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  
651-266-8585  
Tuesday, July 29, 2025  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote  
10:00 a.m. Hearings  
Special Tax Assessments  
1
Review the Ratifying of the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for  
property at 747 PAYNE AVENUE. (File No. J2510B, Assessment No.  
258109)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Rescheduled to August 5, 2025 at 10 am.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/5/2025  
Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements  
2
First Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for  
887 CHARLES AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 24-17.  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Rescheduled to August 12, 2025 at 9 am.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/12/2025  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders  
3
Appeal of Jennifer Adrian to a Notice to Cut Tall Grass and/or Weeds at  
2198 TILSEN AVENUE.  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Rescheduled to August 5, 2025 at 11 am.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/5/2025  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
4
Appeal of Gomaa Elzamel to a Vacant Building Registration  
Requirement at 838 THIRD STREET EAST.  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Rescheduled to August 5, 2025 at 1 pm.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/5/2025  
1:30 p.m. Hearings  
Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy  
5
RLH VO 25-17  
Appeal of Kristen Sachwitz to a Fire Certificate of Occupancy Revocation  
and Order to Vacate at 529 ORLEANS STREET.  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Recommendation forthcoming.  
Kristin Sachwitz, neighbor and appellant, appeared via phone  
Lori Kustritz, owner, appeared via phone  
Melissa Rudolph, neighbor, appeared via phone  
Jami Shoemaker, neighbor, appeared via phone  
Paul Farrell, neighbor, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Fire Manager AJ Neis: this is a revocation of the Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy and order to REMAIN vacant until inspected and approved by Fire  
Certificate of Occupancy. Fire safety made previous attempts to inspect interior of  
home for routine inspections, and subsequently denied access by the tenant. Our  
normal recourse is sending appointment letters and so forth. Received notification from  
the owner that the tenant was vacating and they had significantly destroyed the  
property. In situations like this we do revoke the certificate, there was a lot of heavy  
content in the home. That’s standard practice to revoke and give 90 days to restore the  
property.  
Moermond: that inspection letter was June 30th, and another July 14th, and that’s the  
actual revocation. No order to vacate as unsafe for human sanitation.  
Neis: yes, the inspector couldn’t’ gain access for inspection. Still a lot of content and  
the owner is saying it isn’t habitable so we don’t need to make entry in that situation  
and take their word.  
Moermond: in a Certificate of Occupancy is revoked, no one can live there until the  
certificate is reinstated?  
Neis: correct. This is revoked unoccupied status. Anyone moving in without our  
approval would be subject to additional enforcement action.  
Sachwitz: I live in the neighborhood and appealed this because we think it is  
incorrectly designated and should be a Category 2 Vacant Building as designated in  
chapter 43. As Inspector Neis went through, there have been multiple accounts by  
inspectors to get into the property and denied. Leaking up to the July orders, we  
observed July 10th the inspector came and didn’t even enter house to fully digest the  
exact interior issues. The exterior noncompliance pieces were mentioned in the order,  
but we think that with the revocation order it gives the property owner the time to get all  
of that stuff done on exterior but nothing addressed on the interior. This has been  
owned by them for 20 years, and they also have multiple properties in St. Paul,  
including on Summit. I understand minimal code compliance is a D-, which isn’t hard to  
meet. Yet the only reason they’ve done anything to the property is because of  
correction notices and complaints put in. We don’t have a lot of faith the landlord will  
invest in the interior as they should. IF it is a Category 2 Vacant Building it will require  
trade inspectors to go in and do a full inspection of the property. Why would the City  
not define this as a Category 2 Vacant Building?  
Moermond: I want to roll back a couple things. Re-occupancy would mean the entire  
house has been inspected by Fire Inspection. Mr. Neis, how does that play out in  
practice?  
Neis: the inspector has the discretion on how they categorize the building. The home  
cannot be reoccupied until fully inspected by one of our certified inspectors. When we  
have a situation where the owner is actively seeking resolution, a tenant who damaged  
interior, it is standard practice to give the owner a reasonable time to get it back into a  
habitable state without going through the full Code Compliance Inspection. If you  
applied Category 2 threshold to every vacant building in St. Paul, nearly every building  
may meet that classification.  
