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, December 17, 2024

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 24-508

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 554

ARUNDEL STREET. (File No. VB2504, Assessment No. 258803)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: Current property owner purchased May 30, 2024. Vacant Building and

warning letter went to previous owner during his period of ownership. New Vacant

Building file was opened June 12, 2024 so old owners had no way of knowing, and

orders didn't go to current property owner. Vacant Building file closed October 15, 2024

per Dave Hoban.

The notice issues shouldn’t have kicked it out of the Vacant Building program, it

should have been re-noticed. If it was closed, why did you let it go to assessment.

Books were closed at Department of Safety & Inspections, but ends weren’t taken

care of. We’ve sorted it out, and I recommend deletion.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-521

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1631

CHARLES AVENUE. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Mark Osadchuk, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: a Summary Abatement Order was

issued July 18, 2024 to cut overhanging vegetation in the alley behind the property.

Reinspection done July 25. Work wasn’t done, so a work order was entered to trim the

vegetation. The work was done August 13, 2024 for a total assessment of $566.50.

Osadchuk: I am appealing because I would contest a couple of things. First, the

vegetation hanging over was not fully mine, some was due to the neighbor’s yard. In a

couple of photos, you can plainly see the neighbors have terrible property

maintenance. It is terrible on that corner. I never got anything in the mail, never a

Summary Abatement Order to clean or trim that or I would have done that gladly. I

notice there’s a sticker on the back of the building in one of the photos, someone

must have pulled that off as well because I never saw that either.

Moermond: I don’t think the sticker is related.

Kedrowski: no, we don’t leave stickers.

Osadchuk: I never got the notice. I know ignorance isn’t an excuse.

Moermond: you are saying you didn’t get the original notice, but you got the email staff

sent. No returned mail. Sometimes that happens. What I’m

Kedrowski: I wrote this myself. We had a complaint about the entire alley, so the

neighboring property got orders July 10th and did cut their vegetation. The photo WAS

regarding 1631.

Moermond: it looks like orders went to MidContinent management, are they still your

property manager?

Osadchuk: I don’t have them anymore, but I did update the Fire Certificate of

Occupancy information. I do get Summary Abatement Orders from time to time when

tenants move out on the first. We have someone going by weekly. The last thing I

want to do is overpay to have trash removed or shrubs cut. I wouldn’t ignore that, I

don’t want a bad relationship with the City. I question this, it is a hard one for me.

Moermond: you’re saying the neighboring property wasn’t all done when they did the

cleanup? You’re saying what was written was more than your property, but the inspector

said he wrote the orders and the other property was done on reinspect and yours

wasn’t. Are you saying it still remained on theirs?

Osadchuk: yes, on both our properties. I could have done the same thing and cut right

down the property line. They just got to it first. They cleaned up behind their garage,

but left that bush.

Kedrowski: 1639 was in compliance before 1631 was even written. When I came back

to assess, I noticed part was actually 1631.

Moermond: I don’t know what to make of the level of the bill compared to the amount

of work done. I think there is a mistake in that at the very least. In terms of

notification, the City gets back a lot of mail when it isn’t delivered. I suspect something

strange may have happened for it to not be returned. I know the City did do the work

and I don’t know where the fault lies with notice. We have a couple items in the history,

orders written in 2023 but there was compliance.

Kedrowski: I will also add I have an ongoing Summary Abatement Order open on the

property right now for trash. It seems there’s a chronic problem with garbage

overflowing and due to the homeless issues in the area I have been put on a tight

leash in terms of what I can tolerate for scattered trash around the properties. I haven’t

got ahold of Nitty disposal to see what the pickup schedule is for the property, but

every time I go the dumpster is overflowing. Trash laying in alley. It needs attention

from that angle too.

Osadchuk: I went a week and a half ago and raked every piece of trash in the yard. It

was completely clean, or it was. To his point, tremendous amounts of homeless people

digging through my trash. I can’t put locks on the dumpsters or the tenants won’t put

their own trash in. They are constantly digging through and throwing it in the alley.

We’re over there constantly. I don’t know what else to say. That building on the corner

of Snelling and Charles isn’t doing anything good for the neighborhood.

Moermond: I hear you on the notice. That’s coin toss from where I sit. You had a

couple orders but you took care of it, which is in your favor. I think this is a rather large

charge for the amount of work done. I’ll ask the Council to delete on this, but please

stay on top of it. IT is a terrible situation and if you stay on top of it all the better, but I

won’t hold any money over your head.

Osadchuk: I do try to keep a positive relationship with Mr. Kedrowski because I have a

couple properties in the Midway that it is hard to stay on top of the trash, but we are

doing our best.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-510

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2356

CHARLES AVENUE. (File No. J2507R, Assessment No. 258512)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Moermond: staff recommend deletion as notice was not sent to the right property

owner.

Jeff Coury, owner, appeared

Moermond: this will be a short conversation. I’ve reviewed this with staff and everyone

agrees the notice went to the wrong property owner, so the assessment will be deleted.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 25-9

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1425

GALTIER STREET. (File No. J2506T, Assessment No. 258511)

Kim

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 7, 2024 at 9 am (no contact info for PO).

Moermond: no contact information. Lay this over to January 7th.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/7/2025

RLH TA 24-519

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 460 and

464 MARYLAND AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2506T, Assessment No.

258511)

Kim

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $215 to $75.

Joe Wolkowicz, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: June 6, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was sent for overhanging vegetation including branches over the City sidewalk.

Compliance date of June 13. Work wasn’t done. Work was done June 26 for a total

assessment of $215.

Wolkowicz: I don’t have any objections to the characterization Mr. Kedrowski made.

My concern was I got this letter from the St. Paul City Council regarding this tax

assessment. I got the letter right after thanksgiving and on December 3 I went down to

Department of Safety & Inspections and asked the clerk if she could find a copy of

this order for abatement. She looked and didn’t find a copy. She suggested I talk to

the inspector of the area, which I did. December 4 he sent me via email a copy of this

abatement order. That was the first time I had seen this. If I would have received it in

June, I could have complied with the order. I have a pretty good record with Department

of Safety & Inspections about any problems in this building and comply. The basis of

my appeal is the lack of information and notice concerning this order.

Moermond: the orders went to 885 St. Paul Avenue, and one to the occupant. You’re

saying the one mailed to you you didn’t get. Any returned mail?

Kedrowski: no.

Moermond: when I look I wonder if maybe there was something lost in the mail. It is

hard for me to say.

