15 West Kellogg Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55102

City of Saint Paul

Minutes - Final

Legislative Hearings

Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer

Mai Vang, Hearing Coordinator

Joanna Zimny, Executive Assistant

legislativehearings@ci.stpaul.mn.us

651-266-8585

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 22-330

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1176

REANEY AVENUE. (File No. J2301A, Assessment No. 238500)

Prince

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Gholam Ashrafzadehkian, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this was a Summary Abatement Order to

remove mattress, totes, and glass from the backyard. Orders sent May 11,

compliance date of May 18, rechecked May 18 and May 25. June 1 another Summary

Abatement Order was sent and on June 14 Parks did the abatement for a total

proposed assessment of $564.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Ashrafzadehkian: this a rental property and we have four 95-gallon containers plus 8

items. This was all contained in a dumpster bag. It wasn’t loose trash. We were waiting

for the company to come. I did call saying it wasn’t trash. I am paying for garbage with

the City plus the extra items. Now the City is charging me the same amount as I’m

paying for garbage. This wasn’t loose trash. The tenant was waiting for the Bagster

people to come.

Moermond: I see the materials throughout the yard when the orders were written. There

were multiple inspections and saw it was in a Bagster. It was repeatedly not dealt with

over time. I know the City does have bulky item pickup but that doesn’t have anything

to do with the Bagster situation.

Ashrafzadehkian: right. This is my tenant trying to use the services to clean up their

property. I provide the garbage. This was neat and orderly. I assume you authorize

people to use a Bagster. It was all contained. Your picture even showed that. They

bought the Bagster and asked them to come take it. Whether they have the authority

to force the date of the Bagster. A company was going to take care of it.

Moermond: and I have photos that show although it was in the Bagster it was at least

10 days between when it was in the Bagster, and it being removed. All of it was past

the original May 18 deadline. It was a full month between when the orders were written

and when it was picked up. They can’t be indefinitely stored there. I’m going to

recommend approval, but you are welcome to ask the Council for more on January 4,

2023.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/4/2023

RLH TA 22-317

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 329

LAWSON AVENUE WEST. (File No. VB2213, Assessment No. 228821)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $2,284 to $951.

Kenneth Barnett, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we were following up today about your Vacant Building fee. You indicated

the fee should be less based on how your permits were handled. I did some

investigation into that.

Barnett: I was in my house on the 9th, I had a problem with inspector Virgil.

Moermond: you covered that last time and I wanted to give you the follow up. Though

you moved in during February your permits weren’t actually finaled. Electrical April 11,

Mechanical May 19, plumbing May 25 and building permit June 2.

Barnett: it was May 9.

Moermond: those were all well after the 90-day waiver. You were in the Vacant Building

program for 5 out of 12 billable months. You are saying he wasn’t responding. I spoke

with the Building Official and senior building inspector. The building inspector reviewed

all of the inspections and noted several situations that made your case take longer,

including a change in use. The Voicemail that Virgil had in place indicating he was on

vacation did give another number to call. All these things coming together, especially

the fact that even setting aside everything about the building permit, the other trades

permits weren’t finaled until April and May. I’m happy to prorate it but I can’t get rid of it

for you.

Barnett: I am still going to file a complaint to the Mayor’s office about Virgil.

Moermond: you are welcome to do that.

Barnett: she came to my house ins April and didn’t mark it off. The HVAC guy was the

only guy who screwed up on the air conditioning, and that was done May 19. All of the

work was done.

Moermond: I would suggest you start with the director of DSI and copy the Mayor’s

office on a complaint. The building official and inspector didn’t see any issues with the

timeline but that doesn’t mean someone else wouldn’t’ see it differently. You were in 5

out of 12 billable months, so I’ll ask the fee to be prorated to $951 to reflect that.

Barnett: he has no right to scream at anyone. He has some issues. He could have

done it in April and he didn’t do it. Why wouldn’t he say it 2 weeks ago about the

HVAC. I got screwed by this company. If you went through what I went through and

what happened, we could have done this a long time ago. I can’t prove anything without

going to court. No one does anything to these companies. I work for the state. Same

thing with this. You’re supposed to work for the people. I have to go to court to fix the

counters on my house.

Moermond: and these are issues outside the scope I can look at. I’m recommending

that proration on the strength of those four permits being closed out passed the 90-day

waiver. Would it be helpful to have it made payable over a couple years?

Barnett: that costs money.

Moermond: there is an interest rate on the back of your letter.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH TA 22-297

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 733

THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. J2212B, Assessment No. 228116) (To

refer to September 20, 2022 Legislative Hearings)

Balenger

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $1,642 to $1,004.

Inho Chang, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we have quite a bit going on here boarding-wise.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: after a fire that occurred on the property the

people onsite ordered it secured, the St. Paul Fire Department at 11:00 pm on April 6.

12 hours later they revisited and did some more work which created another invoice. 2

weeks later we had a squatting situation that resulted in another invoice.

Moermond: the very first boarding, which happened with the St. Paul Fire Department

there was at 11:25 pm April 6. Immediately after the fire for $520. Then the following

morning at 11:15 am when the Fire inspector went for $390. When we looked through

this file, we thought we should delete this assessment. When it was un-boarded and

reboarded for access and assessment, the City can eat those costs. So that would be

subtracted off.

Chang: that’s exactly the reason I appealed. I only had 2 letters from the City, the first

one for $520, and a third one for $320. I didn’t get any letter for the second one. Then

the assessment I have 3 invoices for boarding.

Moermond: we will do that. There was the initial one after the fire, the second one we

will delete and then a third after that for a squatting incident.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: April 16, 2022, 5:08 PM the St. Paul Police

Department secured it at a cost of $320.

Moermond: they got called and removed some people. Are you objecting to that one at

all? It looks like the person who called the police was someone who indicated they

were told by the landlord to keep an eye on the address due to the fire. They called the

police on your behalf.

Chang: I don’t have any information on this one. I just got the letter from the City that

they authorized the boarding. I don’t have any further information.

