for >> July 14th, the regular city council meeting. Uh, clerk, please do a roll call. >> Council member Walsh >> here. >> Council member Gerola >> here. >> Council member West here. >> Council member Edber here. >> Council member Angstrand here. >> And Mayor McCloskkey >> here. >> Please join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Welcome to everybody who is here tonight on this hot night and welcome to the people watching on TV. Uh our first item is item two, approval of the minutes. Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> All moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. The minutes from the meeting on June 23rd are approved. Item three, adopt the agenda. Does anyone have any changes to the agenda? I would accept a motion to adopt the agenda. >> Second. Any discussion? All in favor? I >> opposed. All right. The agenda. We have an agenda. Item four, consent agenda. Does anyone have any changes to the consent agenda? >> Okay. I'd accept a motion to approve the >> moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. The consent agenda passes. Item number five, visitors and presentations. We have nothing scheduled. Item number six, public hearings. We have nothing scheduled. Item seven, unfinished business. We have nothing scheduled. Item 8A, um, order of abatement of hazardous property at 1966 3rd Street. >> Mr. Lindal. >> Yeah. Mayor, members of the council, I'm going to kick off this and then um uh turn it over to building official Ben Aen who can get into the details of this. But as you mentioned, the item before you is the considering of an abatement order for the property at 1966. Uh and I'm sorry, could you flip to the next slide? One more. One more. um um of 1966 uh Third Street. The property in question is located just well along fourth or uh excuse me, Third Street um just to the west of uh Bald Eagle Avenue. Um the item before you that includes a resolution and an attachment that's a draft order were prepared by staff in consultation with the city attorney. Um um so that item again I just want to stress it's been reviewed by the city attorney as well. Um uh building official Ben Aen is now going to kind of walk you through the history that's outlined in the memo and then both um the city attorney uh uh building official Aen and myself are available for questions. So with that I'll turn it over to Ben. >> Good evening honorable mayor, city council. Thank you for having me here tonight to talk about the property at uh 1966 Third Street. So, um let's see. In September of 2025, we started to get some calls about the property and our code enforcement officer went out, wrote an initial order to the owner. Uh what I came to find out is in and around that time there were a number of police calls being dispatched to the property and at one point the police came to me and said, "Hey, you know, the inside of this property is in rough shape. Maybe you should look at it." So I reached out to the property owner, talked to him about what was going on, and he agreed to let me in. So, in December of 2025, we went in and I photographed everything that I could could. Um, there's probably some more photos here, but anyways, um, what I found was that the inside of the home, >> excuse me, Mr. Aan, I just want to quickly say that the that you have prepared some photos and distributed those to the city council, so they have those in front of them as well as a copy in the back of the room. >> Gotcha. Thank you. Okay. I was thinking we were going to go through them, but that's fine. So, you can kind of see this is just a small snippet of photos. Um, but basically pretty much every room in the house, there's a fair amount of, you know, physical damage to the walls, ceilings, doors, windows. Um, generally everything that you would have in your home is it would be in place, but instead it's just strung about a very chaotic uh atmosphere. The uh guardrails coming down the stairs are broken. The all the appliances completely beat up and not working. So, the stove, microwave, dishwasher ripped out of the cabinetry, etc. And then down in the basement, um, same thing with the furnace. It basically dismantled, physically dented, no vent on it. The water heater similar condition. And the electrical panel was opened. You know, it definitely had been altered. A lot of wires hanging out. And when I looked at the outside of the building, the service mask where the service entrance conductors entered the home, the top u weather cap was missing. So that conduit where the wires come from the pole was just open to the rain, you know, and so I had our electrical inspector look at it and he deemed it to be unsafe. And so we contacted XL Energy and had the power cut. So after the inspection, um, I worked with the property owner to get the home bit boarded and secured. We had the occupant leave and I wrote an order to the owner that was mailed on uh, in January of 2026 and it gave him until May 31st to make the necessary repairs. And really as winter came and went, really not anything nothing was really done in the way of correcting anything in the order. Shortly before the deadline, the owner did hire a contractor to put a roof on the house. Um the contractor started with no permit and I stopped him and we got that sorted out and then they did put a roof on the house. But that's literally about all that's been done to date. So, we have a situation where you got a house with no power, no heat. It's in terrible condition. On the inside, from the outside, it doesn't look as bad. Um, but it's deemed inhabitable, and the owner has not complied with the with the order that we gave him. So, you know, we discussed, should we give him more time? Should we proceed with this process? And you know, the other part of this which is kind of