Wolkowicz: all I can say is if it was mailed to the apartment building there would have

been no I would have received it. There’s no landlord mailbox there. Tenants

communicate with us by phone, email or coming into the office. I wouldn’t have

received anything mailed there. I’m not saying it wasn’t mailed, I’m just suggesting I

didn’t receive it. I appreciate the City taking care of things. I’m not quarreling with the

basis of the order. It is more the lack of notification. I’m sure we all have stories about

mail delivery these days.

Moermond: is the St. Paul Ave address the right one for you?

Wolkowicz: yes, that is where our office is. We have our own mailbox there. Usually

there’s just one or two people that handle the mail. Often the mailman will drop it

through our mail slot. I’m not disputing that it is an incorrect address given on the

orders.

Moermond: the City executed what it needed to do via code, which was send by first

class mail. I think what you are saying is true you didn’t get it in your mailbox. Things

happen. I look at your history here and you’ve taken care of business when you got

orders in the past which weighs in your favor as well. I’d like to get this down to $75. I

think on balance you didn’t get it, but I think that’s what you would have paid on your

own hiring someone else.

Wolkowicz: I’m comfortable with your assessment and viewpoint and I appreciate your

reduction very much. I will pay that $75 and call it a day. Thank you for taking the time

to talk to me.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-522

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 440

MINNEHAHA AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2507R, Assessment No.

258512)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Michael Ruhland, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: August 5, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was sent to remove some rugs, trash bags and contents, stools, and

miscellaneous debris from rear of property. Compliance date of August 12, it wasn’t

done. Work was done by the crew on August 16 for a total assessment of $396.

Moermond: I do have an email with a purchase agreement.

Michael Ruhland: we went under contract early August and closed mid-September. In

the purchase agreement it says any assessments the seller would take over. I

understand it may stay with the property; we’d be looking at recouping this with the

seller if that’s the direction of your recommendation. I did see the photos and all the

trash and clothes in the bushes. The rear of the building had a ton of overgrowth. We

had some homeless people living there over the summer. A 6” PVC pipe drains to the

back alley, so all summer the water was draining inside the building because they cut

it. They tore the electrical into the building out, a huge cabinet. During inspections

people were actively there trying to pull the copper wire from the building. We took

steps prior to closing; we had our landscaping crew go out and they took multiple

dumpsters of debris out. I saw the photos, a lot of that was still remaining in the

bushes. I know, because we took care of all of it prior to closing. We cleaned up the

entire back of the property and took the bushes out so people couldn’t hide back

there. We’ve done exterior repairs and painted since. We’re trying to rehab this

building. We’ve called in an abandoned vehicle, recliners and mattresses dumped, just

another notice a month ago. A massive dumping ground for everyone in that area.

We’re actively trying to clean it up, but we could really use some extra police presence.

We’ve bolted all the doors shut and took steps to secure the garage doors that we will

eventually replace. We’re trying to secure it but people have still been able to break in.

We’re doing everything we can to improve the area.

Moermond: two things, one has to do with making yourself a harder target for both the

dumping and break-ins. I assume you have an alarm system?

Michael Ruhland: no.

Moermond: on the exterior is there no dumping signage, motion detector lighting?

Cameras?

Michael Ruhland: the building is completely dilapidated. No alarm system yet, we need

to pull permits and replace the doors. We will be doing that. We’re working on pulling

electrical with contractors now. We’re 100 percent going to do what you suggested, but

we can’t do it immediately.

Moermond: what I have is that news you would have expected, which is orders were

issued to the previous owner during their period of ownership. Proper notice was given,

and the right party would be the previous owner to have this conversation.

Michael Ruhland: right. We just were hoping some sort of grace since we go out a

couple of times a week.

Moermond: the taxpayers paid for this work to be done on be half of the private

property owner. This is a private issue and the City wants its money back again.

Michael Ruhland: in the photos it shows these things there, but they were still there

when we picked them up. Not to say NO work was done, but a lot of the stuff still

remained and we took care of it.

Moermond: I don’t know what is going on there. I know this was done under previous

ownership. I’m stuck with the work being done.

Michael Ruhland: got it. We’ll seek damages from the previous owner.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-518

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1014

PACIFIC STREET. (File No. J2507R, Assessment No. 258512)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Charles Katz, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: August 7, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was sent to remove mattresses and carpet from the property. Reinspection was

done August 14, items were not removed. Work was done by the City August 16 for a

total assessment of $466.

Katz: I used to live in Minnesota. I’m not in CA and I got the letter, but I got the letter

after the mattresses had been picked up. I’d like to have them sent in a reasonable

amount of time, such as an email. I’ve got email from the City of St. Paul corrections

before, so I think it is possible. I got the notice but it is literally impossible for it to be

corrected—at least give me 2 weeks to do it. I’m open to ideas. We’ve had a real

struggle at this property, we used to have a commercial bin there so people would

stick stuff on our property. We’ve changed to regular consumer bins for each tenant

and that is helping. You did the work, I’m happy to pay that part, but the extra fees

seem punitive because I didn’t get the mail in time. If it happens again I’d like to get it

faster or give me extra time.

Moermond: I can see it is a tight turnaround if the mail is delayed. The thing is, you

may be well served to have a local company going by periodically. We have a mattress

and box spring by a tree in the front, and same situation in the back by a car. Is the

City moving towards email? We’d love to get to that point. We aren’t there yet so all

notices go out via first-class mail.

Katz: we’ve talked to inspectors who have emailed on their own. But this one didn’t, so

we didn’t get it in time.

Moermond: the responsibility is first class mail. Emails aren’t always possible with

inspector work loads. You need someone going by.

Katz: I do, I’ve talked to him about it. I haven’t’ talked about specifics of how it was

missed this time. I would have had to pay if someone else took care of it. I just think

that extra $164 seems mean.

Moermond: they charge every paperclip they possibly can. You are right. I’m going to

say you are responsible for this assessment. The work was done, it had to be

processed as an assessment and that has costs associated with that. The Council

could look at it differently. This is a big cleanup and could have been managed

differently. I can’t say there are different rules for people who live in different places.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-520

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1559

SUMMIT AVENUE. (File No. J2506T, Assessment No. 258511)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 7, 2024 at 9 am (no contact info for PO).

Moermond: let’s continue this to January 7

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/7/2025

RLH TA 24-527

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 627

VIRGINIA STREET. (File No. J2507R, Assessment No. 258512)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Cesar Tello, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: Summary Abatement Order was issued

August 6, 2024 to remove mattress and miscellaneous debris from the property.

Compliance date of August 13. Work wasn’t done, so the City did the work on August

16 for a total assessment of $345.

Tello: the stroller is ours; the mattress is not. We’ve had a lot of issues with people

dumping in front and in the alley. It got so bad people were dumping into my recycling

bin and so the recycling company tried to stop the service. I will gladly pay if it is fair,

but only the stroller is ours. I only found out about this 2 weeks ago, I’m attentive to

any photos the City takes and addressing it. I’d like to see no charge if possible.

