Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer: This is a set of Fire Correction Orders
issues on January 5, 2023. They were preceded by a form from the EMS staff at the
Fire Department to the Fire Inspections staff at the Department of Safety and
Inspections (DSI). The Fire Department noted that this was a hoarder house with
gross unsanitary conditions, due in large part to there being too many animals
present or not being taken care of properly. We also had sleeping in the basement,
likely because of crowded other areas of the house. Based on that referral and
without eyes on the property, DSI issued this set of orders. This is not a
condemnation. This was a set of orders with an appointment letter saying to let them
in so they could inspect the house. The orders were appealed by the property owner,
who lives up north with his wife. Their son has lived in the house for many years and
raised children there, with some assistance from his mom. The house does not have
a Fire Certificate of Occupancy, even though it is not owner-occupied. That does
happen in these types of relative situations, so that does not give me great concern.
The appeal was heard on February 7, 14, and 21, 2023. In that time period, DSI did
inspect the property with the House Calls staff from the state's Department of Health.
There is a set of orders attached to your file, dated February 17, 2023. They include
things relating to having a lot less material in the house and it needs to be cleaner.
Things are progressing slowly, in my view, since we had a January 5 start on this. If
the Council votes to approve the resolution, put in place a deadline for compliance of
Friday, March 10. If the property is then not in compliance, two outcomes are
possible. The first is a revocation of the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. The second is
a condemnation and order to vacate. The outcome is dependent on an inspector
getting to the property and assess its status. Either order can be appealed. The
occupants are here today, Peter Persson and Melissa Bardwell. They are looking for
a longer deadline. We talked before this meeting and I told them I would be sticking
with this recommendation. I did note, though, that this was not the end of the line,
procedurally. Moving this along requires an inspector checking back on the property
as a result of a deadline being set on these orders.
Council President Brendmoen: Just to clarify, the March 10 deadline is a first
deadline. If that isn't met, there could be a condemnation or revocation order.
Moermond: That is correct. Conditions could indicate a condemnation or revocation.
Inspectors could also find that progress been made, and that to enforce the
remaining items they would order a revocation. That is the only tool in their toolbox.
That order can be appealed.
Councilmember Jalali: I agree with the need to keep our deadline. If they are close to
completion at the time of the deadline, do you have concerns about a 48 or 72 hour
extension?
Moermond: I have two thoughts about that. First, with the Friday March 10 deadline, it
is realistic that the inspectors don't get out to the property until at least Monday. That
gives a bit of a grace period. I checked the system and did not find an appointment
letter for next week. I assume that when the Council makes its decision, that letter will
be sent out. Secondly, progress on getting the problems addressed has to be
assessed by an inspector. I'm glad to hear that things are progressing, but we do
know from experience that perception isn't the same as what an inspector looks for.
The inspector would give us a re-measurement on that original set of orders.
Jalali: Thank you.
Bardwell: We live together at this property. I have been working very hard to get this
done and we have made a lot of progress. We did get a cleaner crew to come in
yesterday but they had to cancel, so we are working on getting someone else. We
would like an extension. We have been doing repairs but we don't have the
necessary money. When we first found this out on January 5th, we took matters into
