. Those are my

notes. Ms. Mohamed, you've had a chance over the last few days to review some of the

DSI’s internal documents that were produced, correct?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: since you are the person who file this appeal, what's your reaction to what

you saw?

Mohamed: I felt very betrayed because DSI has been to several tenant meetings. Lynn

herself has been to several tenant meetings with us. Where we've talked about tenant

issues, building complaints about habitability. Where we talked about mice, roaches,

and a bunch of different rodents in our building. We also talked about renovations. We

felt like DSI was there to help us but we never got any response back from DSI after

all those communications at those meetings, and now to see that DSI is

communicating with our landlord helping them throughout this whole application

processed yet ignoring us. It felt like they're there to protect landlords rather than they

are to work with tenants.

Poradek: Could you tell me a little bit about the tenant population at Haven of Battle

Creek?

Mohamed: Yes, we are a predominantly East African Somali Muslim population, as well

as people with Section 8. I myself don't have section 8, but there are other people in

our building who have Section 8.

Poradek: let’s talk about the vibe before Marquette was there.

Mohamed: It felt like a family, neighbors would chat with each other. We felt

comfortable with the leasing office, we were all on first-name basis. We felt

comfortable going down there talking to a leasing office about issues.

Poradek: I don't want to get to sociological but why were there so many Somali tenants

in that place?

Mohamed: because it felt like a community. When you come to a new place, you don't

want to be around people you don't know. You want to have a sense of belonging, a

sense of community. That's why that building it's predominantly Somali and a couple

blocks down is another predominantly Somali building. We all come together, hang out

and raise our kids.

Poradek: Let's talk a lot about that. Generationally, what does that particular

community look like?

Mohamed: There's multiple generations living in houses most of the time. Some

families have grandparents, their parents, and the children all in one house. Even if

you're not in the same house as them, you're all in the same apartment complex where

you can go two doors down and go over to your grandma’s house.

Poradek: Tell me about the vibe after Marquette took over.

Mohamed: Because of the property management, it feels hostile. You don't want to

stay outside of your apartment for too long, it feels uncomfortable. I don't stay outside

my apartment for too long. I get my mail and go straight into my apartment. I don't

really communicate with my neighbors as much as I used to.

Poradek: You were asked by Ms. Moermond about being month-to-month. I think you

said that you have not been offered a new lease. I believe if I recall you did attempt to

look into a renovated apartment. Can you explain your experience?

Mohamed: Yes, I saw that there were several units with 3 bedrooms that were available

and renovated. I asked the office if I can get a tour of it, and I was told that there were

no units available and that she will email me when one becomes available for a tour,

that never happened as of today. When you’re on their website they still have units

available.

Poradek: Didn’t you have a friend who did apply separately who isn’t Somali?

Mohamed: Yes, my coworkers, who is a very good friend of mine applied.

Poradek: Where do you work?

Mohamed: I work with victims of domestic violence, I'm a legal advocate. It's a

nonprofit, where we work closely with the city as well as police. I asked my co-worker

to apply and see what happens because I felt like I was being targeted. I asked her to

e-mail them and possibly get a tour for a 3 bedroom. She emailed Marquette and they

have been e-mailing her several times to get that tour scheduled throughout the month

but it's still crickets with me. I still have not received a response.

Poradek: Who do you deal with in particular?

Mohamed: Kelly Delisle, she is one of the main property managers. The leasing agent

is her daughter-in-law, Sierra.

Poradek: Lets go through these photos [refers to picture package they passed out]

really quickly. I want to ask questions about what kind of renovations are going on.

When did you first notice that there was kind of significant renovation happening after

Marquette took over the property?

Mohamed: I think probably right away.

Poradek: The first picture is a picture of exterior of a building with a 200 number. What

is that?

Mohamed: This is our building Haven of Battle Creek the 200 Winthrop Street side.

Poradek: This is I believe an image we pulled off their website. Does that look right to

you?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: Just looking at that since they've taken over the property, what changes were

made to the property before they took over that are now represented in this photo?

What jumps out at you?

Mohamed: They completely change the color of the outside of the buildings like the

balconies as well as the break area.

Poradek: And did they repaint?

Mohamed: Yes, they repainted it.

Poradek: Were you present during the painting of the exterior?

Mohamed: Not for the whole thing, but for some of it, yes.

Poradek: Do you recall seeing things like sanding off old paint, scrapping old paint?