We’re cleanly people, not perfect, but I don’t think it is right for me to pay for other

people’s garbage.

Moermond: it is interesting it is covered in plastic which is unusual. That’s usually

something done by someone who cares about something.

Tello: I found out about that—my tenant who lives downstairs told me as he was

leaving one day, a lady went there and asked for that stuff. My tenant put the plastic

over it since she asked if she could have it. Both the stroller and the mattress. We

thought that was the end so we left it there. He put the plastic over it because we were

trying to be decent people. I know it seems odd but it is 100% true.

Moermond: I get it.

Tello: we were under the impression she had taken it. I never got the abatement

orders. I’m sure you sent it. One time I ended up calling 1-800-Junk to get rid of trash

and someone from the City took a picture and asked me to take care of it, so I called

the inspector and asked for an extra week since my parents are in town, that’s exactly

what I did. To be honest I didn’t see the letters until today, I was supposed to get this

email in the last 2 weeks. I got the tax assessment letter in the mail which is how I

found out about it. We aren’t people who leave trash on the curb at all. I promise we

aren’t like this.

Moermond: how long have you owned it?

Tello: since 2017. I’ve been very responsible. This is a large fee and this is the

holidays. I was hoping not to pay it.

Moermond: I do see you had an issue in October 2023 with garbage, but you took care

of it. A snow order beginning of 2023, which is basically two years ago, the City did the

work though. I’ve been hearing you about notice and it went to both you and occupant

at your address. The City didn’t get any returned mail. What I’m thinking is it 50/50 if it

got missed.

Tello: I promise my wife and I are really responsible folks. This just caught us off

guard and we weren’t expecting it.

Moermond: I’m going to recommend this is deleted and believe you on the notice

issue. The other thing is now you are super clear on City’s expectations. For any future

assessments I’ll say we talked and you know so I won’t be sympathetic.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 24-484

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 96

WHEELOCK PARKWAY EAST. (File No. CRT2504, Assessment

No.58203)

Kim

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $387 to $228.

Jane Rydholm, More Empowerment, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this is a Fire Certificate of Occupancy, there

are two buildings on the lot. There’s a garage storage area and then the main building.

This one in particular is for the main building. Total assessment of $387. We had an

appointment letter June 12, 2024, compliance date of July 2, billing dates of July 5 and

August 5, 2024. No returned mail. The garage storage building bill was paid on July 18,

2024. One bill got paid for one building, the other bill did not.

Moermond: what was that? The same amount?

Shaff: yes, $228.

Rydholm: first I will say, the Fire Inspector arrived earlier than he said he would. I am

new to this role. He went to the property alone, so I wasn’t informed there were two

separate certificates. I saw a bill for $228 on July 16 and paid immediately. Then I got

a notice of nonpayment so I called the City and they told me it was paid. I’d like the

late fee removed and we’d be happy to pay the same amount if we need too. We are a

nonprofit. My second point is I’m questioning why there are two when the garage is just

used for storage. I’d also like the assessment to not affect our nonprofit property tax

exemption.

Moermond: I’ll address two. The last was the nonprofit status. This doesn’t touch that.

This is a special assessment for services. It is separate from property taxes, though it

is billed with it. With respect to the service charge, I can see my way clear to

recommend that isn’t included. I can see where it would have been very confusing. Now

you are aware moving forward. I’ll recommend the reduction to $228. About having two

Certificate of Occupancies, I’ll turn that over to Ms. Shaff.

Shaff: in a residential use, my garage in my house we look at it as an incidental use.

When we get into commercial properties there are different types of usage, one being

office and the other as storage. They have different types of hazards and how the

building can be used. Each separate building on the parcel would be required to have

a separate Certificate of Occupancy.

Rydholm: even if it is used as a normal garage?

Shaff: yes.

Rydholm: ok, no problem we will pay it.

Moermond: I can see how this was confusing.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-477

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 564

BLAIR AVENUE. (File No. J2506R, Assessment No. 258509)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment (noting appellant is no longer contesting).

Moermond: the appeal has been withdrawn. Approve the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/12/2025

RLH TA 24-472

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1055

FOURTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2505R, Assessment No. 258508)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Continue CPH to September 10, 2025 and if no same or similar violations, delete the

assessment. Otherwise approve in full.

Sadiq Alnabi, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we have two assessments appealed by you this morning. 1055 Fourth

Street, and 571 Earl.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: May 16 a Summary Abatement Order

was issued to remove and dispose of totes, tires, trash and miscellaneous debris from

the property. Compliance date of May 23. Rechecked June 4. It appears a couple

Excessive Consumption fees were sent to try and minimize the cost, but the work was

still not done by late in the month and a work order was finally sent. A Cleanup was

done July 10th for a total assessment of $365.

Moermond: things piled along the side of the building. Tell me why you are appealing?

Alnabi: I was out of the Country at that time and I had a tenant and when I received the

letter I asked the tenant to clean it up. He said he did, 3 days after that. When I

received the statement last month and told the tenant they had to pay, they said they

did clean it and asked me to appeal it. I am broke. As you can see, a tree fell on my

property and the insurance said they wouldn’t pay because the tree was from the back

neighbor and I couldn’t get any insurance information from them. They don’t live in

Minnesota. I have to pay for that. I don’t know if you can give us a break at this time. I

will take care of it the next time.

Moermond: it does look like a lot was cleaned up by the tenant from the photos I am

looking at it. The totes and plastic shipping containers were gone. The main thing left

were the tires. I can imagine both the tenant is giving you a straight answer about

cleaning it up and at the same time missed the tires. I do still have that taken care of

by the City. I do see you’ve pretty much taken care of things when they have come up.

This seems to be singular. This is a commercial property too, so that makes it higher

traffic.

Alnabi: yes, a small convenience store. That’s the second problem, the people throw

their trash behind the store.

Moermond: I’ll recommend the Council deletes the assessment if we don’t have any

same or similar violations by September 10, 2025. I think your tenant made a good

faith effort, but not an entire effort. I want to give credit for that as well.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/12/2025

RLH TA 24-502

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 571

EARL STREET. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Approve and make payable over 4 years.

Sadiq Alnabi, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: July 24, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was written for overhanging vegetation on the sidewalk. Compliance date of July

31. It was not cut, so a work order was sent and the crew did the work August 13, 2024

for a total assessment of $451.50.

Alnabi: the neighbor owns the property next door. All the trees, one of the trees is large

and fell down on my property at 1055 4th street. I had to pay a lot of money to fix it.