Moermond: didn’t Mai Vang send you materials that support this assessment?

Chang: I reviewed that, and that report was for the incident in May.

Moermond: there are 2 police reports. One for April 16 and one for May. You had

squatters twice, a month apart.

Chang: I don’t have that report.

Moermond: there are 2 PDFs sent with her email. The first PDF’s last 2 pages are the

report with the squatting.

Chang: ah, I see it now. This was when someone broke in? And police responded?

Moermond: yes.

Chang: if it was boarded by the professionals, ordered by the Fire Department, and

approved by the City. How is it broken into? The proposal was boarding and securing,

and then someone broke in. I don’t have any control over it. I was also wondering if this

case, if the City kind of let the owner board it or if they have to have it boarded right

away? For the April 16 and May 18, those are when it was broken into. I didn’t have any

control over it. The City simply authorized the boarding.

Moermond: yes, that is how it works. When the police receive a call like this,

especially from someone who say they are identified to call on your behalf, and they go

check it out and find it open they can’t leave it unsecured because that means it will

continue to be a public nuisance. People can cause more damage. And fire damaged

structures aren’t safe for people to go into. They have to move onto the next call, so

they need it done.

Chang: without giving the owner a chance to board it.

Moermond: that’s pretty much it. If the owner is on-site, like an owner-occupant or an

onsite manager, they will let that person do that. Bur if no one is there to take that

responsibility then they need to make sure it is taken care of. It may be covered by

your insurance under fire, I don’t know.

Chang: if the professional boarded it, how does it get broken into twice.

Moermond: if we delete the inspector un-boarding it, I can take off $638, so down to

1,004 from your original $1,642. Less, but not gone. Would you like that to be made

payable over a couple of years?

Chang: its $390 for boarding.

Moermond: it’s a bill for $520 from work done April 6. Then $320 from April 16. Then

another fee that should be $164 and I’m only charging you one service charge for the

assessment instead of 2. So that’s what the total is for. That’s how I get to $1,004.

Chang: you deleted $390, the second one?

Moermond: and part of the service charge. The administrative fee was miscalculated to

begin with, it was $412 which was wrong and should have been $164. One service

charge.

Chang: ok.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH TA 22-298

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 733

THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. J2213B, Assessment No. 228118)

Balenger

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Inho Chang, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Moermond: we had a similar deal for this time in May. Squatters got into the house;

police indicated in their report what happened. They went into the back door. I know

the boarding company uses special screws and boards but there is a lot of ingenuity in

people inclined to break into others’ properties. It isn’t always 100 percent. So

someone broke in again.

Staff report by Joe Yannarelly: May 18 officers were sent for a disorderly conduct call.

Police had to display guns to remove occupants. They took people into custody and

they called in a boarding contractor to secure for a total proposed assessment of

$534.

Moermond: I misspoke earlier. They saw someone crawl into a window. So maybe a

window wasn’t secured while others were. Police found people, they had to show

weapons, and removed those people and had it resecured. I know it is frustrating when

people keep breaking in. It creates a dangerous circumstance.

Chang: the City authorized the boarding company to board it 3 times. They still go in

and maybe they went through the windows. If it wasn’t done well by a professional

company.

Moermond: they boarded up what they were asked to. This was more than a month

later. You already had a squatting incident and you yourself could have assessed

whether there was enough securing and could have brought a drill yourself.

Chang: if you are talking about one month later, how can you explain the April 16

break in?

Moermond: because they went in through a window. They could have a Sawzall or a

special drill bit. The City isn’t going to leave it open; it will resecure it. You as the

property owner ultimately are responsible for this. I hear you want the City to assume

that responsibility by saying if you would have done a better job it wouldn’t have

happened. I don’t know that that’s the case. The Council could look at this different.

This looks like a private property owner responsibility and insurance situation.

Chang: I secured the first-floor windows.

Moermond: good, that’s your job.

Chang: this isn’t about blaming the City. I secured the other windows.

Moermond: they broke into a window; they could have broken into one you secured.

Chang: right. They broke in through the back.

Moermond: you can make your case to the Council. The police were there. The

property was open to entry. The found 2 people inside a fire damaged building who had

to be removed at gunpoint. That is a dangerous circumstance. How those two people

got in, the caller said through a window. Then the police arrived, and the back door was

open. I am not prepared to say it is the fault of the boarding company. You can file a

claim against the City and argue it should be paid for by taxpayers, or ask the Council

for something different. My recommendation is approval.

Chang: I don’t think the back window was secured. The police found 2 people and they

didn’t make arrests? They just released them.

Moermond: I’m not looking at St. Paul Police Department operating procedures, I do

know that we only have a partial record. It was referred to an investigator for follow up. I

don’t have that. Just the report from the time.

Yannarelly: they won’t go around and proactively board things. They aren’t permanent

fixes. We don’t warranty the securing. It would cost you a lot more if they did.

Moermond: we’ll put both in front of Council October 12 so you don’t have to make two

trips downtown.

Chang: I think I’m going to pay.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH TA 22-316

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 874

MARION STREET. (File No. J2231A, Assessment No. 228538)

Balenger

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $582 to $291 and make it payable over 5 years

Niko Lee, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Lee: usually when they clean my house up, I get the notice before.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this was a Summary Abatement Order

issued April 13, 2022, with a compliance date of April 21. Rechecked April 26 and 29th

and found in noncompliance. Parks did the abatement May 3 for a total proposed

assessment of $582. Notice was sent to Niko Lee at 864 Marion St.

Moermond: did you receive materials from Ms. Vang?

Lee: yes.

Moermond: great. Tell me why you are appealing?

Lee: I never got notice. This was my first time, and I wasn’t at home. I had cancer

surgery and then a hernia. I had so many doctor appointments. I went to Thailand and

had treatment there. My cousin was house sitting. They messed up everything when I

wasn’t here. I had surgery for hernia twice. So many stressors. Now I’ve been seeing a

cardiologist. I have a lot of debt from the hospital bills. My caseworker said to go the

library. I can’t pay this much because of my debt. This mess is from my neighbors. I

didn’t get any letter, but it is a lot of money. I can’t afford to pay it.