Mohamed: Yes, it looked like they're kind of scraping it off to get to the base.

Poradek: You said something about the balconies, can you describe what the balcony

changes were?

Mohamed: They added these border things. There is also this wood thing hanging down

from the balcony all the way to the bottom to the top. That was all added by them, and

they changed the color and the wood.

Poradek: you remember them doing work on the roofing? Describe that project.

Mohamed: that was a major project because they completely closed our parking lot on

the 200 side and shut the garage. We couldn't go in and out that way, and we had to

park on the street or walk around the building.

Poradek: Is this one of those things where they're tearing off the old stuff and material

and throwing it down?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: There was significant disturbance of materials. Did that happen with

Marquette?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: We're going to turn to the second image. Again, I believe this is taken from

the website. This looks like a pool area, and is this pretty accurate rendition of what

the pool area looks like now? Can you describe what the pool looked like before or

talk about the changes that were made?

Mohamed: Well, we'd be sitting here for a long time because they completely re-did

this whole area. They completely demolished the walls where that window is because

there were no windows before. It was a concrete wall.

Poradek: That would have been solid. Where there any windows at all?

Mohamed: Probably all the way at the top. There was like a small line but nothing else.

Poradek: Was the pool operational when they took over?

Mohamed: No, someone had thrown tables and furniture in there, so it cracked. The

previous property owners had told us that it was too expensive, so they weren't planning

on reopening it again. They were talking about ideas to even fill the pool and just do

something else completely different with the room.

Poradek: And then what happen when Marquette took over?

Mohamed: It closed for a while and then reopened. They fixed all the issues with it and

made it look prettier, more aesthetically pleasing.

Poradek: What was your view of the work they were doing? What did you see they were

doing?

Mohamed: We couldn't see anything because it was completely closed.

Poradek: For both the exterior work we talked about earlier, and for this, do you

remember seeing any signage that said be careful, there could be lead or asbestos?

Mohamed: No.

Poradek: Do you recall getting any notice?

Mohamed: No.

Poradek: Let's look a little more into some of these photos, you also took some of

them. Can you describe photo 3?

Mohamed: Yes, this is construction in one of the apartments on the 3rd floor next to

mine. It looks like they completely ripped out the flooring and they're doing something

different.

Poradek: It looks like the base boards have been removed, correct?

Mohamed: Yes, and they are painting because there is tape.

Poradek: You took this picture just through an open door.

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: Is that typical? How extensive is this interior kind of demolition and

renovation, and how frequent is that?

Mohamed: Almost every day.

Poradek: It is still going on now?

Mohamed: On some parts of the building. It's just not as visible anymore.

Poradek: who does the work and why isn't visible?

Mohamed: DOSI Construction. They are a bunch of men who don't speak English, and

they are really nice. It's very hard to ask them, what are you guys doing and those type

of things. I've been noticing that they're doing construction either very early in the

morning or likely during the evening.

Poradek: How do you know that?

Mohamed: You can hear it.

Poradek: What are you hearing?

Mohamed: Just pounding, like you can tell there's construction going on. My neighbor

who doesn't really like the construction tells me about it.

Poradek: what is in photo 4?

Mohamed: An apartment I took a picture of with DOSI doing construction. They

completely took out those cabinets, right where those ladders are at. That's where the

kitchen is, so it's missing all those kitchen cabinets, sink and dishwasher.

Poradek: That blankness at one point was filled with fixtures?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: Who's this gentleman?

Mohamed: He works for DOSI’s Construction.

Poradek: We are in picture 5, how do you know he works for DOSI’s Construction?

Mohamed: Because he's in most of the pictures I've taken, and he wears DOSI’s shirt.

Poradek: Okay. What is he doing here?

Mohmed: Taking out all the stuff he took from the rooms, like the cabinets, the

carpet.

Poradek: Again, are there signs or barriers? A notice that's been delivered to you to

watch out? We then turn to photo 6.

Mohamed: No, there was no signage or letter. That was just left in the garage, and

there is no sign that said don't go near it.

Poradek: This is a pretty common sight. Now, I don't think you took this picture 7

[referring to the picture package].

Mohamed: I think this is one I took.

Poradek: Well, then just described if you think you took it or are familiar with what you

see in the context, share your thoughts.

Mohamed: So, this apartment I think this is actually one of the first ones I took with

the construction. It's two doors down from my apartment. It's missing the countertop in

the kitchen, and the flooring is completely gone.

