15 West Kellogg Blvd.

Saint Paul, MN 55102

City of Saint Paul

Minutes - Final

Legislative Hearings

Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer

Mai Vang, Hearing Coordinator

Joanna Zimny, Executive Assistant

legislativehearings@ci.stpaul.mn.us

651-266-8585

Tuesday, May 20, 2025

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 25-231

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 899

BURR STREET. (File No. VB2509, Assessment No. 258808)

Kim

Sponsors:

Approve and make payable over 5 years.

Yin Thong, owner, appeared via phone

Thong: was this today?

Moermond: we tried when it was originally scheduled on the sixth, and this was our

second call today.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: September 10, 2024 a Category 2

single-family home was referred by Fire for revocation. Fee waived to October 1, 2024

per Legislative Hearing officer. No Code Compliance on file. No permits. No Certificate

of Occupancy.

Moermond: what’s going on here?

Thong: when I had my last appeal this was sold on a contract for deed and he had to

work on his credit so he didn’t want to get it record it, then you can’t do as purchase

anymore. That was before I went to China for my cancer treatment and someone

scammed money so I had to leave in a hurry. I didn’t have time to think about

anything. You can come out and do a Certificate of Occupancy inspection for rental.

That’s for non-owner occupied properties?

Moermond: we’re talking about the Vacant Building fee today, the cost of the City

registering this as a Vacant Building. It’s a Category 2 which means there is affair bit

that needs to be done before re-occupancy. I recommended a fee waiver to December

1 in October so you had a chance to get it back online with no Vacant Building fee.

That wasn’t done, which is how we’re talking about it today. You had other things come

up is what you’re saying. I’m still left with a building that has been vacant and required

monitoring. Why shouldn’t that be assessed to your property?

Thong: I’d like another opportunity to have whatever needs to be done. Waive the fee

for the buyer to close out. The house has no problems.

Moermond: the City isn’t of the same opinion and you did have an opportunity to go

without a fee, but as of May 20 you have been in the program for more than 8 months.

The bill is 12 months, charged prospectively. You’re mostly through the year and you

don’t even have the Code Compliance inspection done. You haven’t been taking care

of business; you also have some financial issues with Ramsey County as you have

over $8,000 in delinquent taxes.

Thong: that’s why adding more fees doesn’t help me either.

Moermond: I’m sympathetic but the City is incurring the cost of managing the property

because you haven’t been. I can’t tell the rest of the taxpayers they’re responsible for

picking up your bill even if you have legitimate things going on in your life that make it

hard. I can recommend it is made payable over time, so it I has less of an impact.

Thong: what is that form?

Moermond: it’s a punch list of the four major trades to bring into minimal Code

Compliance.

Thong: the house has no problem.

Moermond: the City thinks it does. The list may be short, I suggest you move quickly

so you aren’t looking at another Vacant Building fee this year.

Thong: that’s why I’m trying to get someone to come out. There is nothing wrong. I just

had to leave in a hurry when you gave me a chance last time. I’d like another chance.

Moermond: no, you need to apply for that inspection. We’ll send you the form. You

won’t get an inspection without that. No exceptions to that. I’ll recommend this ratified

in whole made payable over 5 years.

Thong: please give me another chance. It isn’t a Vacant Building. Nothing is wrong with

it. I fixed the house before this happened.

Moermond: we had this conversation in October. The Council affirmed those results. I

can’t un-ring that bell. The Council made its decision. You can of course testify and

ask the Council for a different outcome. I won’t be recommending a different outcome

to them.

Thong: please, ma’am don’t give me the Vacant Building fee. I didn’t have an

opportunity to perform last time. You can come out and inspect. Whatever you have to

do. Please. Don’t give me the Vacant Building fee. Nothing is wrong with my house.

Moermond: no, I’m sorry you didn’t do what you were supposed to either before or after

my recommendation.

Thong: if you were in my shoes, what would you do. Ma’am I had breast cancer, ok?

Moermond: I did too.

Thong: I could have been dead.

Moermond: so could I.

Thong: my cancer was bleeding. I was in so much pain.

Moermond: the thing is, other people in the City are not responsible for paying this bill.

It is the Vacant Building program.

Thong: no, there’s nothing wrong with my property. It doesn’t cause any problems.

People next door and in front are doing drugs and all that. I have people watching my

house and I am taking care of it. Inside there is nothing wrong. You can send an

inspector out. I just had to deal with stuff. I’m just asking for another chance.

Moermond: I’m not going to recommend another chance on this one. Get to it right

away and the City won’t have to worry about charging another fee. That’s where you’ll

benefit.

Thong: the fee is good for one year. Ma’am please, please do whatever you need to do.

Waive the fee for me and then you can come and inspect or do whatever.

Moermond: I don’t think that’s fair to the other taxpayers. By the time---

Thong: this isn’t fair. I’m not doing anything bad ma’am.

Moermond: I’m going to cut you off—you can’t talk over me anymore. You’ll have been

in the program 9.5 months by the time this goes to Council. No way I would

recommend a waiver at that point. I suggest you move more quickly than that so you

don’t incur with another fee. Inspectors will not go out without that Code Compliance

Inspection Report in place. I’m going to discontinue this hearing now. We will send a

follow up email; you can reply back that with any questions.

Thong: do you even have a heart? I’m asking for an opportunity. Maybe there’s

something I’m not understanding. There’s nothing wrong with my house. I’m trying to

get this resolved. It isn’t vacant.

Moermond: I do have a heart, so says my doctors, but the real deal is not just having a

heart for you but also for everyone in the City who pays taxes in the City. We’ve gone in

circles a couple of times, so I’m going to discontinue this but please respond to that

with any questions you may have.