Moermond: in April of this year where were you?

Lee: I went traveling

Moermond: you were out of the country, and had a cousin staying at the house?

Lee: yes. He was staying at my house feeding my cats and cleaning. He’s a student.

Moermond: where did the stuff on the outside come from?

Lee: next to my house there is a park and there are many black people who put stuff in

my garden and yard. I have to clean every time. I try to sell but no one enjoys it

because there are criminals according to the zip code. They put my trash in the yard.

Those tires aren’t mine. That’s my problem.

[videos are reviewed]

Moermond: I’ll be honest, some of those things looked like some things that may be

dumped like tires. But other things looks like they were generated from the household

itself. The house side of the garage, that’s almost always related to the house itself.

People who dump want to dump as far away from people seeing them as they can. Mr.

Yannarelly, what was your impression?

Yannarelly: the items mentioned in the Summary Abatement Order were there, but he

does have a very clean record.

Moermond: yes, he does. The City crew did have a fair bit to clean up. I know you

weren’t in the country so you didn’t get notification, though it was mailed to your house.

The City has no way of knowing where its residents are to give notification. Mail to legal

address is it. You have one incident in the past for tall grass and weeds, and you

mowed. That speaks well of you maintaining your property. I’m trying to balance those

things. I’d like to say if we don’t have any same or similar incidents, I’ll cut it in half and

make it payable over 5 years. $582 down to $291.

Lee: I asked my cousin and he said I didn’t get any letters.

Moermond: 2 letters went out. One to you and one addressed to occupant. No mail was

returned.

Lee: my cousin gave me a bunch of mail; I didn’t see anything.

Moermond: the one with the picture is the notice to clean things up.

Lee: and then the one to ask for the money.

Moermond: that’s this hearing notice.

Lee: I didn’t get notice.

Moermond: there were two of these (Summary Abatement Order) sent to you. One

addressed to you and one to occupant. City records show no mail came back as

undelivered. From my perspective the City did give notice and sent 2 letters. I don’t

know what the situation was with your cousin looking at the mail.

Lee: if we don’t pick up the letter they don’t return to the sender. I have to drop it at the

post office. If they sent it, I didn’t get it.

Moermond: and I’m struggling because you have someone looking after your property

who wasn’t taking care of the outside and you weren’t in the country. I have trouble

judging the situation. Looking at it on its face I see the City wrote the orders, mailed it

to two different people on April 13. They checked the property after the deadline of

April 21. They didn’t come by to check until April 26 and then again April 29. We’re two

weeks past, and then another two and a half weeks by the time the crew shoes up May

3. Any mailing issues at the Department at that time?

Yannarelly: it is what it is. It just says no mail returned.

Moermond: I want to give you credit for taking care of some things. But I can’t say you

didn’t get notice based on what I know. And if you did get notice you weren’t there to

get it. You just said your cousin gave you a pile of mail. He wasn’t taking care of the

yard and he wasn’t opening mail.

Lee: if I got the notice—

Yannarelly: but you weren’t here anyways.

Lee: I told my cousin to open anything important and let me know. I can’t pay this

much money.

Moermond: and what I was saying was I want to be giving you a break because you

gave a good history and are a good neighbor. I want to cut it in half. Give you the

benefit of some of the doubt. There is some doubt. And make it payable over a longer

period so you can deal with these other situations as well. That’s where I’m coming

from. The Council could say “I trust you didn’t get mail”. When I look at it, I think the

City did mail it and didn’t get returned mail. You also got 2 letters. A problem wouldn’t

affect both letters, maybe just one. I don’t know what your cousin was determining was

important information or not. People often ignore mail from the City. I’m ready to cut it

in half. The Council may be willing to do more. That is the next step. Right now I will

cut it down to $291 and make it payable over 5 years.

Lee: make it $200.

Moermond: I’m not negotiating this. It will be tiny payments over 5 years on your

property tax statement. The Council may be willing to reduce it further.

Lee: they are lying. I always get bills from the hospital.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/28/2022

RLH TA 22-333

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 150

ROBIE STREET WEST. (File No. J2301A, Assessment No. 238500)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Layover to October 4, 2022 (no phone number provided by PO).

Moermond: we have 150 West Robie and Ms. Vang received an email indicated Ingrid

Leiva wanted to appeal on behalf of her employer, Raimi property group. Ms. Vang

responded and asked for her number so she could participate. We haven’t received

that. I’ll lay this over for 2 weeks to October 4 and hopefully we have one by then.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/4/2022

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 22-328

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 201

SEVENTH STREET WEST. (File No. J2209P, Assessment No. 228408)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: we wouldn’t hold the property owner responsible

for removing graffiti from mailboxes.

Moermond: do we do it, or does the Post Office?

Martin: we issue orders to the Post Office to take care of it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH TA 22-334

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 557

STRYKER AVENUE. (File No. J2302A, Assessment No. 238501)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Tricia Kurschner, property manager, appeared via phone

Kurschner: we sent an email this morning saying we were no longer going to contest

and share some pictures. My photos from June 23, 10 days before, our maintenance

had completely cleaned up the area. We’ve had calls from tenants and neighbors

saying there are homeless in the dumpster, sleeping in there and behind, dumping

mattresses etc. I called St. Paul Police Department asking for additional drive-bys,

but we are at a loss. It seems to be happening quite often. We are at our wits end with

the lot there. I know I’ve called the garbage company; they’ve called me about

additional pickups. Any thoughts?

Supervisor Lisa Martin: I you think there are homeless folks, call the police but also

call 266-8989 because we have an outreach program. As far as the garbage, put up no

dumping signs, under video surveillance. Motion lights. Camera. Signs do help deter.

Kurschner: I believe there are cameras there. Not sure about signs. We’re not at the

property so the only information about homeless is if a tenant or neighbor calls. There

was a gal who has called a couple of times about drug dealing and someone sleeping

behind or possibly in. I did call the St. Paul Police Department a couple times. We do

have cameras, not sure if they are facing out that direction.