outside of the realm of the physical damage to the property is these 39 police calls that have taken place. And in general, I get uh calls and emails from the neighbors. They're just very distraught about it. You know, they want to just enjoy their property and they're scared and angry and anxious and not happy with what's going on there. So, it's been a little better now that the occupant has been removed, but I think it compels us to think about what we would do moving forward because it's not just a house, it's a neighborhood. And, you know, we all live in neighborhoods and love our city. So, you know, what would we feel if that was going on next to us, you know? So, that's kind of the framework of where we're at. I'm sure we can answer any questions you have about the process or or specifics about what's going on in the house if you have any questions. What we're wanting to do is proceed to court and uh pursue a hazardous building abatement procedure under statute 463. Uh if we prevail in that, the court would likely give us the authority to tear down the house. So, that's, you know, that's a heavy responsibility we need to think about. Um, they likely would give the owner some more time to try to comply, but if he doesn't, then that could be the end result. I think that's all I have. >> So, if if if it did go that way and we tore down the house, does the owner still own the property? >> Yes. So, we would uh hire a contractor. We would take care of tearing down the house, bill the owner. If he doesn't pay the bill, we would assess the cost to the property, but the owner would own the property. >> So, mayor, members of the city council, I would just uh to kind of just highlight your question. There's nothing about the action that's before you tonight that talks about the city purchasing the property. Um, so this is what all the property would remain in the hands of the current owner. This is just what staff feels is the logical next step in that we've had discussions with the property owner um over an extended period of time greater than six months about the conditions of the property and how to correct them. And now we've gotten to a point where um we've reached the end of the deadline that we felt was manageable um and haven't seen additional progress. And so this is the next logical step in that process to try and use the city's authority to correct the problem. And are the neighbors in agreement with from what you have heard that they want the abatement procedure? >> Uh yes, from what I know. Um some of the neighbors have been calling and emailing. I I I think they would support this. Yes. >> But >> does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Ingen? >> I do. >> Council member Corolla. >> Well, first thank you for all your work. I'm always impressed every time I hear city staff or if I talk to people and they say, "Oh, city staff came on, you know, like following up and really trying to work with our residents." Um, I was just wondering when it was occupied and then left, was it the owner or was somebody else there? I don't know if you clarified, but >> yeah, it was not the owner. It was the owner's son. Okay, that was my only question then and just thanking you for I know that's a lot of time and having to go back and continue to check and try to get in touch with them and work with them. >> Okay, any other questions? Council member West, >> I was wondering if you could go back to the timeline really quick. Um, I just wanted to clarify the um second bullet point. Is that October 24th of 2025 or is that October of 2024? >> Do you vote? >> Chair, uh, mayor, members of the city council, that's October of 2024. >> Okay. Okay. And, um, what kind of police calls were happening? Well, the occupant at the home was obviously in distress, hallucinating, um, hearing things. A lot of the calls were actually generated by the occupant who would believe there might be someone in the home. The police would go and search and not find anything. So, um, yeah, alleged drug use, things like that going on on the property and just a very unstable situation, you know, unpredictable, which is why the neighbors seem to be on edge and rightly so. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Um, uh, these situations are never easy. Um it's particularly difficult when there's somebody who isn't completely in their full faculties um to kind of know what we can humanely do um and respectfully do. And um you know it it sounds like the city has done everything they can to um at this point be able to set this right so that the house is habitable again. Um and I'm just yeah I I would support um moving forward to try to see what we can do legally about this. Council member Walsh. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, just just my my questions are sort of what what what's our what's our interest as a city? This is a big deal. It's a big deal when you're talking about somebody's property. And so, the the occupants gone. That's good. That alleviated some some stress from the neighbors, but I want to get at kind of what's our what's the I mean, the legal term would be the state interest, but in this case, the city interest. What's our interest in the property sitting there vacant? Um, so maybe I think the memo referenced safety issues. You know, maybe if you could you could elaborate on that. I mean, what are the what are the are we afraid the buildings, you know, it's going to start on fire or start a fire? That'd be a bad thing. I mean, that'd be bad for the neighborhood. Um, what other what are the you I think the memo reference safety issues. What would you how do you characterize the safety issues? >> Yeah. Well, aside from the occupant, which has now been removed, you have the uh electric power caught. There's no heat. So