Dispute over

Poor Farm ends

City can't force owner to tear

down structure

By RON LARSEN

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- The city council's decision Tuesday to do nothing more to force the Poor Farm's owner, Jon Hartley, to secure or demolish the building essentially ends a four-year test-of-wills over the 95-year-old building's future.

In the end, it appeared procedural missteps and an overstated rationale for demolishing the building derailed the city's efforts.

The end, for all practical purposes, came in Brown County District Court when Judge John Rodenberg ruled against the city when it sought to enforce its earlier order to Hartley to raze or remove the building from the Poor Farm property because it constituted a "public hazard."

Rodenberg ruled that the building constituted a hazard only to those who would trespass on the property and enter the building. This hazard, the judge continued, could be eliminated by repairing and strengthening the fence surrounding the building and sealing the building's opening to prevent unauthorized entry.

"It appears that the Poor Farm, if so sealed, would be merely an abandoned, ruined building that is of little or no value but which also poses no 'hazard to public safety or health,'" the judge said.

Rodenberg also found that there were two flaws connected with the city council's action in passing a resolution in December requiring Hartley to either raze or remove the building from the site before April 1.

"The minutes of the Council meeting do not show who made the motion on the resolution, who seconded the resolution, or the votes upon the resolution," the judge wrote. "If there is additional documentation as regards these items, such documentation was not made a part of the record at trial."

Rodenberg concluded, "The votes of the members of the New Ulm City Council on the 'Poor Farm' resolution of December 18, 2001 were required by law to have been recorded in a journal."

However, Rodenberg found "invalidating the action taken by a public body is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Open Meeting Law."

The order that resulted from passage of the resolution "was signed by the City Clerk, but not by the Mayor," the judge wrote. Consequently, in his Conclusions of Law, Rodenberg wrote, "the Court is not going to order enforcement of the City's Order as written," giving the city the opportunity to "remedy the deficiency ... when it next acts in the matter."

In remanding the case to the council, Rodenberg urged the city to proceed with providing Hartley the opportunity of "securing" the Poor Farm property.

The judge also reminded the council: "The Poor Farm building and the underlying real estate is owned by and is the property of Defendant. As such, it it Defendant's right to do with the Poor Farm as he pleases, so long as his use and occupancy of the property does not pose a hazard to the public safety or health

"The evidence in this case demonstrates that the only real threat posed by the Poor Farm is that trespassers can get inside the building and could be injured by the condition of the building. This problem may be susceptible of resolution by securing the Poor Farm with a fence that is sufficient to keep out intruders and by truly securing all of the points of potential entry into the building itself."

In reserving jurisdiction and remanding the matter to the council, Rodenberg advised, "If, after remand, the City determines that it wishes to proceed under Minn. Stat. 463.16, a further demonstration by the City of the necessity of razing the building will be required, as discussed herein."

So, what started in August 1997, as former City Manager Richard Salvati's request that Building Inspector Al Gag check the condition of the Poor Farm building appears finally headed toward a resolution. Gag found the building an "eyesore" and a hazard to the public. It was this inspection that was used as the rationale for the council's action last December.

And, it was the council's insistence that Hartley provide plans and proof of financial backing before granting the Heritage Preservation Landmark designation that he needed to obtain a variance to put a bed and breakfast establishment on property that is zoned for multi-family housing that brought the matter to a stalemate.

Reached in California, Hartley of Lafayette said, "I thought it (the ruling) was fair. I felt they made a decision that overlooked my property rights."

Still, he said he was not blaming anyone in City Hall.

"I can see their concerns; they just wanted to see some progress," Hartley said. "If I'd been more effective in getting the project under way, I'm sure there would not have been any problems."

Hartley added, "in the preliminary stages, I had the financing to go forward with the project, but then a key lender who represented other lenders backed out."

Hartley is still trying to get the financing for turning the Poor Farm into a B-and-B with 15-16 units, but he left the door open to "some other development" of the property if he isn't able to get financing for it. He also confirmed his pledge to the city to have the building and fence secure by the end of September.

"It's in my best interests, as well as the city's, to get it done."