What city correspondence says about mold cleanup at Unit 109

A city-produced email chain identifies Building A, Unit 109 among areas for which a contractor described mold cleanup and sealing. Here is what the record documents—and what it does not establish.

Read the source document (PDF) ↗Return to public records docket

The key documentary statement

On June 17, 2025, construction superintendent Ryan Craft emailed building official Scott Safe a description he attributed to the owner's abatement contractor. The description identifies Building A, Unit 109 among locations where "mold clean-up and sealing" were represented as completed.

The transmitted general process lists HEPA vacuuming, application of a mold disinfectant, wiping the surface, and an antimicrobial coating if needed. The email does not include a separate Unit 109 work log, before-and-after photographs, an independent clearance report, or test results proving exactly which steps occurred in that apartment.

Source: City of Red Wing building-department production, June 17 email, page 1 of the nine-page scan.

The sequence in the original correspondence

June 10 — Questions about indoor air quality

Building official Scott Safe tells the contractor superintendent that city council members have raised air-quality questions regarding apartments. He asks for air-migration and abatement reports. (Source scan, page 2.)

June 11 — Contractor response about sampling and records

Ryan Craft says he supplied air-sampling reports for April abatement work and requested May samples and any available mold remediation documentation for forwarding to the city. The email is not a unit-specific finding that air in A109 was safe. (Page 2.)

June 17 — Unit 109 explicitly included

Craft forwards the description attributed to the owner's abatement contractor. It includes Building A, Unit 109 and states a general mold-cleanup and sealing process. This is evidence of a representation about work, not an independent verification of that work. (Page 1.)

What can—and cannot—be concluded

What the record establishes

City staff asked about air quality and abatement documentation; a superintendent relayed a contractor's description of mold-related work, expressly naming Unit 109.

What remains unresolved

Whether the asserted work was done as described inside Unit 109; what was behind the tub before and after; whether testing was done in that unit; whether the conditions caused any exposure or injury.

Resident account and next evidence

Douglas T. Johnson reports observing dark material through a bathtub-access opening and a limited spray treatment. He also reports having previously been told there was no mold. Those statements are his account and have not been independently verified by this email chain.

To resolve the difference between the contractor's representation and the resident's account, the pertinent records would include dated photographs and text messages, unit-access logs, the abatement contractor's contemporaneous work sheets, invoices, product records, pre/post photographs and any testing or clearance results.

Editorial rule: An email about work is not a substitute for proof of the work, and the appearance of a substance is not a laboratory identification. Readers should review the primary document and draw their own conclusions.

Read the original: Nine-page City of Red Wing scan (PDF). The archive preserves the repetition contained in the supplied document. For a correction or to submit a relevant primary record, email contact@douglastjohnson.com.

Last updated November 1, 2026. This independently maintained website is not affiliated with the City of Red Wing, an agency, or a court. It does not make official findings or provide legal advice.