you have a home that's blighted, vacant, sitting there unoccupied. So, you know, that can uh cause other problems like people coming in, breaking in, um loitering, whatnot. So, >> okay, that that's a safety issue. What is there is there is there a fire issue, you think, or not? I mean, is it I guess if you cut the power, >> I mean, the the threat of a fire is probably low now because the gas is off, the power is off. >> What about water? I mean, if we shut Is the I mean, how did the pipes not freeze? I mean, I'm imagining as you're going through this this this you were there in December and January. Was the water already cut off by that point? How's anybody even living in there? You know, >> we shut the water off at that point once we deemed it un >> uninhabitable. The water's back on now because it's summer and the owner presumably wants some water so he can use the bathroom and whatnot as he cleans up, but we just haven't seen a lot of activity on that front. So, yeah, I don't know. It It's a good question. Is it going to burn down? Probably not. It's probably more just having a vacant house sitting in your your neighborhood. It just invites problems. >> Ben, could you also speak the the general structural integrity of the house. >> I mean, the bones of the house are fine. The house is fixable for sure. I mean, it's a fair amount of work to do it. Um, a lot of the drywall is going to have to come down. Um, there's wiring that's been cut, so we're going to have to probably rewire the house, fix the furnace and the electric panel, the service mast, the windows need to be replaced. There's some issues with siding, soft it. Um, you'd have to drywall it, paint it, you know, put it all back together. So, it's a it's a big task, but it is doable. It's just is it worth the money? >> Yeah. I don't know. We just This is just, you know, I've been on the council like 10 years, I think, and we've only done I think maybe one. I think you you remember two. Um well the the one I I believe maybe I ask the we have a success story. We we we gave a lot of time. We we were very forgiving. You know another deadline another deadline and then honestly didn't think it would work but it actually worked. Is that still a success story >> and I don't I don't remember the address of that property. I think we all know what we're talking about but maybe >> was on Carile Court. >> Yeah that sounds right. Yeah. And we were basically heading down this process but past this stage and then the county and uh helped rehabilitate the house but we've had others >> I probably had well for sure like probably six of them here in Whitebear >> and most of them have ended the way you describe where either uh the owner comes around in the 11th hour and tears it down themselves self or fixes it when they start to feel the pressure of the court. >> Uh we did tear one down on County Roadie in 2009 and then we serve Mameidi and we've had some over there as well. A couple that we've torn down. They're all different each case, you know. >> So, yeah. >> Thanks, Mayor and Council. I I would add one other response to that question too, which I think is a good one from council member Walsh, but um chapter 463, which we're operating under here, which is the hazardous building statute that allows the city to do um exactly what we're proposing and and recommending that the council do tonight, does provide for that sort of half step of well, maybe we won't try to demolish the home. um maybe we just secure it because we don't want vacant homes um susceptible to break-ins and other things. Uh staff has tried that here. In fact, this home was we thought secured a handful of months ago and due to the circumstances and the nature of um some of the individuals or or a particular individual who is aware of this home and it its vacant state, that's not doing any good. Um the home was broken into by that person. um it was breached. I mean, there's a way to do that under the same statute. Cities can do it for vacant and hazardous buildings um to eliminate that need to go this far, but um it hasn't proven successful in this case. And that's why we're at at this stage. There is a provision in the building code in the Department of Labor's um provisions that I've talked to um Ben about which which states that um any home that's deemed unsafe and uninhabitable it actually says must be abated, repaired or demolished um pursuant to chapter 463 by cities. And that's what we're doing here. Um, I think it would be reasonable for the city in any case to try to do the the half step or try to secure the building to avoid any further cost and and kind of this more extreme step. Um, but in this case, we've tried that and it didn't work. Um, I would also add that the fact that Wiper Lake hasn't had to do this is a great thing. Uh, but it's not uncommon. Um I do uh provide assistance to at least one other Ramsey County uh suburb um that we've probably done this half a dozen times in the last three years, two or three years just with single family homes that have they're unoccupied um and vacant and they've just deteriorated to the point of um it's not good to have them in your in your community for those safety issues. And so there's also always a chance that when there are break-ins and things, first responders go in, other people go in, and when the home is in a state of disrepair like this, um, no electricity, no lights, um, stairs are damaged, walls, windows, railings are damaged, you just don't know what's going to happen and it puts first responders at some risk as well. So, I think there's a lot of components that go into it. But um I just wanted to add that because I agree White Bear hasn't had to do this very often and that's a great thing but there are certain circumstances that that warrant this I think