The neighbor has a lot of things going on my property, I was looking to see what is

going on. The City wants me to pay but my property is very clean. Both 571 and 1055. I

am always pushing my tenant to clean. He has two dumpsters at the property.

Moermond: I’m going to call this as being yours. I do see we had workers go out and

do work and this is the cost the City incurred. I can recommend the Council make this

payable over a number of years so you have smaller bites when you pay your taxes.

Would that be helpful?

Alnabi: yes.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-476

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1601

FREMONT AVENUE. (File No. J2503E, Assessment No. 258302)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Carla, language line interpreter, appeared via phone

Chabela Barco Villanueva

Voicemail left at 11:29 am: (via interpreter) this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council calling you about your appealed tax assessment for 1601 Fremont Avenue.

We’ve been unable to reach you, I will recommend approval of the assessment. You

can testify further to Council if you wish.

Moermond: I’ll recommend approval of this assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/5/2025

RLH TA 24-500

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1075

BURGESS STREET. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Kim

Sponsors:

Recommendation forthcoming (LHO to review property lines).

Jim Seeaman, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Seeaman: I cleaned up the mess the next day as soon as I got the message. I have a

handyman who went by the next day.

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: July 29, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was issued for plant growth and vegetation hanging into the alley. Compliance

date August 5, reinspection same day and work was not done. Work was done by the

City August 20, 2024 for a total assessment of $394.

Seeaman: as I said, the day after I had a handyman come over with a lawn mower and

he mowed everything down. it was gone the next day. If you’re saying you cut it, maybe

you did, but it was cut already. Or maybe you thought part of the property was not

mine. I didn’t notice any change in what I had done to the property. No, it was all done

by my handyman, I never saw any more work done or completed at that space. I have

nothing to prove or disprove this. I think I submitted a photo.

Moermond: the privacy fence in the back, is that yours?

Seeaman: part of the fence is my neighbor’s. I mowed up to his property line and

stopped there. I don’t know if he handled the rest. If you look closely at the photos,

there are still some shrubs at the far end of my property line.

Moermond: your garage is the light brown color, yes?

Seeaman: yes.

Moermond: Mr. Kedrowski, looking at this photo, that looks to me like there could be a

property line there?

Kedrowski: the area in question was the area in back where the bushes are is not his

property.

Moermond: let’s pull up an aerial photo.

Seeaman: the telephone is maybe a foot off from my property line. I mowed to there,

and I stopped.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-499

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 251

DEUBENER PLACE. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Bebe Jaques, property manager, appeared via phone

Jeff Bates, property maintenance, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: July 15, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was sent for overhanging plant growth on the City sidewalk. Compliance date of

July 22. Reinspection July 24, and a work order was sent and the crew did the work

August 20, 2024 for a total assessment of $451.50.

Jaques: I live in Winchester MA, and gave the information to jeff the day I received it.

He had actually already done the work. That’s why I sent you the photos and

conversation with Jeff August 9. He said he did the work August 5. I was told the work

was done August 20th?

Moermond: in reviewing the photos the City contractor took, I don’t think there was

property documentation of the status when they arrived, so I will recommend deletion of

the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-504

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1011

FOURTH STREET EAST (1011 4TH STREET EAST). (File No. J2507T,

Assessment No. 258515)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Kia Lee, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: I think I can cut this short for us. I’ve reviewed the contractor photos and

an aerial map, I’m going to recommend this is deleted. It should have been written to

the neighboring property. That’s what you were arguing, and you were right.

Lee: who owns that?

Moermond: the City doesn’t manage tax forfeited land. It is State property and

managed by Ramsey County. Call records and revenue.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-512

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 559

IDAHO AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2504E, Assessment No. 258303)

Kim

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: looks like no letter was sent to the owner saying to mow the lawn?

Kedrowski: just says work order created, another deletion.

Moermond: recommend deletion of the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-503

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 9

JESSAMINE AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No.

258515)

Kim

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Moermond: first thing is the assessment for 9 East Jessamine, he indicates the tenant

mowed the lawn which is great, but the actual orders were for overhanging vegetation

and making sure branches over sidewalk were cut back. That was not done. Not the

same issue. I’ll recommend approval of the assessment.

We did just look into the other property he mentioned, 279 Maryland Ave East, he says

he doesn’t own this property. We can’t find this address at all. He doesn’t own 279 W.

Maryland.

Zimny: there is an email to Mr. Davis from Lynn Rolf in Real Estate at 10:44 this am

saying: I spoke with Mr. Davis, and everything has been cleared up with the invoice he

saw. This was an invoice from the contractor to the City of Saint Paul. I explained

that he probably should not have been sent a copy of that because it is billing us.

The invoice listed three addresses but only one relates to his property.

Statement from owner: I am the owner of the property at 9 Jessamine Ave E. I have

owned this property since 2003, I also live in the state of Virginia. On or about

December 1, 2024, I received a proposed assessment in the amount of $451.50, for

failure to remove tall grass and weeds. According to long-term tenant Pete Norton, he

previously received a letter from the City regarding this matter and removed the grass

and weeds. Given that this is my first assessment in nearly 25 years of owning this

property and Mr. Norton's claim that he removed the tall grass and weeds I am

requesting that this assessment either be reduced or rescinded.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-523

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1721

MARGARET STREET. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Recommendation forthcoming (needs review of property lines by LHO). Layover to

January 21, 2025 at 10 am.

Emily Bauer, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: August 7, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was written regarding overhanging vegetation in the alley. Compliance date of

August 14 and reinspected that day, work was not done. Crew did the work August 30,

2024 for a total assessment of $215.

Bauer: what was cleared wasn’t my property, it was on the neighbor’s property.

Moermond: your garage is off-white?

Bauer: yes.

Moermond: what color is the neighbor’s garage?

Bauer: kind of blue. If you look at photo six in the packet submitted, you can see off

on the right-hand side. That’s the neighbor’s garage.

Moermond: I’d like to look at an aerial.

Bauer: were you given the photos I sent in this morning?

Moermond: yes, I was.

Bauer: I took those yesterday afternoon.

Moermond: I’m going to look this over a bit more. Working where you work I know you

understand they take the aerial photos when there are no leaves on the trees, so its

hard to tell shadow vs. branch in this photo. I do see the other property right there. I’ll

see if I can get a better visual on this. I wouldn’t want to send this with a

recommendation until I see how the property line fits together with the tree. I’ll look

more deeply into the mapping situation. I’ll get that to you, and we can schedule

another Legislative Hearing if it isn’t what you were looking for so you can speak more.

Lets talk January 21 and we can wrap it up then if we need to.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/21/2025

RLH TA 24-485

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1243

THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. J2505R, Assessment No. 258508)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Ishmael McReynolds, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Ishmael Mcreynolds, automated voice: your call will be recorded. Who is on the line?