Poradek: We see wood floor, and then you can see there's like something like vinyl.

Presumably vinal was torn up, right? It looks like there's been a lot of damage done to

that threshold.

Mohamed: And then like the electric light switch they completely took it off.

Poradek: what is photo 8 of?

Mohamed: Debris from their construction, dust.

Poradek: is this a common sight?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: When the people are doing interior, even though it's inside the unit, you're

seeing tons of dust and other things out in the hallways?

Mohamed: Yes.

Poradek: describe photo 9.

Mohamed: This was water damage in front of the entrance to the courtyard on the

ceiling. It was like that for quite some time. I took progress pictures.

Poradek: Is it relatively common to see that kind of water damage in the ceiling? How

is your understanding, how did they address water damage?

Mohamed: Pretty much similar to that. We had an incident where it rained really bad

and we got a water bubble in our ceiling. When we called maintenance, they just

popped the water bubble and left it as it is, and to this day no one came to fix it.

Poradek: That's in your apartment. Describe photo 10.

Mohamed: It looks like they took out the base boards from the floor.

Poradek: I think 11 is a photo that was taken by Greg, so we won’t look at that. The

last item I wanted to talk to you, but we already kind of talked about utilities, is the

postcard with a notice. Describe your experience with that because I think there's a

question of why more people weren’t appealing.

Mohamed: The postcard was very hard to understand. It didn’t explain the appeals

process. On top of that where it said the rent increase was approved was in a very

small print. All that we saw was approved in bold, so you don't really know what's being

approved. The only reason I was able to understand is because I knew this was going

to be a process to expect after we got the first post card. It just felt very disappointing

because our building is predominantly immigrants where English is not a primary

language they speak and the different languages were written so tiny. It was

impossible to read, especially if you had a horrible vision. It felt like they were telling

me I want a vacation rather than my rent was going to be increased.

Poradek: Did you talk to any other people about the post cards, can you describe it?

Mohamed: Yes, other people in my building thought that it was junk mail, so they didn't

even know what I was talking about until I showed them a picture of my post card.

Others said that they hadn't even gotten it. I spoke to about 10 people about this.

Poradek: Overall confusion, lack of knowledge.

Mohamed: Yes, and it was really hard to understand the appeals process from the

postcard.

Poradek: I guess the thinking about the potential difficulty of appealing in these

circumstances. Do you have any other thoughts about why?

Mohamed: According to other tenants, our landlord gave out Q and A's about this rent

increase. I never received one. It made it sound like this was set in stone, not

something you would appeal and it also gave false hope. It made it sound like they

weren’t going to use the rent increase that they applied for.

Poradek: What do you think about the $25 appeal cost?

Mohamed: I think if you're in a hard place and you have to decide between diapers,

baby food and filing this appeal, you're not going to want to pay the $25. We were

trying to see if there was a fee waiver for filing appeal. You guys don't have a process

to waive fees for appeals.

Moermond: What was it ever requested?

Mohamed: We didn't know who to ask. It doesn't show in that process.

Poradek: We paid for her.

Moermond: Here's the thing, one chapter on the legislative code says that I can waive

the fees. I waive them only one circumstance, to be clear, and I waive them when

SMIRLS represents a client. Now, you as a nonprofit, could make a similar

representation about the economic circumstances of your clients that SMIRLS would

make. That's kind of where I'm at with that. If someone qualifies for legal aid, you're

not having to pay the appeal fee. To be fair it doesn't cover any costs that are

associated for us, it is kind of like a please show up. It hasn't been changed since

1990, but I hear you and I struggle with this because I know where you're coming from

right now and looking at the cost of it and how we deal with income is super tricky. Do I

then take on the role of asking for financial information from applicants and making it

even worse in order to treat people fairly? I'm sorry you had that experience and that it

felt that way. I just wanted to speak to my practice and that if you had a similar client

coming forward, I would certainly look at that as a part of my review process. That’s

how I work on it.

Poradek: I understand everything you're saying. I think our point is that it's just a

barrier for people. I mean, not even an economic one more of a psychological one.

Moermond: Bureaucracy is the largest barrier of all in understanding of what's going on.

What do we do with limited English proficiency and notices and so on. All of these

things are good to come to mind and how do we change things moving forward? We're

not that far down the road in implementing things and I'm trying to picture the post card

that goes out. I hear you. These are things that need to be worked on. Thank you for

saying something. That's really what I wanted to say.

Poradek: did you have anything else that I missed?