Moermond: when I look at the property from the aerial it looks like you own 567, 557

and then the property to the north, 553. I’m wondering if the problem isn’t with 553

because there’s a substantial change in elevation and retaining wall there. It is heavily

wooded. I wonder if the camping is happening up there and if clearing some of the

underbrush out and seeding it would be helpful. I know the cover of foliage and shrubs

is an attractive place to sleep.

Kurschner: totally.

Moermond: I’m not sure what kind of barrier there is at the top of the retaining wall to

the 553 lot. Maybe put a fence up?

Kurschner: I don’t know if those are on 553, some may be. I don’t know whose

retaining wall that is, if its 553 or the one next door.

Moermond: it looks like it belongs to 553 based on the ways the cars are parked. I

could be wrong.

Martin: we can look at that and assess what parcel it is and measures you could take

to reduce odds of sleeping and dumping there.

Kurschner: the garbage in the video. There is a bus stop there. They put it behind the

bench for the bus stop. we are unaware unless someone calls us. We aren’t there all

the time. Our concern is having the garbage can on the property line.

Moermond: I’m not sure whose can that is, City or Metro transit.

Kurschner: is the boulevard our property?

Moermond: yes.

Kurschner: I’ll bring it up to our maintenance about cutting down brush, maybe a

fence.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/4/2023

RLH TA 22-337

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 522

AURORA AVENUE. (File No. J2302A, Assessment No. 238501)

Balenger

Sponsors:

Continue PH to March 15, 2023. If no same or similar violations, reduce assessment

from $322 to $161.

Hussein Usman, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin:

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Usman: all these townhouses all have the same level of grass. Only mine was cut. I

was out of state on an emergency. That’s why I’m appealing.

Moermond: you’re appealing because you want some help with this because you are

out of town?

Usman: yes, out of the state.

Moermond: it looks like the City did do the work and the grass was tall. You didn’t

make arrangements for someone to take care of it?

Usman: originally I wasn’t planning to leave for that long. I couldn’t travel and was

stuck there. All my neighbors had the same grass. They cut mine along with my

neighbor.

Moermond: when I saw the video it looked like your neighbor’s grass was short and

yours was tall.

Usman: I didn’t see it that way.

Moermond: it looks like they had mowed theirs by the time the crew showed up and

yours was over a foot tall. I can create an incentive for this to not happen again, but

the City did do the work. I’ll ask the Council to continue this matter for six months, and

if there are no other property maintenance issues, I’ll recommend it is cut in half.

Usman: ok.

Moermond: make sure the walk is shoveled, the lawn gets mowed, and trash gets

picked up. You have no history of problems at this property. I don’t foresee it being a

problem. March 15 of 2023 if there are no issues we’ll cut it in half which is down to

$161.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/4/2023

Special Tax Assessments-Rolls

RLH AR 22-87

Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean Up services during June 2

to 13, 2022. (File No. J2301A, Assessment No. 228500)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/4/2023

RLH AR 22-88

Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean Up services during June 15

to 29, 2022. (File No. J2302A, Assessment No. 228501)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/4/2023

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 22-47

Appeal of Joseph Dalbec to a Summary Abatement Order and Vehicle

Abatement Order at 913 JOHNSON PARKWAY.

Yang

Sponsors:

Grant to October 11, 2022 for compliance.

Joseph Dalbec, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: I know we’ve talked before. Do you have a social worker working with you

now?

Dalbec: no.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: September 9, 2022, we issued a Vehicle

Abatement Order for a blue ford up on blocks. More vehicles have entered the property

since then. We gave to September 19 for compliance. The Summary Abatement Order

for the yard is probably the worst situation I’ve seen at the property, and we gave to

September 14 for compliance. This has been an ongoing issue.

Moermond: what is going on Mr. Dalbec?

Dalbec: I’m almost done picking it up. I have 3 people plus my son hauling it away.

Moermond: what do you want today?

Dalbec: how much time could we get?

Moermond: I can give you to October 3, 2022. We will check on it October 4 to see if

it has been taken care of.

Dalbec: hopefully I won’t have to appeal again.

Moermond: that’s a couple extra weeks.

Dalbec: I’m hoping to be done by then.

Moermond: maybe that will light a fire under them.

Dalbec: I hope I don’t need more time than that.

Moermond: we’ll put this in front of council September 28 at 3:30 and I’ll ask for them

to give you an extension to October 3

Dalbec: I was hoping until November. Or spring.

Moermond: you could maybe talk me into October 10. There is no way you’ll get to

spring. We will give you another week and check again October 11.

Dalbec: I may need a social worker.

Moermond: in the past someone from St. Paul Police Department with the COAST unit

reached out to you, and Lauren Ross [previously Lightner] worked with you. We can

send you her number again.

Dalbec: my son has been pretty good lately. I’m going to tell him you can come out

any time.

Moermond: that’s up to you.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/28/2022

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR 22-46

Appeal of Jay Mitchell, Quality Residences LLC, to a Vacant Building

Registration Notice at 1039 BRADLEY STREET.

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Layover to LH October 18, 2022 at 1 pm to check permit status of retaining wall.

Jay Mitchell, property manager, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: inspection revocation by Hector Caballero.

One of the issues and reasons for the revocation was the retaining wall. Inspector

writes that on November 24, 2021. Exterior inspection shows no change in retaining

wall. Permit issued September 24, 2021.This has been going on since November

2020. Extension requested and approved. Multiple inspections with no change.

Compliance by April 12, 2022. Exterior inspection not in compliance.

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 1 Vacant Building per

Inspector Shaff’s report and referral. James Hoffman was unable to confirm vacancy at

time of inspection and noticed it was maintained.

Moermond: Where are we at Mr. Mitchell?

Mitchell: crews were out today doing demo and the hope is it will be completed within

the next 3 weeks. Barring weather.

Moermond: how big is it?