Kustriz: I just found out about this hearing yesterday. How is it the appeal works? How  
did this person---I’m just curious. They seem to know a lot about me, but I know  
nothing about them. These are pre-Covid tenants. I won’t even pretend they were great  
tenants. Government agencies wanted to keep them there. It is a difficult situation to  
be in. Do I like how they lived? Not necessarily, but they’ve been there a minute and  
its hard. The process to get a tenant out isn’t easy in Ramsey County. I’ve tried to do  
what I can within my legal right as the owner. She definitely had some SMRLS  
assistance. Once this chain of events happened we put the heat on and complied with  
getting the out. As far as getting it back habitable, I know how the inspection process  
works. I know 100 percent we can’t reoccupy and get a new tenant until it is certified.  
Not one inch of that place isn’t getting touched. We’re redoing floors, painting the  
exterior, replanting grass. Again, I don’t know anything about that person and it feels  
personal they went and did their homework on that. You have my assurance it is being  
handled and we are going to be done within 45 days. Longest 60 days. We told the  
inspector that was the case and were prepared for that. I have talked to a lot of the  
neighbors, including the one behind that house, who may have friends interested in  
renting. That’s how you build a good neighborhood. Everyone wants affordable housing  
but with that comes some character sometimes. I did my best. I worked with the  
tenants. I worked with the government agencies helping them. In the end we did get  
them out. It was difficult. We’re going to be 100 percent complaint.  
Moermond: it is public information, I don’t know how it was learned, but for this  
process it is beside the point. The restoration of relationship will help this in the  
fullness of time. Mr. Farrow?  
Farrow: I’ve lived here 40+ years. The neat, well-kept neighborhood except for this  
house which has been an eyesore for over 20 years. Even before the current owner.  
We are looking for an opportunity to bring the neighborhood up to a standard we all  
appreciate. That’s why I’m here to register my feelings.  
The neighborhood feels so much safer with the current tenants out, but now we are  
trying to get the house to meet the neighborhood standards.  
Shoemaker: I lived here for 19 years and have watched the house deteriorate and get  
worse and worse, and the only time the owner fixes anything is when someone files a  
complaint. Had they been there recently working, but honestly I can’t imagine how  
they’re going to make it habitable in 90 days. You’d have to see it. Ms. Moermond, you  
said there were photos?  
Moermond: yes.  
Shoemaker: can we see those?  
Moermond: yes they’re public record. [explains Legislative Hearing calendar and finding  
items]  
Shoemaker: ok, great. There is a history regarding the tenants who the owner  
consistently rents to over the years. It is a very real issue and we are very concerns  
what that will look like going forward. The last tenant lived there 6 years and they were  
violent, threatened us, vandalized our property. It was a nightmare living here. This  
can’t happen again. This is a nice neighborhood. Most people have lived here decades  
and own our homes. How has this been allowed to go on year after year and nothing  
has changed despite numerous complaints and inspections? We’re just done, frankly,  
putting up with this place. This cannot continue. I hope there is real change in the  
future as Lori is promising us.  
Rudolph: I have been inside the property, entryway and first 2 rooms. The upstairs tub  
leaked into the kitchen. I’m sure the owner new. The house is also infested with fleas.  
When I went in there were flying fleas and bugs. The whole house smells like urine and  
feces. The cats had no food or litter boxes. The drug use is also a huge issue. No  
renter would want to have a chance of exposure to any of the drugs left behind. I know  
the owner refused entry to the inspector for a reason. We’re worried it won’t be the  
proper fixes to the issues. Are we pulling permits to fix the structural issues? Pest  
control for the fleas? Someone needs to hold them accountable to do the proper fixes.  
I’ve called CPS 13 times, 911 20 times in the last year. That’s not even the 5 years.  