level of decision-m at the council. So >> thank you. >> Sure. Um can I ask so once it goes if if the abatement we send this to abatement then there's a period of time before it gets turned he they still have a chance to comply. >> Um that's a good question. So um this would actually allow the city to finalize an order and serve it on the owner. Um there are no occupants but I think there's a lean holder. We also have to serve lean holders which would be any banks that have a mortgage. Um and then they have a time period to answer the lawsuit or to actually do the work. In this case, um the owner would be given an opportunity to either demo the house or to uh complete all of the different tasks that you know um your building official has determined is necessary to bring the building into a safe state. Um he has every right to do either one of those two things. >> Could he sell it? >> Um he could also sell it. Um, so, um, we do provide some time. I mean, I I know the answer period for a lawsuit is 3 weeks, right? It's it's 21 days. Um, it wouldn't be reasonable to tell someone you have to do 12 things to improve a house that's in the state in in 3 weeks. That's not possible. We do give some time. I think here we provide for up to 60 days to do that. Now, um um if they were making reasonable efforts and progress on something, we would have to have a conversation about, well, do we go to court or not? Um I don't know if that's going to happen. I'm not sure if it makes sense to to put that kind of money and and investment into a home that is in the state of disrepair that this home is in. Um but that is an option for this property owner. Um so there there is some period of time and due process that goes into this. We don't just snap our fingers and ask the the judge to uh allow us to demo a house. We do provide um and have to under the under the law provide the homeowner with that opportunity. So, >> okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Uh Council Member Walsh, did you >> uh Good for now. >> Okay. Are there any other questions? >> Well, if there's no other questions, I I'll move the resolution. Is there I look, we have a resolution in front of us. >> Uh yeah. Is there a motion >> to adopt the resolution ordering the abatement of the hazardous conditions of the property maintenance violations at 1966 3rd Street? >> And I'll speak to that assuming I get a second. >> Second. >> I'll Is there any further discussion? >> Yeah, I'd like to speak to that. Okay. >> Yes. >> Um I I do think it's a big deal. This is this is private property. I I I I'm not eager to do this. This is I am hesitant to do it. I hope I think what we're doing is escalating and I appreciate the efforts that have already been made by city and staff. I appreciate the lawyers remarks too. That helps. Um so we're escalating and and sometimes it just takes that it takes escalation to spur other behavior, you know. So we can do this now or we can do it later. We should just do it now and and get this get it get it through to completion, whatever that completion is going to be. But it'll be once we the faster we get there, it'll be better for the neighborhood for sure and probably better for the property owner and everybody involved. So, I support escalating. I just it's just a serious thing to do with somebody's private property. Um, but I think that that's why I got asked those questions. I appreciate the answers to give me more comfort. I wouldn't say I'm comfortable, but I am more comfortable. >> Agreed, Councilman Bingstrom. Thank you, >> Mayor. I'm trying to reach uh clarity in my own mind. So, upon passage of I'm going to vote in favor, but uh assuming this passes, the owner has 60 days. The end of 60 days, is that when we go to court and seek a an additional specific order or are we empowered after 60 days to assess is good faith being made or is this do we hire a a company to raise the building? what happens at the end of 60 days um going forward. >> Sure. Um it it sort of depends on what the owner's response is. Uh Council Member Edber and and rest of the council. So he'll have options. He has the ability to answer the lawsuit and um challenge it if he wants. And >> is this the lawsuit? >> This is a lawsuit. Yep. This is civil litigation. And so um in Minnesota, we're a service-based state. So, as soon as he gets served, that lawsuit has commenced. We don't file in district court until we sort of see what plays out with with the um other party. Um if time passes and he doesn't do uh take action, um what we would do is uh file in district court and bring a motion for default judgment. And that would effectively request from the judge the ability to do exactly what we're asking him to do or demo the house uh because he hasn't responded and is um sitting on his hands and and not um exercising his rights to um either answer the suit or to take the initiative with city staff and the building official to obtain permits and and do that work. um we would wait some period of time or at least the the time that we give him the allotted time of 60 days before we would put that on the calendar. Now, usually what happens is that gives us time to prepare the paperwork and sort of tee it all up to do right away. I don't like delaying these things longer, but I also like to show that we did provide some reasonable opportunity to do that work. It it is viewed very favorably by the judge and it also I think is only fair under the circumstances. So, um, realistically, um, the quickest that the city would obtain any sort of order would be a few months from now, just because we're also at the mercy then of a district court docket and, um, a judge, uh, and their calendar and and getting in front of them and issuing an order. Um, so I want to make sure folks are aware of