Mitchell: 34.5 inches tall and 52 feet long. It didn’t have a footing originally, so that’s

just above ground. Some of it was during Covid, we couldn’t get anything done. We

couldn’t do anything after November. They were nice to try and help us out. It was hard

to find laborers of that nature. Both properties are owned by the same company, so

there aren’t any neighbor issues.

Moermond: that’s great. I’m going to lay this over four weeks and hopefully you’ll be

done. That’s October 18. Stay Vacant Building fee.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/18/2022

RLH VBR

22-43

Appeal of NJE Holdings LLC to a Vacant Building Registration Fee

Warning Letter at 1303 EDMUND AVENUE.

Jalali

Sponsors:

Waive VB fee for 90 days (to December 3, 2022).

Nathan Erickson, o/b/o NJE Holdings, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: 1303 Edmund Ave was a made a Category 1

Vacant Building September 3, 2020. It was upgraded to a Category 2 file since it was

found open to entry March 1, 2021. Since then, November 3, 2021, NJE holdings went

through sale review process and purchased the home. Currently we have Code

Compliance and permits on file. There was an overflowing dumpster August 30, 2022,

but otherwise it all looks good.

Moermond: what are you looking for today?

Erickson: we’re about 90% done. I was hoping to avoid another Vacant Building fee. It

is being staged tomorrow and should be on the market in a couple weeks.

Moermond: you have a lot of open permits still, but its positive I see they’re all there

with things going on. You originally went into the Vacant Building program September

3, 2020 so this would be September 3, 2022 through September 2, 2023. We’ll put a

90-day waiver in place, to December 3, 2022, and if you get it done within that time

there is no fee.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH VBR 22-41

Appeal of Nick Hubers to a Vacant Building Registration Requirement at

40 MAGNOLIA AVENUE WEST.

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Layover to LH October 11, 2022 at 1 pm for update after fire inspection.

Nick Hubers, property manager, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this was a Fire Certificate of Occupancy with

the first inspection scheduled for January 2021, we received no entry. Inspector made

entry in February 2021. March a reschedule. February 2021 correction letter. April 19

inspector notes he spoke with the property manager Nick Hubers who said tenants

were leaving end of month. May 2021 it was revoked unoccupied. Due to long-term

noncompliance basically the Fire Certificate of Occupancy was revoked. Sent to

Vacant Building program in September 2021. December the inspector noted the

Vacant Building folder was still open with no communication from owner or property

manager. We got a change of Responsible Party form December 28, 2022.

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 1 Vacant Building

September 2021 per the revocation. We did upgrade it to a Category 2 Vacant Building

March 10, 2022, due to chronic lack of maintenance. We issued 3 work orders to clear

the sidewalk and most recently an order to cut the grass late August.

Hubers: what address do you have on file? That you are sending stuff too, we’ve moved

and are now in our permanent office.

Moermond: the Vacant Building registration itself went to 5200 34th Avenue South in

Minneapolis on August 16, 2022.

Hubers: the correct address is 5202 and we moved in June of 2022.

Moermond: but you did get this letter.

Hubers: the most recent one with the wrong address, but it did get to us. With the

snow violations. There has been a person living there. I know there was an inspection

last year, and I was going to sell. I did cosmetic repairs and put it up for sale for 2

months. It didn’t sell, so we put another tenant in there. If we need to get another

inspection done let us know when and where.

Moermond: you told RC the wrong address. The address for the City comes from

Ramsey County. They have 5200 East 34th street. Did you correct it with the tax folks?

Hubers: I doubt it. It was redeveloped. We manage 500 properties around the twin

cities.

Moermond: for managing that many I’m disappointed you rented out a property for a

whole year without a Certificate of Occupancy. That’s pretty bad.

Hubers: I agree, I want to get it corrected.

Moermond: not good management practice.

Hubers: I agree, and I would like to get it taken care of.

Moermond: and are you also going to take care of snow shoveling and grass. There are

a lot of issues

Hubers: there is a tenant in there. So yes, if we get notices

Shaff: September 10, 2021, Inspector Franquiz says he spoke with the Responsible

Party informing them no one showed up on the September 3, 2021, inspection and

reminding them that no one is to occupy the property. That was an email.

Hubers: I spoke with him in the spring, not the fall.

Moermond: and you didn’t notice the Vacant Building fee on the taxes? There would

have been multiple notices on that.

Hubers: I got the warning letter right now. I tried to reach out to James Hoffman and

never heard back. Then I called the number to file the appeal. If I would have been

getting multiple letters about this on my taxes, I would have reached out.

Moermond: is there a placard that would have gone up?

Shaff: more than likely.

Moermond: do you have a list of items from orders September 10, 2021?

Hubers: no.

Moermond: you’re putting the City in bad position on this since you didn’t file your

address stuff correctly.

Hubers: we have over 500 properties and dozens of Cities to contact. Which we’ve

been doing as we get notices and find things. If things were done electronically it would

make life a lot easier than mailed notices.

Moermond: you don’t have anyone opening the mail?

Hubers: every single day. Our offices switching, we have been addressing them. I’ve

never received a Vacant Building prior to this one.

Shaff: I am not finding a photo of the placard.

Moermond: you said there was an address change form sent to the department in

December 2021?

Hubers: was that for 5005 34th Avenue South?

Shaff: yes.

Hubers: we were there for a year and then moved back to our current office in June

with an address of 5202. The notice says 5200 East 34th Avenue South. It should just

be South.

Shaff: the County has that exact address.

Moermond: where did the orders go to Mr. Dornfeld? The 5200 address?

Dornfeld: I’m struggling with technology in the field.

Huber: did the City remove the snow and mow the grass?

Moermond: yes. A crew was dispatched to do the work. Although it has been illegally

occupied for a year, you do have people in there. The question is whether we kick

them out due to your administrative failings, or do we give you a short leash to give you

a chance to address them? Given you have 500 properties I imagine you can dispatch

a crew in short order.

Huber: I will personally meet them there.

Shaff: being that list is so old, we want a fresh one. On April 15, 2022, is when All Twin

Cities Home Rental address was updated to 5202.