You said Mr. Kedrowski. He has a supervisor too, I’d like to get their information as

well.

Moermond: we can get you that at the end of the call. We’re just talking about this

assessment today.

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: June 28 a Summary Abatement Order

was issued to remove and properly dispose of furniture, bath tub, water softener,

carpet, trash and miscellaneous debris from the rear yard, driveway, and entire

property. Compliance date of July 10. Rechecked July 16 and work was not done.

Work was done by the City crew July 24 for a total assessment of $396.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Ishmael Mcreynolds: the way this process was done I believe was illegal.

Moermond: how so? Say more.

Ishmael Mcreynolds: all the things he mentioned his guys came and took way more

than what he mentioned. Mr. Kedrowski said it has to be off the property. I own the

property. Why can’t I have something sitting in the yard until I can repair them. The

tenant had things in the yard and had them removed. I shouldn’t be billed for

something the tenant was going to remove. The tenant yelled at me. I’d like to be

reimbursed for the belongings Mr. Richard and his crew took from my property.

Moermond: you got the order and you talked to Mr. Kedrowski about it?

Ishmael Mcreynolds: yes. We got into a heated disagreement. He seemed upset at

me, was kind of unprofessional. We had issues from there on. Since that time, I’ve

been harassed ever since.

Moermond: I don’t see an appeal of the order that got issued, is there a reason you

didn’t appeal it if you disagreed with it?

Ishmael Mcreynolds: I don’t recall that.

Moermond: we would have emailed a copy to you November 21. That was sent to you

at your property on Thomas. You disagreed with the fact these things needed to be

taken, and I don’t have an appeal saying you disagreed. Why didn’t you appeal if you

disagreed?

Ishmael Mcreynolds: I think with an individual, to be honest, this is my first time in my

entire life going through these rigorous issues here. I believe Mr. Richard is aware of

that as well. This has been a lesson taught to me. I plan on seeking further legal

advice and counsel. Even if I have to go to the mayor.

When I wrote the letter, I assumed that’s what I was doing.

Moermond: what letter are you referring to?

Ishmael Mcreynolds: about all the issues that Mr. Richard has been bestowing upon

me.

Moermond: I don’t have that letter. Back to this, I see a lot of items that are meant to

be on the interior of a home, not the exterior. Generally, that is what most problematic

in these photos of the backyard. A washing machine. A bathtub. An old fridge. Old

carpeting. Those are all things that shouldn’t be stored on the exterior of the property.

It does look like the crew didn’t show up until July 24, so that was a long time after you

received the notice to take care of the work. If you believe you had items removed that

should not have been you fill out a claim form, which you can find on the City’s

website. I can’t take that into account today because I honestly don’t see that these

items are allowable for exterior storage. I’m going to recommend approval of the

assessment, but you are certainly welcome to speak to the Council and look for a

different outcome and file a claim with the City.

Ishmael Mcreynolds: when things are delivered to a person’s property, they are

delivered to the outside. I was being harassed for things being on my property at that

time. That has to be considered before you make your final decision. I had personal

and private property out there and none of this was authorized for his crew to come pull

from my property. It was going to be installed inside after the tenant was evicted. There

was nothing for me to do about a tenant. I shouldn’t be billed for something my tenant

did.

Moermond: you are ultimately still responsible for the property as the property owner. I

appreciate you wanted to use these things, but they are not for exterior storage and it

wasn’t handled further. This Council Public Hearing is February and you are welcome

to testify further.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/12/2025

RLH TA 24-525

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1251

VAN BUREN AVENUE. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment (appellant is no longer appealing).

Voicemail for David Zeller left at 12:44: good morning Mr. Zeller this is Marcia

Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you about your appealed special

assessment for 1251 Van Buren. I’ll put this on our calendar for January 21. Sorry for

the late call.

[Follow up: after hearing Mr. Zeller told staff he was no longer appealing. Sent to

Council - 12/17/24 JZ]

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH TA 24-486

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 107

WINNIPEG AVENUE. (File No. J2506R, Assessment No. 258509)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Michael Sauer, attorney, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Sauer: this is for the $345. A check was sent in a couple days ago. They were more

wondering why, and I submitted to them the information you provided. They are not

objecting anymore.

Moermond: appreciate that. Approve the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/12/2025

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments-ROLLS

RLH AR

24-113

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during August 12 to 26, 2024. (File No. J2507R, Assessment No.

258512)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH AR

24-114

Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services

during May 29 to July 31, 2024. (File No. J2506T, Assessment No.

258511)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH AR

24-115

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during September 4 to 6, 2024. (File No. J2508R, Assessment No.

258513)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

RLH AR

24-116

Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services

during August 1 to 30, 2024. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 2/19/2025

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 24-84

Appeal of Rachel Kessy to a Summary Abatement Order at 1289

DANFORTH STREET.

Kim

Sponsors:

Grant to January 10, 2025 for compliance.

Rachel Kessy, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: December 2, 2024 a Summary

Abatement Order was issued to remove Bagster and pallets from the property. Appeal

was filed.

Kessy: as I wrote, we are remodeling our kitchen, and we have a permit displayed on

our front door. We are using Bagsters to dispose of materials. We expect our project

to wrap up the end of February. We’ve used Bagsters before without issue. They are

completely on our property. There’s nothing hazardous in them. We’re using them

because they are cost effective and we’re doing the renovation ourselves and still

working full time. We can’t move the refuse every time it is accumulated.

Moermond: storing construction materials that are discarded, not for a project, would

be something that would need to leave the property. The Bagster itself does appear to

be in the right-of-way. I would be concerned about snow plows, though it isn’t written. I

want to be patient but we need to get this moved. You’d be well advised to get it

removed. I will push it to give you a deadline of January 10th. Council Public Hearing

January 8th. I just don’t think it can be there this time of the year.

Kessy: what I was told is someone complained about it. If it was a dumpster would it

be an issue? I see them around the City, I can’t believe this is uniformly applied. They

aren’t causing any harm; I have an active permit. What am I supposed to do?

Moermond: this is a complaint-based system. If someone doesn’t complain they

generally don’t seek them out. If someone complains about yours and the neighbor

also has one, absolutely they would write up that too. I understand this is more

affordable but I have to look at exterior storage and it isn’t a long-term solution. It has

to be taken care of, especially this time of year. Your concerns about policy and

enforcement, you are absolutely welcome to talk to the Council about that.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

11:30 a.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Code Enforcement

RLH VO 24-37

Appeal of Amber Duncan to a Notice of Condemnation as Unfit for

Human Habitation and Order to Vacate at 973 FRONT AVENUE.

Kim

Sponsors:

Rec forthcoming.