One property complaint. The previous tenant was a foster mom and she was wonderful  
but she left after a month because of the conditions. Is there going to be a rule that if  
police are called they get kicked out? I know that’s a property rule for another property  
a mile away. I want to make sure moving forward we don’t have five years of Lori having  
a horrible tenant and us having a horrible neighbor making us fearful for our families. I  
was outside once and got hit in the head by a 2x4. It shouldn’t have lasted 5 years. I  
don’t want my kids seeing physical fights and having to run to backyard and call police  
from our own yard. There is grass growing now, but we’re worried about much more  
than that.  
Neis: I hear you loud and clear. I sincerely empathize with everything you’ve gone  
through. One of the things that is my understanding from hearing you and the owner, is  
it sounds like the tenant moved in right before or during Covid. There was a very long  
no eviction moratorium during that time. There was no ability to take enforcement  
action during that time, even for us. Courts weren’t hearing evictions; nothing could be  
filed. If calls are made to our office we go out and respond, and they’ve been  
addressed. As far as inspector not going inside, and the owner relayed about fleas,  
but I would have advised the inspector not go in knowing that. They have to go to  
others’ homes after that. Please understand they weren’t not NOT doing they’re job.  
They also have an obligation to protect themselves and any other properties they will  
visit that day.  
Moermond: I’m hearing we have a moment in time where the Certificate was revoked.  
The neighbors are looking for that to be the catalyst for large change. That could  
happen a number of ways. You want it to be safer for the tenants, the neighbors. That  
safety is nuisance property crimes and violent crimes. Those are important things. I do  
appreciate this is a lovely neighborhood. I like to think we apply the same standards  
across the City, from Highland to the north end. I take that very seriously. All of you  
folks seem to have an emotional and financial connection to your neighborhood, which  
is an indicator to me that your neighborhood will stay vibrant and you are investing in  
keeping relationships with each other to work this. What we can do as a City may not  
be exactly what you’re looking for but we do have a shared goal in getting this up to par  
and a safe place. I heard Ms. Kustriz talk about a 60 day plan to get things done. Can  
you describe what you’re working on in the interior?  
Kustritz: refinishing the floor, painting top to bottom, repairing drywall. I did not see a  
lot of mold nor fleas. I saw a lot of flies. Once you remove the items and demolish the  
things that need to go, it takes away a lot of that. With all respect to the neighbors, we  
aren’t denying they are bad tenants. We couldn’t’ get anyone out. We certainly would  
have gotten them out. They had access to a lot of agencies that were advocating for  
them. They were horrible tenants in the entirety. I want you to have a safe  
neighborhood and people you like next door. Let’s talk as neighbors. I’m not someone  
who runs away. I want everyone on the same page. I don’t want you to think I’m a bad  
person. We can do some amazing things with that house. We have a track record of  
that, which you don’t know due to that house. Sometimes you just don’t know your  
tenant. I do want someone good in there. If I have to have something about police  
calls in the lease I’m totally willing to do that. I’m willing to put my money where my  
mouth is to help you guys feel better about the tenant or ability to get someone out  
that is causing trouble. I just want them to live their lives and be good neighbors. I’m  
willing to implement that in a lease. We had unbelievable circumstances with Covid  
where we had to pay taxes despite 18 months of no rent. It was tough across the  
board. We’re just recovering from that. I want to work with you.  
Farrow: the purpose of this meeting is to change this to a Category 2?  
Moermond: that’s what the appeal asked for, yes.  
Farrow: would that entail a better inspection and therefore more satisfaction to the  
neighborhood? She didn’t address the leaking bath; you need to do more than paint  
the walls.  
Sachwitz: in terms of the actual property, actual house. Many of the noncompliant  
issues have been dragging on. Regardless of the tenant. There are issues with the  
property itself, and those haven’t been addressed by owner.  
Kustritz: what are those?  
Sachwitz: prior to the work happening now, there were broken windows, missing  
screens, holes in siding, lack of ground cover, holes in roof. Roofing was replaced but  
the catalyst was a complaint, not because of adequate management of the property.  
We have a lack of trust in them doing all the things to make that home safe and  
habitable based on the track record. The foster mother was mentioned, there were  
issues back then with her. The leaking tub, how does the revocation address those  
things? They aren’t listed in the orders, and how do we know once it was inspected we  
don’t get trades or electrical inspectors through. That’s where this is coming from.  
