Kyle Runbeck, owner, appeared in person
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer: You first heard this on May 1, 2024. At
the time, after two Legislative Hearings, I asked that you lay the matter over, as a
performance deposit had been posted and a code compliance inspection had been
applied for. There are other things we need, though, as the process moves forward.
These items are bids, work plans, and evidence of financing. This case saw some
delays. The first was that the application for the inspection did not have a lock box
combination, so inspectors could not get in. This delay was then furthered by DSI
computer difficulties. The inspection was applied for in April but the report was not
issued until July. In the meantime, however, bids can be applied for. They can be
updated based on the report, but contractors can start estimating costs before that
report is issued. Bids did not come until the last week in September. None are signed
and don’t show any timeline. There is no evidence of financing or any overall work plan.
Lacking those things, I asked for 1 week layover last week, to give sufficient notice
that failing to meet these requirements would result in demolition. The house is on
screen in front of you right now. It's owned by Kyle Runbeck & Sons LLC and has
been in the Vacant Building Program since 2019. I am asking to amend the resolution
to remove the structure within 15 days. The owner was encouraged to attend today if he
wished to ask Council for a different outcome.
Councilmember Bowie: What is needed for the property to be in compliance?
Moermond: The Code Compliance Inspection Report (CCIR) is attached to the record.
Needed things are listed there and it explains that the fixes need to be permitted and
signed off. There has been an issue of work being done without permits, so there is
difficulty in verifying if the work was done properly.
Bowie: How did this go into the Vacant Building Program?
Moermond: The Fire Certificate of Occupancy (FCO) revoked in 2019 for lack of
access being provided. That typically means the property was empty, but I can look
into that more deeply.
Bowie: What is the cost of removal?
Moermond: The Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) estimates the repair cost
to be in excess of $75,000. They estimate the removal cost to be in excess of
$30,000. The repair cost is not very precise, as bids can be done at different levels,
but the demolition cost is more accurate.
Bowie: Is the $30,000 cost put on the owner?
Moermond: The resolution before you would order them to do so and pay for it. If they
don’t, the City would be authorized to get bids for demolition, and the bill from the
contractor would be forwarded as an assessment. This assessment could be appealed
to Council, and it could be spread out over a number of years.
Kyle Runbeck: I live at 887 Charles. I’m taken aback by the order to remove. Quotes
are done. Electrical, HVAC and plumbing were all done through Bane Heating and
Kelly Plumbing. They went through the list with the inspectors. The cost is just
$12,000. Needing to pay $30,000 to remove it is ridiculous.
Council President Jalali: Are you clear on what you need to do?
Runbeck: I didn’t get the CCIR until August. It was mailed to my dad and I never got it.
I don’t know where the $75,000 price tag came from. They wanted me to come up with