Voicemail left at 1:04 PM for Amber Duncan: this is Marcia Moermond calling about

973 Front. Calling later than we hoped, but still in the time period we hoped. We’ll try

you later this afternoon.

Voicemail left at 3:35 PM for Amber Duncan: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul

City Council calling you again about the condemnation at 973 Front. We haven’t come

to a conclusion about whether it can be reoccupied or not and under what conditions. I

had hoped we could have it resolved before the holidays. We’ll call Georgia. Your

Council Public Hearing is tomorrow. Let’s get this sorted, bye.

Voicemail left at 3:37 pm for Georgia Duncan: good afternoon Georgia, Marcia

Moermond. We have a follow up hearing with Amber today, she didn’t answer her phone

earlier and we just tried her again and she didn’t answered. Getting the furnace working

is great, but there are a lot of other things written up and we need follow up on the

furnace in terms of invoices, receipts, permits, sanitation inside the house. Assuming

it can be reoccupied without attaching conditions and expectations is not a good thing.

I will do my best to come up with something for the Council Public Hearing tomorrow,

but wanted to flag for you this isn’t buttoned up on my view.

Referred to the City Council due back on 12/18/2024

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR 24-68

Appeal of Heather Mendiola, SMRLS (Southern Minnesota Regional

Legal Services), representing Kyaw Die, owner, to a Vacant Building

Registration Renewal Notice and Summary Abatement Order at 729

HAWTHORNE AVENUE EAST.

Yang

Sponsors:

Waive VB fee for 90 days (to March 7, 2025).

Heather Mediola, SMRLS, appeared via phone

Mendiola: I spoke to my client, and we agree the 90 day waiver is probably the best

approach and should be enough time to work with insurance on it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH VBR 24-70

Appeal of Richard A. Bowen to a Vacant Building Registration Fee

Warning Letter at 767 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 14, 2025 at 1 pm (due to LH schedule 12/17).

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/14/2025

RLH VBR 24-74

Appeal of Hassan Haydar to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at

480 GERANIUM AVENUE EAST.

Kim

Sponsors:

Waive VB fee for 90 days (to March 1, 2025).

Hassan Haydar, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: this started in February 2024 and proceeded

each month with a different neighborhood complaint. The complaints vary from

garbage to inoperable vehicles, auto shop run out of garage, overcrowding, gas and

electric shut off. That ran through this November where on November 14, 2024

Inspector Richard Kedrowski followed up on a complaint and found the house open to

entry, issued a Summary Abatement Order, rechecked November 25 and found it

completely wide open---doors, windows, broken windows, garbage everywhere. He

called Mr. Magner who issued an immediate emergency work order to secure the home

and to clean up the rear of the yard. Due to all of those things it was transferred to the

Vacant Building program as a Category 2 Vacant Building. I did speak to the appellant

on the phone and advised him to file this appeal.

Haydar: I am shocked this goes back to the beginning of 2024. I did purchase this

from a man I have known for a while and I didn’t know all these issues with the

property. I purchased the end of October 2024. After I did the closing I realized a

family was living there. I talked to Andy and told him to let me know when they have

moved out. That was the first time I saw the house in person, I trusted him. The house

is nasty, too much trash. I told him I won’t be back before December. Andy went to

Court order to move the people out; I saw boards all over the house when I came

back. I did what I could. There’s a difference if you come out today. I spent over

$2,000 on the garbage alone. 2 u-hauls full. It wasn’t livable. I don’t blame any

inspector. The neighbors are happy they see me and I’ve been cleaning. I’m asking to

be given an opportunity to clean up. The garage is cleaned out. The windows and doors

are there. If you walk there today it is absolutely clean.

Dornfeld: the City did a cleanup last week, Ms. Moermond.

Moermond: I asked because you said no one had been out there and it was clean, yet

the property was in terrible shape when the crew was out there. Open to entry is

problematic, and that was during your period of ownership. It was fully a month later

after you acquired October 25

Haydar: The City still doesn’t have my correct address. There was a tenant living there,

but I’m not disputing if the City came and they found horrible conditions, because

that’s how I found out when I came back and was told the family moved out. That’s why

I spent so much money doing the cleaning. I’m not disputing—the property was in

horrible condition. I’m not saying that wasn’t true, but as far as doing the work and

cleaning that is me who did it.

Moermond: what are you looking for today?

Haydar: to get a waiver, a month, whatever to clean the house up, instead of having

these heavy fees.

Moermond: what’s the plan for getting it reoccupied?

Haydar: less than 14 days it will be amazing. In two weeks that house will be in better

condition than any other house in that neighborhood.

Moermond: going back to the address issue; the City would have downloaded the

address from the County so I am thinking there’s a problem there. They have your

Riverview Real Estate both on Geranium, I don’t know why they have the Brooklyn

Center address isn’t there. That isn’t something the City can fix. It is Ramsey County.

You’d want to call 651-266-2000 to have that fixed. It appears the tax information all

says Geranium. This is a Category 1 Vacant Building?

Dornfeld: No, 2.

Moermond: why? Because all we had was the open to entry from what I heard.

Dornfeld: and then multiple code violations with all the junk in the back yard and the

obvious open to trespass Ms. Moermond. Broken windows. A busted front door. Some

exterior violations along with being open to entry and the garbage.

Moermond: the definition of Vacant Buildings says unoccupied and has multiple

housing or building code violations. I’m focused on it being building related versus

exterior property maintenance. What I don’t have is something from Code about the

interior. I have old information from the Fire inspection file on the interior. The TISH

doesn’t speak anything good about the building, but that isn’t our report. Then question

becomes whether or not this building needs a Code Compliance Inspection done

before it can be reoccupied? That creates a punch list to address, or would it be

sufficient to get it to a point where you would qualify to get a Fire Certificate of

Occupancy. I assume this will be a rental property since it is owned by an LLC?

Haydar: I was debating, because while I own multiple properties, I was trying to

relocate closer to St. Paul. I will most likely be occupying it personally. The way the

house looks now, even without me doing work, you’ll see a difference. I’ve been

working the last two weeks in the house. Since I received the notice. I removed all the

carpet. The house was nasty. I cleaned with chemicals. I painted inside. I don’t see a

big issue. No doubt there was a mess outside but I think given the chance for 14

days, I think it will be done with anything that was a prior issue. I wish I would have

visited the property before I purchased, I would have had a different opinion. Now it is

my job to fix it and make it a better place to live.

Moermond: in August, the City noted that the power had been turned off. I don’t know,

because I don’t see any follow up, if the power had been turned on again.

Haydar: I called Xcel, went through the process of changing everything. There’s a light

on in the house. I cut the water because I was trying to fix the kitchen, then asked

them to turn it back on, not sure if they did.