Huber: it shouldn’t. we were still in 5005 at that time. We didn’t move until June.

Shaff: it is time and date stamped.

Huber: why does the notice here say this address?

Shaff: they send it to every address in the file.

Moermond: this was the Responsible Party form not with Ramsey County taxation, who

is involved when dollars are involved.

Shaff: we would want to start over; however, we’re looking at lot of fees from before

we’d want to recoup because we did the work. It isn’t our issue that the Responsible

Party or property owner didn’t update their address.

Moermond: we’ll send the contact information in the follow up email as well as giving it

now.

Moermond: what is the best way to schedule?

Shaff: Mr. Hubers should talk to Der Vue.

Moermond: I’ll lay this matter over for 3 weeks. October 11.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/11/2022

RLH VBR

22-42

Appeal of Kevin Christ, CBW Properties LLC, to a Vacant Building

Registration Requirement at 1118 MARGARET STREET.

Prince

Sponsors:

Grant the appeal and release the property from the VB program.

Nick Hamaty, property manager, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: when I put this file together at 1118 the Fire

Certificate of Occupancy inspection process had been going on since April 14, 2022,

May 2, May 20, June 24, no entries and pending revocation. Revoked and sent to

Vacant Building.

Moermond: and the Certificate of Occupancy has been reinstated?

Shaff: it was approved by Inspector Thomas on Monday, September 19, 2022.

Moermond: we’ll recommend the appeal is granted and you are out of the Vacant

Building program.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH VBR

22-45

Appeal of Matthew Brown to a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning

Letter at 689 PARKVIEW AVENUE.

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Waive VB fee through November 9, 2022 and allow permits to be pulled.

Matthew Brown, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: this was made a Category 2 Vacant Building

June 2019. Inspector Kalis opened the file. It has been pretty clean to date as far as

history. We received acknowledgement from Guardian Asset Management who said

HUD is the property owner and the Vacant Building fee is in abeyance. Recently

Inspector Gavin found the back door open to trespass. Mr. Brown spoke with me and

confirmed it had been taken care of. Vacant Building 2 showing HUD ownership. No

permits. No Code Compliance Inspection.

Moermond: I’m under the impression HUD was the seller and Mr. Brown picked it up

June 24, 2022?

Dornfeld: yes.

Moermond: looks like they may not have disclosed it was a Category 2 Vacant

Building.

Brown: yes.

Moermond: a bit of a pickle for you to learn it like this. The federal government is not

required to do what the City of St. Paul says but us normal people are. When you

assume ownership these fees kick in. The anniversary date was July 1, 2019. That

means the Vacant Building fee covers July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. I’m

understanding you are working on the property?

Brown: yes. I’ve been working on it, painting, new floors and I bought it in June.

Started cleaning up and doing that. The goal is to rent it out. There is no one in there

now. I thought when I purchased it that it was taken off the Vacant Building registry. I

did know it was a Vacant Building, but no on explained the process. It was helpful

when Rick came by and started that conversation. I did submit the Code Compliance

Inspection application on September 9, but I’ve been talking to Nathan Bruhn who said

it takes a while to process it. My appeal is since I wasn’t anticipating it being vacant, if

you could prorate the fee somehow. That would be helpful. I know you’re watching over

it, I’ve been there daily since June taking care of it. I’m not sleeping there. So it isn’t

super vacant. There have been bodies in it.

Moermond: you’ve applied for the Code Compliance Inspection Report and when you

get that you can pull permits. The only thing is slowing you up from doing that is an

unpaid Vacant Building fee. I’d like to waive the Vacant Building fee to get you to a

place where you can pull permits. That doesn’t mean you’ll have no fee whatsoever.

We’ll put a waiver on it for a couple of months, then it will be processed as an

assessment. I am more than happy to look at prorating it at that point since we’ll have

an idea of how much time you were in the program. Hopefully we can cut It in half or

something. I’m going to waive the Vacant Building fee for four months, through

November 9, 2022. Have your permits pulled by then.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 22-27

Appeal of Jacob Smith to a Notice of Condemnation Unfit for Human

Habitation Order to Vacate at 627 MENDOTA STREET.

Prince

Sponsors:

Layover to LH September 27, 2022 at 11:30 am (via phone) to discuss inspection fire

inspection results.

Jacob Smith, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this is a duplex, 627/629 Mendota. We

received note the building was no longer occupied. Inspector Thomas responded to

that referral. He found there was an attic unit making it an illegal triplex. Part of his

orders were to apply for a provisional Fire Certificate of Occupancy. This has continued

into the Fire Certificate of Occupancy inspection, and Thomas found numerous

deficiencies. One being the illegal apartment in the attic. 627 has a bearded dragon

that needs a permit. Various items. Clean and sanitary in 629. Smoke alarms. Dog

licenses for both units. The attic unit was secured with double key deadbolts. Clogged

drains in basement. Requirement of building permits for additions. Stairway leading to

attic. Guard rails. There are pictures. A lot of deferred maintenance.

Moermond: this started in the Certificate of Occupancy program this year?

Shaff: yes, it no longer owner-occupied.

Moermond: this is the first inspection under a Certificate of Occupancy. You find it is

gross unsanitary with deferred maintenance and an illegal attic unit. Sewer issues in

the basement. We don’t see a lot of bearded dragons in your orders, but we have one

of those too. You bought it February 28?

Smith: yes.

Moermond: tell me what is going on. You mentioned in your appeal tenant issues and

we also have clearly some building issues going on, regardless of who did what to

make it bad, you are left holding the bag.

Smith: I’m looking for more time and some guidance. We made a deal with the tenants

in the attic, who we inherited. We covered their hotel costs. They are gone. I’ve been

told as of today they may be squatting. We are going to change the locks. My partner

put on screen doors today, put on handrails, we’ve had plumbers fix almost all the

issues. They are scheduled to come out Monday.

Moermond: are the tenants cooperating with access?

Smith: not always.

Moermond: are the tenants paying their rent?