Thong: my house is not a Vacant Building program, ma’am.

Moermond: you are in the Vacant Building program; you lost your appeal on that.

Thong: I told you what happened! Please! You can come out—

Moermond: and that doesn’t change the November decision. We’ll also include James

Hoffman’s contact information in that email. With all due respect we do have other

cases that we need to get too.

Thong: who else can I talk to?

Moermond: we’ll include it in the email. Take care, bye.

Thong: evil, this is evil. Man.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/18/2025

RLH TA 25-236

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2285

HAMPDEN AVENUE. (File No. VB2509, Assessment No. 258808)

Privratsky

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: custom waiver, owners planned to raze

building, held fee to November 1, 2024. Building demoed October 16, 2024.

Moermond: they had a waiver through November 1, building was down October 16

within the waiver period so recommend deletion of the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/18/2025

RLH TA 25-221

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1453

PAYNE AVENUE. (File No. VB2509, Assessment No. 258808)

Kim

Sponsors:

Approve and make payable over 5 years.

Christy Lamoreaux, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: a Vacant Building cat 1 single-family home

opened October 31, 2024 for a gas shut off. Registration letters went to a Matthew

Nuhfer on Payne. Went to assessment January 3, 2025.

Moermond: in the program since end of October. What is going on? I know we talked

about hopefully decreasing this if it was back online again with a provisional Certificate

of Occupancy.

Lamoreaux: we ran into a major snag unfortunately. The house wasn’t properly

winterized by the company hired by the mortgage company. We have to replace the

radiator, pipes and both toilets. About $20,000 worth of work. We’re working on getting

loans to help with that. We have a start date of June 2, outside of the radiators and

boiler so all we have to do after we get the loan is get it replaced. There’s no way

around it. Replacing boiler with radiators. The rest of the house is fine and we have

people lined up to have the rest of the house ready. The goal is June 30 for July 1

occupancy. Funnily, the previous company isn’t answering calls when we tried to

contact them about their winterizing job. Regardless, we’re trying to gather the funds to

get it taken care of unfortunately. Delayed a month.

Moermond: mathematically your Council Public Hearing is June 18th. That means from

the time you went into the Vacant Building program; it is 7.5 months later. If you’re

thinking July 1, that’s 8 months into the billable year and I don’t typically recommend

the fee is waived or deleted at that point. What I can easily recommend is make it

payable over 5 years.

Lamoreaux: I appreciate it.

Moermond: as soon as you’re done call the Certificate of Occupancy program and get

that provisional form filled out. That means you can rent it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/18/2025

RLH TA 25-246

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 68

DOUGLAS STREET. (File No. J2519R, Assessment No. 258541)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Lori Kustritz, EMK Holding Co, appeared via phone

Kustritz: we just didn’t get it in the mail, we normally do.

[No appeals process given]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: Summary Abatement Order February 3,

2025 rechecked February 10, 2025 and the work order was done February 14 and

noted it was done by owner/Responsible Party.

Moermond: you were saying you didn’t receive notice?

Kustritz: that’s just it. Normally we see it and we had a tenant who’d been there 10

years. We knew there was stuff back there because she wasn’t very tidy and left us

with all kinds of stuff. We were moving all kinds of stuff.

Moermond: orders mailed Monday, February 3. The inspector came back on the 10th

and it looks like things were still there which was a Monday, and it was done by the

14th. It seems to me since your pickup day was Tuesday that was reasonable in your

situation. Also, you do have a history of taking care of things, and orders aren’t issued

often, which is good.

Moermond: I’ll recommend deletion. I do believe there was a problem with the mail on

this.

Kustritz: I appreciate that. We do try and take it very seriously.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

RLH TA 25-250

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1300

LAFOND AVENUE. (File No. J2519R, Assessment No. 258541)

Privratsky

Sponsors:

Approve and make payable over 3 years.

Peter Ngyuen, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: Summary Abatement Order sent January

9, 2025 to remove and dispose of the indoor furniture, table, toes, cabinets, lumber,

scrapwood and miscellaneous debris from the entire property including yard, under the

awning, and around garage and alley. Compliance date of January 22, rechecked

January 23. Found items not removed, photos taken. Work order completed February

12, 2025 for a total assessment of $799.

Nguyen: I traveled to Vietnam to return my mother in law’s body. When I came back I

saw everything was clean. Wondered what happened. The tires I put back in my car.

The wood I had stored it was gone. People steal my stuff. I didn’t receive the paper,

maybe I would have removed it. My renter before, every time you sent a letter to

remove something, then I did it. I swear I didn’t receive the paper and at the time I got

the cleanup from the City I wasn’t at my residence.

Moermond: when were you out of the Country?

Nguyen: around January 10.

Moermond: who is Thanh Nguyen?

Nguyen: my wife. My mother-in-law passed away.

Moermond: were you both gone? Who was taking care of the property when you were

gone?

Nguyen: no one. Even from Vietnam I can check my property.

Moermond: not a lot I can do for you here. The notice was sent. It wasn’t done. You

didn’t have someone taking care of the property in your absence. We didn’t get

returned mail. You didn’t have it forwarded to a Responsible Party. It is kind of the cost

of being out of the Country. The Council could look at it differently. I know this is a lot

of money. I can ask it to be made payable over time, would that be helpful?

Nguyen: yes. I am ok with your recommendation.

Moermond: I’ll recommend it is approved and made payable over 3 years.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

RLH TA 25-207

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 967

SAINT ANTHONY AVENUE. (File No. J2519R, Assessment No. 258541)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Craig Cooper, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: Summary Abatement Order issued

February 4, 2025 to remove and dispose of the stove/appliance from backyard and

from entire property. Compliance date of February 11, rechecked February 12 and

work was done by contractor February 19 for a total assessment of $444.

