White Bear Lake council authorizes abatement process for hazardous property at 1966 3rd Street

The White Bear Lake City Council voted to adopt a resolution initiating a hazardous-building abatement for the single-family property at 1966 3rd Street after staff reported the home was uninhabitable and posed ongoing neighborhood and first-responder risks.

Building official Ben Aiken told the council that code enforcement began receiving complaints in September 2025, and that a December 2025 inspection documented extensive interior damage: broken guardrails, removed appliances, a dismantled furnace with no venting, an opened electrical panel with exposed wiring and an exposed service conduit cap that left the service entrance vulnerable to the weather. Xcel Energy was contacted and the power was cut after the electrical condition was deemed unsafe. Aiken said the owner was mailed an initial order in January 2026 giving until May 31, 2026, to make repairs, but little work beyond a permitted roof replacement had been completed.

"From the outside it doesn't look as bad, but it's deemed uninhabitable," Aiken said, describing damaged drywall, compromised wiring and a basement furnace inoperable without venting.

Council members noted roughly 39 police calls to the address and neighbors' repeated complaints. Council member West described the occupant as "in distress, hallucinating" during many calls and said alleged drug use and unpredictable behavior had driven much of the police activity, increasing neighbors' anxiety.

City staff and legal counsel explained the process under chapter 4 63. The city would serve an order on the owner and any lienholders; the owner then has statutory time to answer the lawsuit or undertake repairs. If the owner does not respond or make reasonable progress, staff said the city would file in district court and could seek a default judgment authorizing demolition and allowing the city to hire a contractor and assess costs against the property.

"There is a period of due process," the city's counsel said, noting a 21-day answer window for a served lawsuit and that the administration typically provides up to 60 days for compliance before seeking court relief. The council discussed whether the city should try less-extreme measures such as re-securing the property, but staff said previous securing attempts had failed when the building was repeatedly breached.

Council member Walsh moved to adopt the resolution; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The resolution was adopted and staff were authorized to proceed with the abatement process.

Next steps: staff will finalize and serve the order on the property owner and any known lienholders, monitor any response or compliance efforts during the provided period, and prepare court filings if the owner does not meet the required repairs or other options specified in the order.

The council then moved on to other business and adjourned later in the meeting.