Moermond: I don’t have a property that will get a Fire Certificate of Occupancy

inspection if you yourself will be occupying. I’m happy to recommend the Council give a

90-day waiver, but you need to do the Code Compliance Inspection and go through that

process.

Shaff: if it continues to be in a company name, we don’t consider it to be

owner-occupied. It cannot be an entity.

Moermond: it needs to be in a human being’s name.

Shaff: yes.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH VBR 24-75

Appeal of Eden Spencer, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corp/GMHC

Holding LLC to a Vacant Building Registration Renewal Notice at 1117

JENKS AVENUE.

Yang

Sponsors:

Deny the appeal, allowing permits.

Eden Spencer, GMHC, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: this entered the Vacant Building program in

December 2018. Currently, this is a Category 3 Vacant Building rehab is ongoing.

Permits on file. This has been in front of you recently. October 9, 2024 the Council

granted 180 days to repair. I’m assuming we are here to talk about the Vacant Building

fee coming due December 24, 2024.

Spencer: as you know we went through the process earlier this year and we are

currently rehabbing. It is underway. We think we’ll be done in the next 6 to 8 weeks

and listening it for sale to an owner-occupant. We wanted to appeal the fee.

Moermond: it is a Category 3 so I’m kind of stuck. My practice is not to recommend

waivers on Category 3’s, however, I often look at proration of the Vacant Building fee

for Category 3’s but that would come forward when it is assessed. I can look

backwards then. I’d rather look at when we have a finished project.

Spencer: so allow it to be assessed?

Moermond: that is what makes the most sense to me.

Spencer: that makes sense. We will do that then.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH VBR 24-76

Appeal of Damon Mason, Rondo Community Land Trust, to a Vacant

Building Registration Renewal Notice at 843 SELBY AVENUE.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Waive VB fee for 90 days (to April 2, 2025).

Damon Mason, Rondo Community Land Trust, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: this was opened as a Category 2 Vacant

Building January 2024 per referral from Fire Certificate of Occupancy department.

There was an appeal filed, but my notes read the appellant failed to appear and thus

the appeal was denied. Since then, I don’t see anything. No Code Compliance, no

permit, but vacant secure and maintained.

Mason: this is a legacy family property. I have been working diligently on rehabbing the

property. I got a full scope. I have some partners. We have a qualified borrower now.

We have all our ducks in a row.

Moermond: you don’t, because I don’t have a Code Compliance Inspection Report

having been done for the property. If it is a Category 2 Vacant Building, which this is, it

has to have one of those and your bids should be consistent with that report. You want

to go back and file for that.

Mason: ok, ok. You’re totally right. This was passed down to me, that’s a conversation

we need to have. Everything we’ve done on our end I didn’t know that wasn’t done. I

have to go back and do my homework now, that just caught me by surprise.

Moermond: that happens sometimes with different people being involved at different

points in time. We will get you that form.

Mason: I got this in a portfolio to get the project moving. I had to find a buyer with 80%

AMI or less, and then find some grant funds to fill the gap and get it done for the

homeowner. The new homeowner is fully approved with the bank, my partners, I had no

idea we were out of compliance there. My sincere apologies.

Moermond: I’ll recommend you get a 90-day waiver, get that Code Compliance

Inspection Report ordered, and you can begin pulling permits. I would assume you let

this fee goes to assessment, and in the future that can be appealed and we can

discuss proration if it is done in less than 6 months.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH VBR 24-73

Appeal of Shawn Punjwani, Embassy Thomas LLC, to a Vacant Building

Registration Notice at 1333 THOMAS AVENUE.

Jalali

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 7, 2025 (per owner's request).

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/7/2025

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 24-38

Appeal of Scott Swanson to a Correction Notice-Complaint Inspection

(which includes condemnation) at 999 HUDSON ROAD.

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 14, 2025 at 1 pm (for update on heat if necessary). CPH Jan

15.

Scott Kragness, property manager, appeared

Amy Mason, attorney, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: we received multiple no heat complaints over

the last couple of months. To give some history, November 1, 2024 we received a no

heat complaint, ceiling caved in due to water leak. Inspector Geravis spoke to property

owner and chose not to respond reporting he had 24 to 48 hours to respond to no heat

issue and was trying to evict the tenant in unit 1 and it wasn’t his responsibility to

correct the issue. The property agent provided some space heaters.

November 4 reinspection and space heaters weren’t meeting minimum temperature in

commercial space was 65.6. common area 56.4 and unit 1 was at 59.9. No access to

unit 2. November 12 no hot water for over a week complaint. Found out in talking with

the complainant it had been restored the night before. We didn’t need to respond.

Complaint again December 2, no heat, spoke to agent he said maintenance will

respond. December 3 no one had responded yet. Later they were en route to check the

boiler. Looks like there was quite a conversation between the attorney and inspector

on December 3. The temps, when outside temp was 18, was 66.7 for commercial

space, living room 66, kitchen 66.3 degrees. Property agent and boiler mechanic

flushed some air from the boiler lines in unit 1. We still have no been allowed access

to unit 2. As of December 4 we have no improvement in heating of the unit.

Moermond: enforcement was stayed when appeal was filed. Here we are. What is going

on?

Mason: the tenant who is lodging all the complaints is Amber Kennutski. She is a

scam artist who knows how to work the system. The first time I attempted to have her

evicted for not paying rent, she did the same thing claiming there were needed repairs.

She wanted to be able to use the defense that eviction was in retaliation for her

complaining. She got free legal representation and ended up perjuring herself under

oath by forging rent receipts and forging Mr. Swanson’s signature. Eventually she had

to pay. Every time it was brought up to her that she owed money. She paid through

July and come August 1 she hasn’t paid a penny. Every time Mr. Kragness reaches out

then you get the complaints from her. She did it again at the end of November after

sending the notice to vacate. She doesn’t call Mr. Swanson or Mr. Kragness first, she

calls the City. You will see that she literally doing things to affect the outcome of

recording as no heat. I spoke to the inspector and asked how long he was out there,

he said “just a couple of minutes. You know, we don’t have time to be out there for

more than couple of minutes.” Then I asked if he gave her advanced notice he was

coming, he said “of course.” We really feel she has turning down the heat intentionally,

and opening windows. There are photos here of her having the window wide open in

early November. She understands how this works.

Sitting here today, the heat works. It gets to 70 plus degrees. The other thing she

would do, is she was so obstinate that when we were having the repair person out, she

wouldn’t let them in and had changed the locks. Hadn’t vien them another key. I just

told them to just change the locks back, but I think they were intimidated by her.

