Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - 2/5/1998 City of Oshkosh - Department of Community Development OQ~ ~ OfHKOfH ON THE WATER . .;'t~ ~ 215 Church Avenue Oshkosh, WI 54901 (920) 236-5055 (920) 236-5053 fax MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 199 atAi1u TO: Richard W ollangk FROM: RE: Enforcement Actions per Frontenac Apartments Please find attached a memo from Allyn regarding the Frontenac Apartments. This building has received a significant amount of attention in the past couple months in our local media, and I thought it might be helpful to have Allyn provide a synopsis of events that occurred over the last 7-8 years. An older apartment building such as the Frontenac is likely to have some inspection history, and it is possible that there was some activity per the building even prior to 1990. In any event, the first notation of housing code issues is from 1990. From newspaper accounts on the situation, one is left with the impression that the City allowed a given condition to go unaddressed for 7 years, and then the City reduced the fine on that 7 year old violation from approximately $60,000 to $1,800. In reviewing the memo from Allyn, it can be seen that such is not the case. While the Division had written orders on the property 7-8 years ago, those orders were deemed satisfied based on a Division inspection of the premises, owner assurances, and the fact that not a single person who had initiated a complaint called the Housing Inspector back to say their concerns had not or were not being addressed. It wasn't until September, 1996 that the Division initiated an all encompassing enforcement action on the property, from which the citation action in November 1997 stemmed. It is also important to note that no citations were requested on the property prior to November, 1997. '> Page 2 It should also be noted that while there have been severallett~rs to the editor indicating that the City Manager was involved in the decision to reduce the fine noted above, that was not the case, and that decision was made by the City Attorney and Director ofInspection Services, and I believe Allyn's memo points out the reasonable justification for that action. Allyn, Bruce and I sat down on Thursday, January 29 and reviewed the previous activity regarding the Frontenac and one thing we felt we should change, per the format that has been followed in the past, is that if there are a given number of complaints registered about a property, the Division should then initiate an action to pursue a thorough review of the property regardless of whether the Division is receiving a re-complaint from individuals in the building. The fact that a given number of complaints are made should trigger a more thorough check of the property to ensure the property owner is in fact following through on appropriate corrections. The policy the Division has followed in asking tenants to first work with their landlord (for typically encountered (non-life threatening) problems) seems to work well in most cases. This also follows the procedures developed during the Landlord/Tenant Task Force meetings, which were designed to promote communication and cooperation between landlords/tenants and the Inspection Services Division. There are always exceptions and by instituting the change to do a thorough review once we've received a given number of complaints, this should help us get a handle on those exceptions. JRK/dpm Attachment -'", City of Oshkosh - Dent of Com Dev/Insnection Services Division 215 Church Avenue Oshkosh, WI 54901 (414) 236-5050 ~ OfHKOfH ON THE WATER MEMORANDUM TO: Jackson FROM: Allyn ~ DATE: January 30,1998 RE: Summary of Past Enforcement Action on the Frontenac The following chronology provides insight on the activities this office has been involved in as they relate to the maintenance issues of the Frontenac, 132 High Ave. As you will see this office did not issue any orders regarding windows or screens until March 5, 1991. At this time the Correction Notice only applied to this individual dwelling unit. (However a landlord should be able to reasonably determine it should apply to any and all dwelling units/structures they own.) Later in 1991 a. notice was sent to repair roof leaks and to comply with the screen requirements. In reviewing this file, Bruce and I are unsure as to whether compliance with any of the early orders (1991-1994) was fully secured, because it is not noted whether a reinspection was performed or whether we accepted a call from the owner indicating these items had been addressed. In many cases when we received complaints or issued Correction Notices, our office would advise the tenants to call our office if they felt the items were not being corrected. The Brinkmans assured us these items had been rectified and since tenants did not file complaints to the contrary we felt reasonably assured the corrections had been made. This is the same procedure we use for all landlords until it is demonstrated the complaints/code issues are not being corrected. In the fall of 1993, the Landlord-Tenant Task Force started its meetings to review our Housing Code enforcement procedures and develop procedures to encourage cooperation/communication between the Landlords, Tenants and the Inspection Division. Because the Brinkmans expressed deep interest in developing the communication (as was indicative by their presence at the meetings) we continued trying to encourage this cooperation (as we continue to do so today) by asking the tenant filing a complaint to first contact their landlord with their concerns and if they were not able to get satisfaction to call us back to arrange for an inspection. In the time frame from November 17, 1992 to June 17, 1996 we registered 8 documented complaints and all these tenants agreed to first contact the Brinkmans with their concerns. Of these complaints, not one person called back to say their concerns had not or were not being addressed. '- . Toward the end of this time frame (summer of 1996,) Bruce brought to my attention that many of the complaints involved roof leaks, in addition to the fact we were concerned with the overall general maintenance (or lack thereof.) When we received a complaint in August of 1996 concerning falling plaster (which we later concluded was a result of previous water damage,) we contacted the Brinkmans to perform an inspection, not only of the unit in question, but of several we had received complaints about in the past. During this inspection we discovered that many of the repair attempts were not satisfactory or had not been done at all. This is when the present all encompassing enforcement action began regarding, windows, screens, facade restoration, roof leaks and overall general maintenance. (This notice was dated September 3, 1996) This notice did not set specific dates for compliance due to the enormity of the work to be completed, but we did require them to submit a schedule for review and approval. We sent additional correspondence in February, 1997 when we had not received any such schedule. Per our written procedures they would normally be given a minimum of 1 year to complete the reroofing (which they did,) 1 year to paint, 30 days to comply with the screen code and 3 months to comply with the window maintenance (the last three were not complied with within the prescribed time frame, nor were they satisfied in November, 1997.) N~te: It was our intention to commence citation procedures in May, 1997 if the Brinkmans had not made considerable progress by this time or if an acceptable schedule had not been approved. As you will also note by the chronology, we got further involved, when a large portion of a dwelling unit ceiling fell down in unit 309D in March, 1997. After inspecting this dwelling unit and posting it uninhabitable, we had a meeting to further discuss repair efforts with the Brinkmans and their attorney in our office on April 1, 1997, in additional attempts to encourage timely compliance. In this meeting, we again requested a schedule to be submitted, however the Brinkmans did commit in this meeting that they felt everything would be completed by November 1, 1997. While we never received the requested schedule, we did have a date to which they committed and were comfortable in using this as an overall deadline. In fact, April 1, 1997 this is the date we used as a starting point when the multiple day citations were issued in November. We issued daily citations for the windows and screens based upon the 217 days that had passed from April 1 , 1997 to the date of inspection, November 4, 1997. As you can see, we had extended every effort to gain cooperation in this venture, which leads us to where we stand now; the plea bargain on the citations based upon their assurances these items will be completed by June 30, 1998. While the Brinkmans can only blame themselves for allowing the building to deteriorate to the condition it is in; given the substantial amount of work involved in bringing this building into compliance it certainly seems reasonable to justify this plea bargain instead of dragging this out in court and possibly have the judge reduce the fines. I believe this plea bargain step gives us a stronger hand in the event they do not comply. If compliance is not achieved and we reissue daily citations, a judge may sustain the larger citations because we have shown we had already extended the hand of leniency and it did not get the desired results. -. "- . CHRONOLOGY April 19, 1990 - Correction Notice sent regarding open sewers, lack of GFI receptacles in the bathroom and water heaters installed without permits. This notice did not address any of the issues we had recently issued citations for. March 5,1991 - Correction Notice issued specifying window repairs were required in unit 140C of this building and an additional order was issued to provide screens for all open able windows in all habitable rooms. This was a result of a complaint received on March 4, 1991. October 30, 1991 - Complaint received regarding roof leaks. A Correction Notice was sent on October 30, 1991 in response to this complaint. This notice did address the screens and roofleak issues, but nothing was mentioned regarding window conditions. January 3,1992 - Final Notice was sent regarding the aforementioned Correction Notice. January 8, 1992 - Summary Notice was sent regarding status of Correction Notices issued upon this and several other properties the Brinkmans own. July 9,1992 - An inspection of the properties listed on the January 8, 1992 Summary Notice is performed by Allyn, with written guidance from Bruce. Recalling these inspections, I do not know if I inspected 132 High Ave for the roof leak as we did not have recent complaints on this issue and as in the past were assured those items had been addressed. July 10, 1992 - I sent correspondence to the Brinkmans recapping the results of the previous day's inspection. I noted some items were left to be corrected on other properties. I also pointed out items that were corrected on these various properties in a manner which I felt were short term solutions and would cause maintenance concerns in the future. November 11, 1992 through August 20,1996 - Eight complaints filed with this office regarding various concerns, 2 of these specifically cited windows as a cause for registering a complaint. The last complaint advised us of a lot of falling plaster in their apartment. August 26,1996 - After Bruce reviewed the complaint history of this building with me, especially in regard to roof leaks, window conditions and facade maintenance we arranged to perform an inspection of 4 dwelling units we had received past complaints on. During this inspection we were made aware the Brinkmans had hired James Larson, Architect to develop plans to repair the facade and research for financing options. September 3, 1996 - A summary letter was sent to the Brinkmans outlining the violations that had to be addressed throughout the apartment building. This letter instructed them to prepare for approval a repair schedule for complying with the items found in the building. September 20, 1996 - Letter received from James Larson confirming his involvement in the Frontenac facade repairs. '" " '- .... .... February 13, 1997 - A letter was sent from our office to the Brinkmans reminding them of the requirements outlined in the Sept. 3, 1996 letter, inquiring as to the status of their repair efforts and stating that we had not yet received a schedule for completion. March 5, 1997 - Complaint received regarding apartment 309D. We contacted the Brinkmans and set a date for the inspection. March 10, 1997 - Inspection of this apartment is conducted and after considering the extent, nature and number of violations noted, this unit was posted as "Unfit for Human Habitation." Orders were then issued. April 1, 1997 - A meeting was held in our office with the Brinkmans, Mr. Yakes, Mr. Larson, Bruce Luedtke and me. At this time the violations found throughout the apartment building were discussed. We discussed the various code items and the Brinkmans provided tentative dates for compliance with the various code items, with full compliance with the September 3, 1996 list being met by November 1, 1997. April 4,1997 - Letter sent to Brinkmans recapping the results ofthe 4-1-97 meeting and reminding them to submit a schedule for the items where a defmite compliance date could not have been arrived at during this meeting. July 22,1997 - Letter from Brinkmans stating the roofing has been completed. October, 1997 - Arrangements were made to inspect apartment 309D after inquiry to its status was madeby our office. November 1,1997 - Inspection of unit 309D revealed compliance with everything except the windows and screens. A poor attempt was made to install new glazing compound, but nothing was done to repair the rotted frames or sashes. The attempt on the glazing compound was a token effort at best because the can of compound was on site and the compound on the windows was fresh, but it had already started peeling and cracking, even though the compound was soft and pliable. November 13, 1997 - Citations were issued for window m~intenance, lack of screens, failure to paint the exterior facade, missing guardrail around the exterior basement stairs and overall lack of maintenance.