Cooper: I thought one of my guys picked it up, we didn’t know until later on. I didn’t

know they sent out a letter. That’s why it was close to the house, it was right at the

back of the house. I didn’t think they’d go in the yard.

Moermond: where was mail sent to Mr. Hoffman?

Hoffman: occupant and Lavern Anderson Sheppard.

Moermond: not seeing your name on here, Mr. Cooper, are you newly involved?

Cooper: been around for a while.

Moermond: the notification went to the owner of record with Ramsey County. Do we

work with Sheppard frequently?

Cooper: we did, not so much anymore. We did at the time. I new the stove was there

because we brought it closer to the house and were having it removed. I didn’t know

there was notice from the City, or I would have made sure it was gone. We had

someone who was supposed to be coming and we didn’t even know it was the City who

was the one who did it.

Martin: no response since April 25 to the Fire Inspector about scheduling the

inspection for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

RLH TA 25-199

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1390

SHERBURNE AVENUE. (File No. J2517R, Assessment No. 258530)

Jost

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $779 to $200.

Brandon Griffin, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Summary Abatement Order issued January 3,

2025 to remove and dispose of trash bags, contents, tires, totes, and scattered trash

from the property. Compliance date of January 10, rechecked January 13 and work

order done January 23 for a total assessment of $779. Photographs attached.

Griffin: where were you sending these letters originally?

Moermond: three locations, the occupant, Sanneh Foundation on University and 1390

Sherburne LLC on Conway.

Griffin: our foundation, Sanneh Foundation, owns these houses. Typically, it is staff

living in them. I sent my team to clean it up. It isn’t the tenants; it is a corner lot and

they’re dropping it off in the alley in the piles. We aren’t sure if its neighbors, the auto

center around the corner, and the tenant’s bags aren’t the same as the ones being

dropped off. It continues to happen and I can’t figure out who is doing. I don’t want to

keep being liable for illegally dumped trash in the corner lot.

Martin: throughout the City we do have dumping. The new trash service does have 12

bulky items for free. Unfortunately, if it is on your property it is your responsibility. You

can put up no dumping signs, under video surveillance signs, motion lights. That does

tend to help.

Griffin: we did install cameras. I don’t think it has happened since but motion lights are

a good suggestion. I will do that. My big thing here is just some understanding it isn’t

our nonprofit or the tenants. We’re about as much of a victim as perpetrator here.

Some levity with the bill. These people don’t have cars, yet someone is dumping tires

consistently and I can’t catch them.

Moermond: do you have signage up? The garage seems to block a majority of the

parcel and I’m wondering if a no dumping under video surveillance sign at the start of

the alley people know.

Griffin: yeah, I can do that.

Moermond: it looks like it was 20 days between when the orders were written and the

cleanup happened. I’m looking at photos, rear yard, driveway, behind garage and by

alley and the photo appears to be alley side and inside the yard with some sort of

contractor bag.

Griffin: that was definitely the tenants. They were cleaning out the basement. That is

from them for sure, it is the stuff around the back alley, the tires, the white bags. The

tenants don’t use white bags. I think someone is just adding to the pile. They wouldn’t

have hefty bags AND white trash bags. I’ve talked to the tenants and they swear up

and down they don’t know who is doing it.

Martin: in the future call the inspector to discuss if you get another one. Tell them

what’s going on.

Moermond: black plastic bags show the original location from January 3. I’m seeing

the backyard things cleaned up, and then I’m seeing I believe different items on the

driveway. The before photo by the contractor on January 23 I see at least 11 of the

kitchen garbage bags. I see different plastic tote at the base of the garbage, and if it

isn’t entirely different it is vastly different than the original set of orders. I also suspect

your garbage didn’t get their tenant out on time.

Griffin: possibly. We’ve talked about picking up the trash and they’ve done a good job

most recently. I haven’t done like a “trash audit” but even sending my team over they

say it looks like someone dumped stuff. Its not very visible. I don’t know what else to

do. I will put up signage and motion lights, but I’m at the beck and whim of the rest of

the City and how I’d get in front of that.

Moermond: I’m going to decrease this, but not eliminate entirely. That is because I

think the driveway items are different. Some of the items behind the garage is the

same. What persuades me more is the time that went by between January 3 and

January 13 on the recheck and it was fully another 10 days before the crew showed up.

That was a couple garbage pickups, and I see the top has different bags. I’ll get you

down to $200 on this.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/4/2025

RLH TA 25-240

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1141

UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2519R, Assessment No.

258541)

Privratsky

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $389 to $190 and if no same or similar violations through

October 14, 2025 delete entire assessment.

Chinedu Ezirike, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we do have your text chain you forwarded to staff this morning [Moermond

gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: Summary Abatement Order was issued

February 13, 2025 to remove improperly stored or accumulated refuse which may

include: garbage, rubbish, loose and scattered litter, discarded furniture, appliances,

vehicle parts, scrap wood and metal, recycling materials, household items, building

materials or rubble, tires, brush, etc., from entire property including yard, boulevard,

alley, and driveway. Compliance date of January 20, rechecked January 21. Work was

done when crew went out February 26, total assessment of $389.

Ezirike: as he stated, I was out of town when the notice came and when I got back

and checked my mail, I wondered what was going on because I didn’t put anything

back there. What ended up happening was one of the contractors had put stuff in the

back of the building unbeknownst to me. Once I got the letter I immediately called

them and had them address it. They sent me photos and I was like, great, it is taken

care of. Then the only thing I could do was only wait for this hearing.

Moermond: the orders went out, when the inspector went out to see if it was done, the

answer was no so a work order went out and at the same time your guy cleaned it up.