Mohamed: I just wanted to reiterate how it was very frustrating not to get any form of

communication from DSI and to find out that they're communicating with landlords.

That was just a slap in the face.

Poradek: Mr. Myers, could you explain your background?

Myers: I’ve been doing environmental consultant since 1987, and prior to that I was a

police officer for 12 years. I am licensed as an asbestos inspector and management

planner, project designer, asbestos supervisor, also as a lead risk assessor for lead

product designer. I teach, and I am licensed to teach, lead disciplines, worker's

supervisor, lead inspector, lead risk assessor lead, and product designer. I've also

taught all the asbestos courses. I am also certified as a MicroBilt Consultant.

Poradek: certified on what?

Myers: MicroBilt Consultant [mold]. I sat on all of the advisory groups for the State of

Minnesota during the development of asbestos and lead rules. I have also been a

member of the National Institutes of Building Science when they're developing the

model specification for asbestos and lead operation maintenance plans for buildings.

Tested thousands of buildings for both asbestos and lead.

Poradek: Would a property manager ever hire you to get advice on how to properly do

work for a renovation?

Myers: Yes, they do that quite commonly. It's one of the requirements prior to doing

renovation/ remodel activities to have them inspected for asbestos and lead. But even

under The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) , if they're not going

to test then they have to presume that lead could surface.

Poradek: A company like Marquette could have hired you, correct?

Myers: Yes.

Poradek: In terms of cities, do you work with cities in terms of a consulting role?

Myers: I have worked with cities in conjunction with inspections, as well as pollution

control for the city of Minneapolis, community planning, economic development,

trained several of their staff, both in, city, state and county.

Poradek: If somebody from Saint Paul had contacted you to get more information

about the report submitted, would you have been able to help them?

Myers: I believe so.

Poradek: Just to confirm you did submit a report for this case?

Myers: Correct.

Poradek: Let me just first ask before we get into the particular property here. I am

trying to use some of your teaching skills to just give an overview of health and safety

issues with respect to lead and asbestos. How do you explain it to a lay person?

Myers: there is no safe level for either asbestos or lead. The effects come in different

forms of it. Asbestos is more airborne contaminant, which goes into the lungs and can

cause various forms of cancer, like mesothelioma. Lead affects most of the body but

has the least effect on the respiratory organs. However, it has the greatest effect on is

the central nervous system, circulatory system, liver, spleen, and kidneys.

Poradek: What is the concern about lead paint in particular?

Myers: Well, mostly detrimental for the development of the central nervous system,

brain cells, large tunnel impulses. High extensive levels can lead to coma, seizures,

and death but those are fairly rare.

Poradek: I've heard that children are especially susceptible to lead issues?

Myers: That is correct. They have a higher metabolism, slowing metabolize lead that

they come in contact with around 40 to 50% what they are supposd to, for adults

probably closer to 5 to 15%, and for pregnant women depending on the women’s diet

and nutritional factors of it, she can also absorb 40 to 50% which is exposed to during

pregnancy.

Poradek: can you lay out regulations for contractors?

Myers: Well, for contracts we've had the lead in construction standards since 1971,

revised again in 1993, and for the general industry in 1978. Minnesota's has had lead

rules beginning in 1992, which also require contractors to take it as an education credit

to maintain their general contractor license. As of 1999, anybody that was a property

owner since 1996, have been required to disclose any hazards that they know, and if

they don't know they have to hand the Protect your Family Home pamphlet.

Poradek: What is the Protect your Family Home pamphlet?

Myers: The protect your family from lead in home pamphlet describes the hazards

associated with lead as part of the awareness of it. It's part of the education process.

There's a paragraph in their sales or lease agreement that basically says that a

property before 1978 it may contain lead hazards. In 1999, the EPA came up with the

requirement that prior to any renovation, remodel and restoration activities and

residential properties, they had to hand out that same pamphlet. If they were going to

disturb 2 square feet or more of coated surface, a large interior surface area, and 10%

on small surface areas, and 20 square feet total outside.

Poradek: So, 20% outside, 20 square feet.

Myers: No in 1999, It was 2 square feet. It followed the Housing Urban Development

requirements. what they considered to be inactive for work activity.

Poradek: I heard some reference to the RRP rule. Could you explain what that is?

Myers: Renovation Repair and Painting program came out in 2010, and required any

contractor that was disturbing more than 6 square feet in an interior area, or 20 square

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/14/2024