2020_0824_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

36 37 Following revocation of the multi-family rental licenses, staff immediately began working with 38 G & G Management to ensure the property owner understood the deficiencies, conditions of 39 the revocation, and to formulate a plan to work toward reinstatement. These“educational and 40 progress inspections” with G & G Management were instituted on a regular basis to ensure 41 that the property owner had a clear, understandable, and attainable path to successful 42 reinstatement. 43 44 Even with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, officials from both the Building Department 45 and Fire Department conducted a total of seven “progress, and educationalinspections” over 46 the past seven months. The inspections included a full exterior site inspection, and a roof 47 inspection ofnine of the twelve buildings. Inspection findings of all inspections were provided 48 toManagement. 49 50 City staff also routinely monitored the property owner’s efforts to employ a certified residential 51 property manager and maintenance technician, an express condition of reinstatement within 52 the Council’s revocation resolution. This condition was designed to assure that G & G 53 Management would have ample professional assistance as a means to successful reinstatement. 54 (Notably, this condition mimics a court-ordered condition available in a legal action under the 55 Minnesota Tenant Remedies Act, Minn. Stat. §504B.381. The City in this case reasonably and 56 responsibly attempted to gain quicker professional assistance on the site through its revocation 57 resolution, while at the same time affording G & G Management a path to improving tenant 58 conditions outside of an expensive, contentious litigation process.) 59 60 As of the end of May 2020, every progress inspection uncovered numerous and on-going code 61 violations,while G & G Management had employed neither a professional property manager 62 nor a certified maintenance technician. A thorough history of the inspections, findings, and 63 clear communication from staff is demonstrated incorrespondence dated June 4, 2020, to the 64 property owner. (Attachment F) 65 66 Nevertheless, on June 1, 2020, G & G Management applied for rental license reinstatement for 67 the buildingat 1740 Marion Street. On June 19, 2020, Inspectors from both Building and Fire 68 Departments conducted an inspection of the 1740 Marion Street location. Inspectors found a 69 total of ten code violations including:garage roof penetrations, leaking plumbing, and window 70 latch issues. The full inspection and summary report is available for Council review. 71 (Attachment C). The property, therefore, has not reached strict code compliance. Moreover, 72 Paragraph H of the Council’s resolution requires not just code compliance for reinstatement, 73 but rather a demonstrated ability to continuously comply with City code. (Attachment D) Here, 74 even if the Council ignored the remaining code violations at the 1740 Marion Street building, 75 the building has maintained its present state for less than 30 days and only while the conditions 76 of the other eleven buildings on the site remain neglected. It simply cannot fairly be stated that 77 G & G Management has demonstrated an ability to continuously maintain code compliance at 78 the subject building. 79 80 Further, G & G Management still has not employed the certified professional assistance 81 required by Council resolution. Instead, G & G Management personnel have voiced their 82 intention to certify themselves through educational coursework that is currently not available 83 due to COVID-19. There is no indication that the pandemic has impacted in any way a property 84 owner’s ability to employ a certified professional property manager and maintenance Page 2 of 4