You had it cleaned up by February 24th. The crew arrived on the 26th and they said

yes it is gone, but we’re going to charge you for the trip out. I looked at your history

and you’ve had graffiti a couple of times, but no other violations. You take care of

business and I want to note that for you and I’m inclined to decrease this significantly

if you have no same or similar. That means you’re on top of things and City doesn’t

have any founded violations. I’ll recommend this is reduced in half now, down to $190

and if there are no same or similar we will delete it entirely.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

SR 25-88

Review Request of Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for

property at 1350 HAGUE AVENUE adopted by Council on May 15, 2024

under File RLH AR 24-25. (File No. VB2407, Assessment No. 248806)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to June 10, 2025 at 9 am (unable to reach PO).

Tried calling 11:22 am – rang out and call dropped

Moermond: we’ll revisit this in 2 weeks as it isn’t time sensitive. No ability to leave a

Voicemail.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/10/2025

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 25-248

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1470

DALE STREET NORTH. (File No. 2504T, Assessment No. 259004)

Kim

Sponsors:

Layover to LH June 3, 2025 at 10 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 10:46 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Elton Mykerezi about an appealed tax assessment for tree removal at 1470 Dale

Street North. We’ll try you back in a few minutes.

Voicemail left at 11:02 am: mailbox full and unable to leave a Voicemail.

Moermond: layover to June 3.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/3/2025

RLH TA 25-247

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 588

FOREST STREET. (File No. 2503T, Assessment No. 259002)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH June 3, 2025 at 10 am for further discussion. Staff to investigate legal

notice.

Clyde “Ford” Wagner, owner, appeared

Wagner: it is owned on a contract for deed and he’s the holder.

Moermond: that would be Joe Steinmaus, Metro Holdings??

Wagner: yes.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Forestry Supervisor Adam Strehlow: July 15, 2024 it was inspected and

marked for removal. Compliance date August 14, 2024. Rechecked September 30,

2024. Photos went on file and urgent notice left on door. Given to Hugo’s Tree Service

December 3 and completed by Hugo’s December 18th.

Moermond: urgent notice placed on door when?

Strehlow: September 30th at the recheck.

Moermond: the total cost is $3,409.66, including a service charge. Mr. Wagner, tell me

what’s going on?

Wagner: three main concerns. The first being it is a rental property, so with that I never

received that notice. Now I hear it was on the door. Dealing with tenants it hardly ever

gets to me, not an excuse. After learning that, is it not standard to send it to the

Ramsey County? The forwarding tax address?

Strehlow: the initial letter is mailed to the mailing address on file of the owner.

Wagner: where was that mailed and when?

Strehlow: Metro Holdings, LLC 7279 40th Street in Oakdale on July 17, 2024.

Moermond: you should have received an email with this May 14th from Mai Vang. You

should have these materials. I’m looking up what Ramsey County reflects for fee and

tax owner.

It looks like Metro Holdings. That’s who received notice, not CFW Realty, which is

you?

Wagner: correct, Metro Holdings isn’t the owner.

Moermond: technically they are, they own the fee simple title. You don’t own the title

until your Contract is paid off. Just like a bank.

Wagner: who is financially responsible for it? Me.

Moermond: well, if you don’t take care of it they are.

Wagner: through a much bigger problem than this, they would have to foreclose and

assume that financial obligation.

Moermond: one of the ways, yes. Following the path and saying you didn’t get notice. A

notice got mailed to Metro Holdings, they didn’t share that with you. You got the notice

on the door but it is a rental property?

Wagner: correct.

Martin: it doesn’t have a Fire Certificate of Occupancy.

Moermond: oh! How long has it been a rental?

Wagner: I don’t know when we signed the lease. It sat empty for a couple months.

Moermond: tell me what you would or wouldn’t have done differently if you had that

knowledge of the tree order. The City had every reason to believe it was

owner-occupied because it wasn’t in the Fire Certificate of Occupancy program. You

didn’t remove the tree, would you have otherwise?

Wagner: that was my third issue—how are you doing to argue the cost when there is

already a bill? I’m a general contractor and work on different projects all the time. That

price, to me, is insane compared to what I could have got it done for privately. I was

shocked when I got the bill. I could have got 10 trees cut down for $3,400. If I knew I

would have had an employee go cut down the tree; it would have been a minor issue for

us to take care of it. Not knowing, not receiving—I understand now it was placed on

the door—it never got passed to me or we wouldn’t be here today. I didn’t even know it

was cut down until this showed up. Then I drive by and look at the tree. It probably

would have been addressed this summer anyway because it was growing up into my

soffit and garage. Just to protect the house from further damage.

Moermond: do you go by the house at all?

Wagner: it is tucked down in the alley, behind the garage. I do drive by the front if I’m

in the area.

Moermond: how often is that?

Wagner: once every couple of weeks if I’m doing a project in the area. If I’m on the

west side it may be a month or two.

Moermond: this is Emerald Ash Borer, tell me about why you’re concerned about

removal on the schedule you are.

Strehlow: ash trees become very brittle when they die. From Emerald Ash Borer it

becomes a liability very quickly and time is of the essence. It was near powerlines in

the alley.

Wagner: the liability other than my own garage? Was it the phone pole?

Moermond: I think public safety is the right term. Liability is an insurance question

you’d deal with. These gentlemen are concerned with downed lines hurting someone,

burning property.

Strehlow: right, and drivers down the alley and free use of neighboring property.