Shoemaker: I would back up what Kris was saying. I know inspector Neis and Ms.  
Kustritz brought up Covid, which seems like an excuse. This goes back way before  
Covid. There have been issues the whole 19 years I’ve been here. It hasn’t been  
maintained this whole time. Unfortunately, we have a lack of trust. We find it hard to  
believe having witnessed this all those years that this will actually change. Getting a  
full Code Compliance would possibly give us some peace of mind depending on  
results.  
Neis: I want to be clear I am making no excuses. Simply laying out history.  
Unfortunately I have no access to history due to the security issues. I’ve seen brand  
new apartments that within 30 days of the tenant having been condemned. The Code  
Compliance isn’t going to ensure another tenant isn’t going to do the same damage to  
a property.  
Shoemaker: true, a Code Compliance doesn’t guarantee future tenants wont trash the  
place but I do appreciate Lori’s comment that she will write something into the lease.  
Holding tenants to a higher standard with some sort of agreement. That is part of the  
issues too, the history of the tenants.  
Moermond: I have good news and bad news. Right now, I have an appeal of orders  
issued by Fire Inspections. They are managing it as a property under their purview.  
They take note and try to have policies in place that do recognize when apartments  
turn over landlords do need time to basic cosmetic things, which it sounds like Ms.  
Kustritz is addressing. That act of saying you have 3 months to get this cleaned up  
and have a revoked Certificate of Occupancy, that is what is what is in front of me  
now. That 90 days is also in front of me. What is not in front of me is a Vacant  
Building registration. Fire inspections, for all their power and authority, cannot open a  
Vacant Building file. they can refer the matter to the Vacant Building team who has  
their own enforcement areas. They’d take that referral and looking at what Fire  
inspections did and making their own observations and giving it a category. Based on  
photos I do think it would meet the designation of a Category 2 Vacant Building. That  
isn’t what is in front of me now. I don’t have the authority to issue orders on behalf of  
the City. I can review what has already happened and act on that. Like I said, the main  
thing is the Certificate of Occupancy revocation. The second is the initial list of exterior  
items with a 90-day deadline. It does specify it cannot be reoccupied. It is on the long  
side; we haven’t had an interior inspection at all. I know it is unusual but it does  
happen when trying to make a Vacant Building determination I ask for a walk through  
to give an impression of what it would look like. Not a determination of 1 or 2, more  
whether it will require trades permits from what you can see. I think that would be  
helpful moving forward. Could you do something along those lines?  
Neis: yes. That would be exactly what is done before it could be reoccupied anyway, to  
be clear. Once the owner contacts us and says they’re ready for inspection. Our  
inspector goes in and looks at it and if its not ready it would absolutely generate that  
punch list you’re talking about. This tub is leaking, this isn’t done properly and needs  
permits. Our inspections are very comprehensive. Yes, they’re minimal code  
compliance, but they aren’t just checking smoke alarms. They’re checking hot water  
temp, GFCI outlets, things like that.  
Moermond: I’d really like to see that. To me, the 90 days imbedded in your order is  
basically the window for getting things fixed, but I’d like a concrete list much sooner of  
what exists now so we can assess based on current circumstances. So if there is an  
obvious leak, is replacing flooring fine or does something deeper need to be done.  
Then this is more transparent and things have been addressed by the time the  
Certificate of Occupancy is reinstated. I know Fire Certificate of Occupancy is taxed  
right now, what is your ability to get this done next week?  
Neis: with current staffing next week is slim to none. We’re looking week of August  
11th at the soonest. I really only have one true residential supervisor working at the  
moment.  
Moermond: so two weeks?  
Neis: and that’s pushing to make it as quick as possible, yes.  
Moermond: Ms. Kustritz, what do you think of this idea?  
Kustritz: I’m open to whatever you say.  
Moermond: given staffing constraints, plus the current lack of information systems to  
support daily work slowing everyone down now. Let’s get that inspection done by the  
14th of August, and I’ll have it on the Council agenda August 20th with my  
recommendation.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/20/2025