Smith: no. We have a hearing to evict October 6. The upstairs unit has 2 old nice guys

who pay the rent on time. The main level is the one with the complaints, the dog and

the dragon. Animal control won’t do any enforcement to force them to license dogs.

Moermond: is it is a dangerous dog?

Smith: the biggest issue is it goes to the bathroom all over the place. Basement.

Yard. I’ve had the basement cleaned out once, plumbers said it is still bad.

Moermond: October 6 is your first hearing?

Smith: yes. I’m represented.

Moermond: what kind of extension are you thinking?

Smith: we could get the property done in 2 weeks. But that’s with cooperation.

Moermond: biggest concerns is sanitation; then it being a situation that recreates

itself.

Smith: correct.

Shaff: no permit on file for pipe replacement. Make sure you talk to them.

Moermond: the sanitation issue affecting main level and the basement.

[discussion of CO2 and Smoke alarm requirements between Smith and Shaff]

Moermond: orders September 7 and you gave 2 weeks for compliance. We do have a

progress report. I want to give you credit for making a good-faith effort in getting as far

as you have. Even if the tenants are awful, we have a minimum life safety standard as

well. Let’s get an inspector in and give it another look. They can confirm the progress

and based on that I can give an extension. Let’s keep that appointment for 10 am. You

won’t be here next week, but he could email an updated report on conditions. We’ll

have a phone conversation with you next week about what an extension would look

like, and any conditions based on what we’ve learned. One week layover.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/27/2022

RLH VO 22-25

Appeal of Thomas Harris, Alliance Motor LLC, to a Revocation of Fire

Certificate of Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 468 UNIVERSITY

AVENUE WEST.

Balenger

Sponsors:

Grant to December 31, 2022 for compliance.

Thomas Harris, owner of business in the building and potential purchaser of building,

appeared

Moermond: you own a business and are hopefully in the process of acquiring the

building?

Harris: yes.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: is part of a Certificate of Occupancy

renewal process. Notified by the City’s licensing department around October 2021 of a

new license they were working on to issue a business license. They check with us to

see if it has a current Certificate of Occupancy as part of their process. We saw it was

due for renewal regardless on its standard 2-year cycle. I told them it was fine to

process the license and separately schedule our normal inspection. That was

November 2021. Since then, there have been a number of reinspections and

reschedules requested by ownership based on work being done. A number of the

items from the initial report have been taken care of. We have a much shorter list now

of a handful of items. Due to the length of time this has been ongoing and no progress

from the August and September reinspections it became necessary to revoke the

Certificate of Occupancy and a pending condemnation. This was discussed on site.

These items do include life safety issues, but we wouldn’t normally order a property

immediately vacated. It rose to this level due to the length of time. Fire Sprinkler

testing was needed, past due for that testing, which was more complicated due to test

due to the sprinkler contractor noting a drain needed to be relocated before it could be

tested properly. There were repairs needed based on the portion of the sprinkler test

they dd. There was a floor drain issue, but we need documentation of that. Electrical

work was done, and we needed a permit. The final items were labeling the door to the

sprinkler room and removing storage in front of the sprinkler controls. They are

approachable in a reasonable time frame, but it has been ongoing without compliance.

I’m not sure what the situation is as far as who is responsible for what repairs. The last

conversation I had with a rep for building ownership was prior to the revocation notice

on August 29. I spoke with Jeff Mesher, a maintenance person for the current owner.

He said he had been making an attempt to do the repairs but understood we would “do

what we would” and had difficulty getting access and coordinating between tenant and

contractors. We advised we were just looking for compliance and coordinating that

work is between them.

Moermond: the owner is Asian Goat, LLC?

Harris: correct.

Moermond: and that’s who you want to buy it from?

Harris : yes. I came to St. Paul and I didn’t know it was going to be a nightmare. I saw

him first in November, I told him I am buying this property. My building got burned

down on Lake Street. It took me 2 months to clean up that building. I wish you could

see; the neighbors love the property. I said go through the building, this is the owner’s

information, I don’t know what they had done. I called when he was standing there and

spoke to the owner and told him I wanted to get it done ASAP.

I have put a lot of money and my savings into the property, but I think we are buying

from Scam investors. They took a lot of money and told me they were doing those

things they asked for. I called him dozens of times. The lady that works there for me

told me he met with the owner, so I don’t know what was discussed. I’m always there,

or people are there. They want to put the blame on me, the owners. I’m always there 9

am to 6. I’m always here when you send someone. The last time he was there I was in

the area and I wanted a letter to give my attorney. 90 percent of what he said was

done. The drainage was cleaned. They came twice. The owner said they sent Mr.

Imbertson the receipt. The electrical people said they were going to submit everything.

I thought everything was done. I said the sprinkler people were here and were waiting

on parts. He told me to come down and appeal. He was a great help to me. At this

time I’m asking for some extra time to get it done. My attorney is working with the

owner. I pay my rent on time every month. I’m in a building with nothing up to code.

Moermond: has this affected your license at all?

Harris: it is stressful every day. It isn’t up to code.

Moermond: the owner is the Responsible Party of record with the Fire Certificate of

Occupancy program. The owner is the one you would expect to meet there and be

responsible for managing repairs. Hopefully in concert with the tenant.

Imbertson: for a single tenant commercial property its common we’d meet the tenant

on site for the inspection, with the expectation the owner is speaking and coordinating

with the tenant. It would eventually affect the licenses because maintaining a

Certificate of Occupancy is a requirement, but there are no actions at this time.

Moermond: you mentioned the kinds of things on this last often take a little bit longer.

This has been going on long enough now that since it is still not done a year later, long

term noncompliance with the orders?

Imbertson: yes, there has been some trades work that has been challenging for some

property owners.

Moermond: we have a current permit for sprinklers from April 2022.

Imbertson: I don’t believe the work has been done yet.

Harris: it was completed. I took photos. I gave the Fire Department my key. After that

the electrical people came.

Moermond: the electrical people did the work without a permit from the City so they

can’t know it was done properly.