Moermond: I hear you didn’t get the written notice originally. There was notice posted

on the door and that’s the question I have now. I would want to bring to the Forestry

attorney. I have a parallel situation I’m judging this against. The City is required to

provide notice via first class mail for just about everything .If it is a case where we’re

knocking a building down, the most serious thing, the Vacant Building team sends

first-class mail and does personal service. In a lot of cases those go nowhere. We

have a provision in the code that by placarding the building it is also considered notice.

I’m trying to think through if everything else fails is that notice sufficient, or do we need

the other layers. That’s where the rub is for me. It needs more thought.

Wagner: and the placard is after at least one letter?

Strehlow: I remember this one, I left an initial inspection door tag. I realize I probably

spoke to the tenant, and they said they wanted it to go to a contractor. That doesn’t

affect our timeline or process in any way.

Wagner: the tenants are Columbian and don’t speak English. I have to use a

translator.

Strehlow: this was a gentleman who was not Hispanic and spoke perfect English.

Again, it doesn’t affect our process in any way, but an initial notice was left with a real

human on the property on the date of the inspection.

Moermond: you spoke with someone who was presumed to be the owner because he

said go ahead and hire a contractor. It presumably wasn’t Mr. Wagner, since he isn’t

remembering any of this. Whoever had that conversation didn’t communicate that to

you. Is there an obligation for that person who had that conversation with forestry to

communicate that to you about what is going on? If there is, that obligation is a private

matter between you and whoever that was that may have financial implications the City

isn’t a part of.

Wagner: we don’t even know who that person is.

Moermond: we don’t now, know. Is it learnable? I don’t know.

Wagner: this isn’t your problem, maybe just a matter of fact, but you hand them

anything, they don’t know what that is. It could be a $3,000 assessment, a $1,000

check, they don’t know and just throw it to the side. It isn’t anyone’s problem, just a

matter of fact. Part of why this probably never got to me. I’m confused about who got

this notice.

Moermond: and people have English-speaking friends and bilingual friends, so I don’t

know the circumstances but I do believe the forester talked to someone.

Wagner: I’m not disputing that at all.

Moermond: if someone is not able to speak English, we are obligated to have an

interpreter on the line and we have a service that does that right away. That’s true of all

City employees. I don’t know what happened. We can’t assume someone’s

comprehension just because they have a dialect, etc. They have to tell us. Just so you

know our process in those circumstances. I will talk with the City Attorney’s office on

the notice issue. I have a parallel with Vacant Buildings and that placarding is

sufficient. Is it in your case? I’m not sure, but I think you deserve better information

than you have now.

Wagner: if it is sufficient, there’s still first-class mail sent even if placarding is

sufficient?

Moermond: yes. But any of those means count, it doesn’t have to be all of them. Any

count. Personal service OR first-class mail OR placard on the door. All count as legal

notice.

Wagner: I’m somewhat familiar with the Vacant Building process, what is your first

attempt in this case? Mail to the taxpayer on record? It gets kicked back, we tried to

call?

Hoffman: right, but we start with a placard.

Wagner: you START with the placard?

Hoffman: absolutely, we open a Vacant Building and it gets placarded on the front

door.

Wagner: before it gets torn down though you send mail?

Hoffman: absolutely. Typically to whoever registers the property or the owner on record

with Ramsey County. In this case, had the City known it was a rental we would have

had that information to contact you.

Wagner: on your end, yes it shows Metro Holdings and CFW Realty, but then my tax

address?

Moermond: Ramsey County shows fee owner, the person in title, as Metro Holdings,

Joe Steinmaus. Contract for Deed, you, in Hugo. CFW LLC.

Wagner: at my address. Whether it’s the rules or procedure, in my mind I should be

getting a letter.

Moermond: understood you’ve made that argument. There’s also been two placards on

the door. You seldom go by and appears to be communication issues with your

tenants which all complicate the matter. I don’t know who talked to the Forestry

person. Those conversations are also notice. But did they represent the property? Did

they talk with you? Who knows the circumstance. I will consult and I think that’s all I

can do today. Your Council Public Hearing is June 18th, so let’s talk June 3 and see if

we can’t get this sorted out then.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/3/2025

RLH TA 25-223

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1624

SEVENTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2518R, Assessment No. 258534)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Jireh Mabamba, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: a Summary Abatement Order was issued

January 9, 2025 to remove and properly dispose of scattered trash, cardboard and

miscellaneous debris from the property. Compliance date of January 16 rechecked

January 16 and found in noncompliance. Work was done January 29 for a total

assessment of $444.

Mabamba: I bought the property that was vacant for several months. There was a

bunch of trash around it, which I removed before I moved in. Then after a few months

someone left trash there. This was around March. I called them to tell them someone

dumped trash and someone needs to clean it up. This is a different incident. It was

removed without my knowledge. I have never received that letter that was emailed to

me. I went and spoke to my neighbors about a history of mail getting misplaced. They

said it is constant with things going to 7th street WEST not East. It makes no sense

the owner of the house would put the garbage somewhere here. Someone drove by and

dumped the trash. It has been an ongoing thing, not an isolated incident. People

constantly dump stuff and leave, leaving it for the residents to address. During the

winter that alley is full of snow. It is me and a few neighbors that use our personal

money to get it plowed. I’m investing in the City and taking care of my property. When I

get bills like this, I don’t think its fair because I’m one of the people that is actively

doing something about this neighborhood and I’m the person they’re attacking. I don’t

think this is justifiable. There are other things in the neighborhood we should be

addressing. If I had seen the letter I would have addressed it.

Moermond: code indicates proper notice is via first class mail. 3 letters went out, 1 to

occupant, one to Mr. Mabamba, and one to previous owner which we’d ignore. You said

there was no returned mail?

Martin: correct. Looking at the items out there, cardboard was out there for over 20

days and could have easily been cut up and put into the recycling.