those timelines in terms of the legal process that is involved. Um, if we were to be drawn into a fight in a dispute about the condition of the home and its hazardous uh, status and the determinations made by our building official, then it can take longer because then we're looking at having to go um, now there are provisions in the statute that prioritize these cases. They don't, you know, do a scheduling order and put things out for a year. Um, I think we'd get something scheduled relatively quickly. Uh but that can cause this to take a little bit longer because then we have to prepare for hearings and um work with the judge um and and the court frankly on um how to resolve that dispute and um prove the merits of what we believe is is our our case. So does that answer your question? >> That answers that question. May or may ask in a second. >> Yes. >> Um so we have a physical building issue. We have a humanoccupancy issue and related to that folks who are neither owner nor occupant but come and um make their way in visit do whatever mischief they're going to do if there so I may be thinking too far down the road and that's fine you can we can just cut it short but if the um owner chooses to renovate they successfully complete that. Is there any control or options that we have regarding the occupant who created the issues who is not the owner who's going to address the issues? How do is there anything there that we need to be incorporating into our thinking, incorporating into our our action? >> Mayor and Council Member Edberg. Um, another good question. I mean, that's the dynamic about this case that's very unique and and I think difficult. Um, you know, of course, inflicting damage like this on a home is a crime. You you shouldn't be doing that. Um, there's a relationship component to this where we have a father and a son. Um, I think that's difficult for them to manage. Um, but our law enforcement staff is very well equipped and willing to pursue charges in those circumstances. um this individual could be trespassed. Um I think those discussions have happened. I I haven't been privy to them or nor am I aware of all the details, but um from what I understand um there haven't been u abilability for law enforcement to pursue charges or, you know, cite somebody for trespass or keep somebody off the property. that that is a difficult um component to this entire situation. One that our code enforcement staff has practically no control over unfortunately. Um and so that's one of the reasons why we're at the stage that we're at here and hopefully that's mitigated and those issues um don't occur any longer. But we other than if they happen being able to use the criminal code and and our law enforcement to enforce that and our city prosecutor or um county prosecutors to to administer that. Um we're somewhat at a loss in terms of how to handle um that that component of it. And I think um I think that's all I probably should should say about that. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Okay. Any further discussion? All right. All in favor? >> I opposed. All right. The resolution passes. >> All right. And thank you so much for for coming and for all your work on this. We really appreciate it. I'm sure the neighbors do as well. Um, all right. Item nine. Uh, discussion. Nothing scheduled. Item 10, communications from the city manager, Miss Crawford. >> Thank you, mayor. I have a couple slides tonight. Um, want to introduce something that we have begun advertising um on behalf of Ramsey Washington County um recycling and energy center. Um so, food scrap food scraps pickup program is now available in Wiper Lake. Many have been waiting for this for a long time. Um so, we have some trial kits in the lobby of city hall. Um, but also you can order your free compostable bags at the at the site that's listed there. It's really really easy. Um, so just wanted to to share about it. You know, you you collect your food scraps in the compostable bag that is um provided by Ramsey and Washington counties. Other compostable bags are not um don't work. They're not authorized, so don't use them. But when you fill your bag, tie the bag and place it inside your trash cart or dumpster for collection. And then from there um that bag will be um sorted through uh by a a a robot machine that some of us had the pleasure of seeing when we toured um the recycling and energy center, but it it identifies it and picks out that organics bag. Um and then that organics uh is sent to somewhere else for composting. Um so anyway, it's just it's a new program um that's offered to Wiper Lake residents and it's really exciting. So, I encourage those who are interested to either stop by city hall and pick up their starter kit or um or order their bags. Um and again, it's it's all free. So, that's exciting. Something else I have just a few up uh upcoming events. We're um we're winding down the event season um in White Bear Lake, but we have a few Marketfest still. Um this week's theme is um public health and safety night. So, police and fire and all of our partners, Ramsey County and everybody else will be down at Marketf Fest on 4th Street. Um, from 6:00 to 9:00 on Thursday, the farmers market, we still have several opportunities for that. Um, again, that's every Friday until October 30th from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Clark Street. And then the police department's upcoming event is Floats with the Fuzz on July 29th from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Thallally's. And just thank you to Tallies who also sponsors that event for us. So that's what I have. Mayor, thank you. >> Thank you. Does anybody else have anything? All right. Um I' I'd uh take a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? Okay, we're adjourned.