Harris: he had to put some covers up, and that’s all he did. I don’t know why we’d need

a permit for that. I’m not part of that.

Moermond: I see, it looks like besides those covers, the orders are saying new wiring

was put in without a permit. They weren’t worried about the covers, just the new wiring

someone did.

Imbertson: there was a run of outlets around the perimeter of the shop that was newer

and light in in the vestibule. That was pointed out to an electrician in March. At that

time we had explained the work to the electrician, the idea was being we don’t know

what work he did or what others did but needs to look over all the connections and new

wiring since our most recent permit. Make any corrections and then call for an

inspection on an electrical permit.

Moermond: you want some time for your attorney to work with the owner to get some

clear expectations down for the owner to meet by a deadline, so we aren’t looking at an

order to vacate. That makes sense.

Harris: it was difficult to get someone to even come change a lock since last

November. April the owner called me saying he was having problems and no one would

show up. He just kind of didn’t do his job because they should have pulled a permit.

Sprinkler people have been there 4 times. I’m tired of it.

Moermond: I think December 31, 2022, is a reasonable extension that should allow for

any complications.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

2:00 p.m. Hearings

Fire Certificates of Occupancy

RLH FCO

22-74

Appeal of Mary Callander to a Fire Inspection Correction Notice at 1378

LINCOLN AVENUE.

Tolbert

Sponsors:

Grant to January 1, 2023 for compliance.

Mary Callander, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: you were unable to complete a conversation with you two weeks ago. Can

you now?

Callander: I’m in the car driving back from the farmer’s market. Can you call me back

in 15 minutes?

Called back at 3:38 pm.

Moermond: we’re calling to establish a deadline. I understand you met with the building

inspector.

Callander: I already emailed the fire inspector.

Moermond: I understand that, but he doesn’t set the deadline.

Callander: and now the gal in there just got Covid.

Moermond: I’ll put a January 1 deadline on this. It will be reinspected after that.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022

RLH FCO

22-84

Appeal of Cassandra and Eric Larson to a Fire Inspection Correction

Notice at 920 CLARK STREET.

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Items 6, 7, and 11 are withdrawn from the August 30, 2022 Fire correction orders.

Grant appeal of item 5 related to dog license. Grant to January 1, 2023 for upstairs

room to be granted variance or must cease to being used as a sleeping room. Balance

of orders to be reinspected September 30, 2022 as scheduled.

Eric Larson, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this was a Fire Certificate of Occupancy

inspection conducted by Inspector Thomas. This started as a referral for not having a

Fire Certificate of Occupancy. Since it was in hearings a couple of weeks ago,

inspector Thomas was in the building August 30th to do a Fire Certificate of

Occupancy inspection. He found some things that needed to be repaired. Basement,

the guardrail. You supplied a picture however handrails are supposed to be continuous.

The handrail does have a split in it. Item 3, room on west side, the ceiling height

requires it be 7 feet or taller for half the floor area. He found floor area meeting the

minimum was only 1/3 the floor area. I think when I read your email the code has been

7 feet over half the floor for several years. The egress is blocked by the bed. There’s

also no remodel permit in 2012. There’s a dog license. Multi-plug adaptor. The

condemnation I wish to withdraw. Also, item 6 is withdrawn. Smoke alarms we want to

see, as well as carbons. The last item, item 11, retracting the order for unsafe heating

appliance. It was installed without permit and the permits have been applied for, so

that will be reissued.

Moermond: this occupancy is not condemned and items 6 and 7 are withdrawn so that

is clear. The Council granted the appeal on order to vacate previously. Item 11 having

to do with the furnace is withdrawn. Under discussion we have to talk about the ceiling

height. You do cite a code, but I don’t think that’s correct, but it isn’t the correct one.

The building inspector called out the St. Paul Legislative Code. It has been code for

30 years. It is properly called out under the Minnesota Building Code. I’m going to send

you an appeal form for the Minnesota State Building Code so you can appeal that

separately to the City’s Building Official. I need you to refer you to him. I can’t act on

that. The only thing I can do is give an extension to come into compliance should he

make the determination you can’t get a variance on this. You mentioned in your appeal

the upstairs room height, which we talked bout. The dog permit?

Larson: that is my dog. I had the dog there because I couldn’t leave him home that

day. Permits aren’t required in Lindstrom, I confirmed with them. I wanted to correct

that.

Moermond: I trust you on that so grant your appeal on item 5 relating to the dog. We

talked about the furnace. You aren’t condemned. The smoke and carbon monoxide

detectors?

Larson: Mr. Thomas was in August 30, he told me they are all ready to go. He stopped

in to measure upstairs again this morning and said they were good to go again. It was

confusing why they were on there when they were taken care of at the last inspection

and appeal. Those are updated and he said it was good to go. They’re all brand new.

Moermond: sounds like that can be cleared up next inspection.

Larson: the railing I could only find certain height, I couldn’t find anything about it being

continuous.

Shaff: it is the building code. Continuous so you don’t have to lift your hand going

down.

Moermond: look like a dovetailing issue to me.

Larson: I can do it, it just kind of sticks out too far.

Shaff: it is supposed to be continuous. What is in the basement?

Larson: washer, dryer, furnace and storage.

Shaff: is it finished?

Larson: yes.

Shaff: it must be continuous. I’m sure there’s lot of how-tos on corners like that. The

rise is probably higher than normal stairs, and the run is short. A handrail is important

on these.

Larson: the bedroom upstairs wasn’t touched. I presumed there was a grandfather

clause. We did the math and it is like 45% of ceiling height. I believe that’s all then.

Moermond: we’ll send a letter confirming this and attach the appeal form. Do you want

an extension beyond that reinspection on September 30?

Larson: no.

Moermond: and if you lose your appeal on the attic sleeping area I will recommend you

are granted 3 months to comply, January 1, 2023.

Larson: if it isn’t compliant then you’d have to remodel to get it compliant?

Moermond: could be a remodel, certainly it will mean someone can’t sleep there. Either

of those routes.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/12/2022