Mabamba: correct, because the house was vacant a very long time when I purchased

it.

Moermond: you purchased in 2024 and this is happening January 2025.

Mabamba: it was vacant after purchasing for some time as well.

Moermond: is this where you live now?

Mabamba: no, this is where my sister lives, she moved from Texas. No one moved in

right away because they had 5 kids they had to move. She started moving slowly in

June. Went back to Texas. They’ve been moving periodically. It was definitely a

possibility no one was there for 20 days. I live in the neighborhood and come

occasionally and cut the grass, but January I pay someone to plow that alley. There is

a possibility no one was there.

Martin: there are vehicles in the driveway in the photos. And there is no Certificate of

Occupancy on file.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/4/2025

RLH TA 25-237

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1245

ALBEMARLE STREET. (File No. J2520R, Assessment No. 258548)

Kim

Sponsors:

Layover to LH June 17, 2025 at 10 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 12:40 PM: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Nancy Hole about your appealed tax assessment again for 1245 Albemarle. I’m calling

as late as I can. I’m going to have Joanna Zimny send an email so you can share your

reasons for appealing in writing and we can work off that and hopefully we can connect

with you that way. Otherwise, work with Ms. Zimny to come up with another solution.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/17/2025

RLH TA 25-235

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1244

MATILDA STREET. (File No. J2520R, Assessment No. 258248)

Kim

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Chris Krowez, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: a Summary Abatement Order went out February

5, 2025 to remove and properly dispose of the scrap wood and metal including

Christmas tree in the alley. Compliance date February 12, rechecked February 21.

Work was done February 26 for a total assessment of $544. No photos from inspector,

including on Summary Abatement Order. All items mentioned in Summary Abatement

Order were gone except for scrap wood.

Krowez: I’m a first-time homebuyer still learning the process. I understand a

homeowner’s responsibility, but when I got the order—first, I didn’t get it until the week

after. I immediately followed the instructions and called the inspector on the form,

twice. Twice on the 10th and again on the 12th. Left messages and got no reply. No

call back. I was looking for an extension and an explanation so I can make sure I fully

complied. I’m panicking and seeing a big money cost to this and just trying to do it

right. But I don’t know what needs to be cleared. I saw Christmas tree, I was like what

Christmas tree? Went out and looked in back, someone had dropped a tree behind my

house. I dealt with it now that I knew I had to. But didn’t have clarification on what was

classified as scrap wood or metal. I was trying to get that information to comply and

get an extension to do it. That’s why I’m looking for some relief. I wasn’t trying to get

out of it, I was trying to get more information and follow the steps given to me. I wasn’t

given the tools to succeed.

Martin: Ms. Moermond, we did have issues with the inspector and phone systems. He

was newer and didn’t have things set up correctly for a while. That’s why those

messages may have not been returned. There’s no history at this property.

Moermond: Given problems with the phone system and I trust you reached out for

clarification and I’ll recommend deletion of this assessment. I’m sorry you went through

the hassle.

Krowez: I appreciate the learning opportunity. I’m still learning. I now I have a better

understanding of what I need to do. Thank you for that, I really appreciate it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

RLH TA 25-239

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1922

WILSON AVENUE. (File No. J2520R, Assessment No. 258548)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Tried calling 12:43 pm – connected then immediately disconnected

Tried calling 12:44 pm- connected and said sending to Voicemail, then disconnected

immediately.

Moermond: in reviewing the documentation the Legislative Hearing officer determined

the garbage in question was in a secured area and therefore handled appropriately and

recommend deletion of the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

Special Tax Assessments-ROLLS

RLH AR 25-49

RLH AR 25-50

RLH AR 25-51

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during February 12 to 26, 2025. (File No. J2519R, Assessment No.

258541)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Snow and Ice Removal from the Public

Sidewalk during February 21, 2025. (File No. J2502S, Assessment No.

258547)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during February 26 to March 3, 2025. (File No. J2520R, Assessment No.

258548)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 7/9/2025

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Code Enforcement

RLH VO 25-10

Appeal of John Schultz a Notice of Condemnation as Unfit for Human

Habitation & Order to Vacate for the premises, Notice of Condemnation

as Unfit for Human Habitation & Order to Vacate for the RV, and a

Vehicle Abatement Order at 1623 YORK AVENUE.

Yang

Sponsors:

Grant to June 4, 2025 for reducing occupancy and June 6, 2025 for balance of the

orders.

John Schultz, owner, appeared

Staff update by Supervisor Lisa Martin: all the cars are gone, the RV is gone, the yard

is cleaned up. The occupants from what I understand the person in the basement

moved upstairs and it sounds like Sam isn’t completely gone, and Linda, plus the gf

and her 2 kids and their girlfriends. Still over occupied.

Shay, Sam, Linda, Linda the girlfriend, her two adult children and their girlfriends.

Schultz: there are no girlfriends anymore. I’m filling out paperwork for Sam Barker to

remove his belongings. I’m going to drop it downstairs. He won’t answer the phone. The

guy who works with you said we have to give 30-day notice. This paperwork says 14

days.

Martin: I’d go with what the paperwork says. You may want to speak to an attorney. I

do believe the belongings have to be held onto a certain amount of time before you

can get rid of them.

Schutlz: I’m going to do that downstairs when I leave here and get that straightened

out.

Martin: where is Shay staying?

Shultz: Shay will go where Sam was. But your guy says we can’t touch his stuff for 30

days. I wanted to know how long I have to fix the gazebo and change the locks on the

doors? I showed your guy we had the patio door screwed shut.

Martin: ok, yes, he did note that.

Moermond: I just printed the Attorney Generals handbook on land lord tenant law. I

want to make sure you have good information and is clear is it is different if you live

there than if you are a landlord who lives elsewhere. If this is your own home there may

be differences, I want you to be aware of that. It should be covered in this book. How

many unrelated adults are we over?

Martin: at least 2. If Sam’s stuff is there and we don’t know where he is, that would be

Moermond: Linda and her two kids are related, but not their girlfriends. So no one else

could move in and they are at-limit. You can keep getting rid of people, sounds like

that’s in your best interest.

Shultz: yes.

Martin: Mr. Kedrowski did a recheck for people and vehicles yesterday and we can set

up a time to remove the locks and work on some of the other items. Then recheck in a

couple of weeks?

Moermond: let’s put a deadline on that. This goes to Council next Wednesday, and

your deadline for reducing occupancy is June 4th and in terms of the remaining orders

let’s say June 6th.

Martin: he’s taken care of the items that were our biggest concern, which was all the

folks and the vehicles. As far as smoke detectors, we’ve taken care of that. He locked

the patio door, so moving in the right direction. Just small things and he’s talking

about selling so if he wants to sell with some things the new owner would take care of,

but we do need the locks off the doors. The ceiling height in the basement was

checked and it was fine, so that’s crossed off. He didn’t check the extension cord or

the leaking freezer.

Shultz: there was no cord when he was there.

Moermond: ceiling abated, measurement proved that order incorrect.

Martin: yes. Most of the items have been resolved and the rest is kind of exterior

items.

Referred to the City Council due back on 5/28/2025

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH SAO 25-40

Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 681

VIRGINIA STREET in Council File RLH SAO 25-37.

Bowie

Sponsors:

The nuisance is not abated.

Moermond: the deadline came today and the work wasn’t done by the 16th, it is the

20th. The Bagster?

Martin: it is still there; it is not in compliance.

Moermond: I’m going to recommend the Council find the nuisance is not abated and

authorize the department to take action. Let’s send an email to the appellant indicating

that is the outcome with the photo from Kedrowski. Staff will go by next Tuesday

before Wednesdays Council Public Hearing.

Referred to the City Council due back on 5/28/2025

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR 25-21

Appeal of Gladys Igbo to a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning

Letter at 385 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH May 27, 2025 at 1 pm (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 1:36 pm: we’re trying to reach you about 385 University Ave. We’ll try

you back in a few minutes here to hopefully discuss it.

Voicemail left at 1:45 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you again about your appeal for 385 University Avenue. This is our second call today.

We won’t be calling again. We were really hoping for an update from you about a

conversation with Clint Zane, the building inspector. You hired contractors and were

looking to get permits squared away. We’ll continue this another week and that will be

your last chance before it goes to City Council.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/27/2025

2:00 p.m. Hearings

Fire Certificates of Occupancy

RLH FCO 25-28

Appeal of Rosa Gomez to a Correction Notice-Reinspection Complaint

at 1123 PAYNE AVENUE, UNIT 2.

Yang

Sponsors:

Layover to LH May 27, 2025 at 2 pm for update after Plumbing Inspector follow up.

Rosa Gomez, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: following up on your plumbing permit. I spoke with the Senior building

official, who spoke with the senior plumbing official who will be calling the contractor

who never got the permit inspected. That hasn’t happened yet, but Paul Zellmer is on

the job and doesn’t think there is an issue. We’ll call you again next week.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/27/2025

RLH FCO 25-27

Appeal of Mary Durkop to a Correction Notice - Re-Inspection Complaint

at 1725 THOMAS AVENUE.

Privratsky

Sponsors:

Grant to June 3, 2025 for items 5, 6, 9 (via water shut off to unit), and 10, and to

September 1, 2025 for balance of April 8, 2025 orders.

Ken Hertz, attorney, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Der Vue: Our office received a complaint specifically unit 5

for leaks under the sink. Sarah Bono and I conducted the inspection which included

damaged flooring, damaged windows, expired extinguishers, heavy content in

mechanical room. January 24, 2025 Bono received a call from Durkop that the tenant

moved to a different orders and new orders were issued January 25. Scheduled

inspection on March 4 confirmed it was unoccupied but none of the repairs were

completed. No documentation has been received for pest control.

Hertz: one of the key issues was the tenant was moved to a different unit. The basis

for the appeal is the unit is vacant currently. The building is under contract to be sold

and closing will be within the next 2 weeks. The intention of the buyer is to do a full

renovation of the property. It is written the purchase agreement that work wont’ be done

to units nor vacant units occupied. It would be duplicative, a waste of resources, to

start the work now when it is intended to be done by the buyer on a vacant unit. I will

add the fire extinguishers were taken care of.

The maintenance tech indicates no indication of mice in the unit. The salient point is it

is under contract and the remedy would be it be pushed out to a period to allow the

new buyer to take control and do the repairs as necessary and probably in a more

professional level than my client.

Moermond: I’m not having heart burn about the floors or windows, but the pest control

and fire extinguishers I want confirmed are done. The leaking under the sink is likely

problematic for the building, not just this unit. Maybe just shutting off the water to just

the unit?

Vue: I would agree, yes.

Moermond: that seems like a simple fix to address that. The heavy content around

furnace and water heater is impactful.

Hertz: that’s fine. I actually suggested that before this hearing so he may have gotten

to that. it is a potential safety hazard, I’m fine with that.

Moermond: pest control, Ms. Vue, you look for what?

Vue: we would like evidence of an attempt to control. The original inspector did see

evidence of that. Now it has been unoccupied for a few months a reinspection of the

unit would suffice.

Moermond: the balance of the orders we could push to September 1.

Hertz: number 10, number 6, we’ll do the water shut off to the unit, and the pest control

will just be an inspection to see if there’s any more activity?

Vue: yes.

Hertz: I think this is appropriate and I appreciate it.

Moermond: let’s go two weeks on those items and September 1 on the balance.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/4/2025

RLH FCO 25-33

Appeal of Rebecca J Monsoor-Cassidy Tr to a Fire Certificate of

Occupancy Correction Notice - Complaint Inspection at 944

CROMWELL AVENUE.

Privratsky

Sponsors:

Layover to LH June 10, 2025 at 2 pm for further discussion.

Rebecca Monsoor Cassidy, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Der Vue: we received a complaint this was likely operating

as a triplex. Inspector Torrance Harriel inspected April 11 and confirmed it is a triplex.

It is approved for a 2 unit in the City. Correction orders were issued to apply for a

change of use. Under MN State fire code chapter 102, a change of occupancy shall

not be made unless the use or occupancy is made to comply with the requirements of

this code and the international existing building code. Typically, this means the

property owner should contact our Building division to obtain appropriate permits and

documentation for approval for the change of use. I understand there was an

application submitted to the building division.

Monsoor Cassidy: that proceeded the correction order AND the complaint. I talked with

your people and the complaint department and the suggestion was I withdraw, I was ill

advised by Housing Hub, who I’d hired to help with leasing. They advised I apply for a

triplex license, so I did that but because I’d been told all these years I’m a

nonconforming duplex, it was actually incorrect. I talked with AJ Neis and he said that

it was an error, so I worked with Nathan Bruhn and he suggested I withdraw my triplex

license request. It is nonconforming duplex, not a triplex, then I am designated that

because I have a MIL apartment in the basement which accesses my unit. That is

what I used for all these years and why I was designated nonconforming. I was

devastated because I’ve never had a problem in 50 years with getting a correction

notice. I tried to go through the proper channels and planning said I need to explain I’m

a nonconforming duplex with a MIL apartment with access through my home. I’d like to

withdraw my application for a triplex and my need for anything further.

Moermond: this is two stories with a finished basement. Is there a locking door

between your unit and the mother-in-law apartment?

Monsoor Cassidy: no, it is wide open.

Moermond: so, it is wide open but separated for some privacy.

Monsoor Cassidy: right, because it’s the lower level. I don’t really use it anymore

because of my health.

Moermond: you can get in, and there’s nothing preventing them from coming up?

Monsoor Cassidy: no locks at all. I had a contractor steal $45,000 of insurance money

2 years ago. The State is now pursuing them and we have a hearing tomorrow for him

and I’m thinking he may have had someone make a call just to try and get me in

trouble.

Moermond: tell me what the second story is like?

Monsoor Cassidy: 2 bedrooms. It is 1898, two bedrooms. Not a palace.

Moermond: a 2-bedroom unit you rent out?

Monsoor Cassidy: yes.

Moermond: it wouldn’t be a triplex if it is completely accessible between first level and

basement.

Vue: right, then it wouldn’t be considered a triplex.

Monsoor Cassidy: the assessors office has me as a triplex. I called them and said the

City has me as a duplex. They said we don’t care; we do what we do and they do what

they do. So, I’m sort of trying to please both parties. I pay triplex taxes but I am really

only a nonconforming duplex and have been that way for 50 years. I gave up on trying

to get them to acknowledge that. It wasn’t an issue until recently.

Moermond: the County’s information says this is a homestead and describe the

property as “residential one to three units” and later a land-use code that says

three-family dwelling platted lot. I’m thinking that’s not the same thing and you talk to

the Ramsey County Recorder’s office, not the tax office. When you buy or sell a

property the title is registered in your name at the County and these details should be

recorded at that time in the Recorder’s office. That’s completely separate from

taxation. I think they may be more involved in this day to day. [information printed and

given in hearing] I would say these two things—you want this to show as a duplex with

the County. I think there’s mixed messaging going on in their information.

Monsoor Cassidy: I think I am too, I’m very confused.

Moermond: the Recorder’s office may be a good place to straighten that out. For our

purposes today, getting you out of the Fire Certificate of Occupancy program. I’m

happy get you out of the program, but I’m looking for Ms. Vue to take a photo of the

door separating basement and main level for our records to show why this is the

decision being made.

Vue: I think that would be more than sufficient, yes. Show how the main level is

accessible to the basement.

Monsoor Cassidy: can you wait until after my big hearing the 25th?

Moermond: not a problem, there is no hurry.

Monsoor Cassidy: I’ve talked frequently with Nathan Bruhn, I could ask him to come

out? Would that be okay?

Moermond: I think it would be easier if Ms. Vue and her team went and I say that

because he’s the building official and will have a busier calendar. Whatever photos you

take, by having them Mr. Bruhn and future fire inspectors can see them. He’d be

looking at the same thing. Let’s talk again in a couple of weeks. Can we talk the week

of June 2?

Monsoor Cassidy: I have some health appointments I’m working through, if I could go

home and check my calendar and let me know who to talk to if it doesn’t work?

Moermond: work with Ms. Vue and her team and you find a date. I will figure out and

close the file June 10th once we have those photos and grant your appeal.

You have a change i

n use application that went in April 23, but you can totally withdraw that. Call or email

Nathan Bruhn.

[Der Vue gives direct number to contact for scheduling]

Monsoor Cassidy: once I get that approval, then that goes into the record so no one

can say—I don’t need to be present June 10th?

Moermond: no, we can call if we need too. It may not even be needed. I just pulled the

original building permits for your home. It says dwelling, so likely a single-family home

and converted to duplex. That’s why it is legal nonconforming, since the area is zoned

for single-family homes. It was there before the zoning, but it doesn’t conform with its

neighbors.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/10/2025