She’s a very intimidating person. Very disrespectful. She always conveniently had to go

to work when someone was coming out. We can go through the emails but at the end

of the day Mr. Kragness and Mr. Swanson have tried to comply.

It is unfortunate Mr. Swanson was disrespectful to the inspector and that is unfortunate

because I do feel like that’s why were here today. In his defense he’s paid me

thousands of dollars, I’ve written off thousands of dollars because I feel bad for him

that I had to defend four motions to dismiss and four days of trial and she was still in

the unit. This isn’t a situation where you have a landlord that isn’t taking care of her

tenant. She lost her argument of retaliation in the first trial because you would see it:

she would complain, he would respond. She would complain, he would respond. He is

at the end of his rope which is why he got disrespectful—which is not a good excuse,

it’s not—but that’s where we’re at. Which is why. Mr. Kragness has exclusively taken

this over and we’re trying to see this through. If we look here, October 30, the second

email on the firs tpage, that’s when Mr. Kragness politely reaches out and says you

owe rent from August through October. What was her response?

Kragness: the inspector said it is illegal to not have heat in here, it is 55 degrees in

here.

Mason: had she reached out to you at all at that point?

KRagness: no.

Mason: that’s the first you knew of it. What did you tell her?

Kragness: the tech will be there on Monday. For security and safety the locks will be

replaced. I appreciate your cooperation.

Mason: page 2, this is still that October 31, November 1 time. What did she say?

Kragness: no locks are being changed. You already destroyed two locks I paid for.

Moermond: and what I’m going to say is that focusing on the heat in the interest of the

brevity. The trial and perjury have their own road, and I’m focusing on heats and

certainly someone opening windows is problematic. Tell me more about the boiler and

the repair.

Kragness: on the first when Scott Swanson was notified, he contacted me and said he

talked to the inspector, can you get some units out there. I brought the heaters, met

with Inspector Chute, brought the units up with him and got them plugged in and

confirmed we would let them run through the weekend while the tech was already

coming, prior to that even happening. Chuck, the tech, got out there Monday after

Daryl had already gone there, and Chuck traced it back and found out the fuse to the

boiler was turned off. The fuses to both that and her water heater are both in the fuse

box to her unit on the porch.

Moermond: circuit breaker?

KRagness: yes. What she’d done is flipped them to the off position, so there’s no

power. Chuck wrote it in his first report, he traced it back to that and turned it on and

the boiler started going. He adjusted the flames as part of annual maintenance and

when he left that day everything was working properly. I emailed Inspector Chute it was

running; we met on the 6th in the morning. Myself, inspector Chute and Craig the

repairman for the ceiling. He went through and we were at 68 degrees in the laundry,

everywhere. He closed the file from that complaint. He subsequently said there were a

few outstanding things from the prior work order. The roof has been replaced, it was no

longer an issue. He said the heat issues were done. On November 13 he sent new

orders which included some exterior items and floor leveling that we were working to

get someone to do. She wouldn’t allow access to her unit. November 6 when we left,

we didn’t hear a heat complaint again until December 3.

Mason: you can see the November 1 condition tab, this is what she was doing with the

windows. They’re partially open. She still has an AC unit in one. It got resolved quickly

that first time in November, despite the fact she was trying to prevent it. November 5

she refused access and the sheriff had to be called. That was just to work on other

items.

Kragness: I did get a call again about no heat in December after she was served her

formal notice of lease termination.

Moermond: so the tenant will be out presently?

Kragness: she is to be out no later than December 31.

Moermond: you provided an invoice for the trip out November 5. Are there others?

Mason: a December 3 invoice as well.

Shaff: did you supply Inspector Chute with these invoices? Please do.

Moermond: this can’t be on the Council agenda until January 8 due to holidays. I’m

pretty satisfied steps have been taken. We seem to be in a space with not no heat,

maybe low heat, but we also see over $1,000 has been spent in reviewing the system.

I’m wondering about a feedback loop in the future before the Council Public Hearing.

Maybe we talk January 14 and have a Council Public Hearing January 15. Right now,

I’m inclined to recommend the Council grant your appeal.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025

RLH VO 24-36

Appeal of Tamer Azzazi, T & M Properties, to a Notice of

Condemnation-Unfit for Human Habitation-Order to Vacate at 722 SIXTH

STREET EAST.

Johnson

Sponsors:

Deny the appeal and waive the VB fee for 90 days (to March 5, 2025).

Tamer Azzazi, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]:

Azzazi: I’m actually at a live construction site down in Iowa. I had this on my calendar

for Thursday. Can we reschedule? Actually, I can do this now, I have my notes.

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: we got a complaint on this property on

12/2/24 that this was a possible Vacant Building and the porch was being held up by 2

posts. This doesn’t have a Fire Certificate of Occupancy and numerous other

problems. When Inspector Chute went out, he did find the front porch was demolished

and the roof was being held up by posts. Found some broken windows. Water meter

missing. No water usage since February 2024. It is the name of T&M but is

homesteaded by the son of the owner. Without any water service and with the condition

of the front porch, and no Fire Certificate of Occupancy we immediately turned it over

to the Vacant Building program since no one should be living there. In the meantime, I

have spoken to Nathan Bruhn who asked me because they were in trying to pull a

permit for the porch. I was in favor of a permit for stabilizing the porch roof until the

outcome of this hearing.

Azzazi: T&M Properties is me and my wife who have done property management since

2008. I was looking to retire and haven’t purchased anything in a long time. This

property was purchased in May 2022 by T&M with the intent my son Antonio would live

in one of the units and rent out the other. I thought it would be a good hands-on

learning experience for him. He’s a union concrete finisher. In the summer months he

does that and in the winter he does his own commercial snow removal business. The

house was occupied as a duplex. The interior was dated and needed primarily cosmetic

updates. Has two electrical meters, boilers, water heaters already. That was the

original intent. After moving in some furniture and assessing he decided it would be

better to wait until floors and walls are done before him moving in. He wasn’t around

much that winter. We had a break-in winter of this year when they tried to steal some

copper. They just did damage, which is why the water was disconnected. My son had a

6 month contract in Alaska, then to Kansas, and he just got back at Thanksgiving

when his contract ended. He went through and saw the posts holding up the porch was

leaning heavily. I apologize because I have pictures but I didn’t think this was today.

There are 3 posts holding up the property. The corner post was at a 10 degree angle

and not attached at the top or bottom. It could be wiggled with your hand. If you look at

the Google street map you can see the wall bowing out. We decided just to jack up the

roof and stabilize the posts with additional shoring to make sure no one was going to

get hurt. We had a steel beam and wood posts, they’re at an angle because there’s no

way to put them up and down with the porch there.

Moermond: the list of things that led the place to be condemned include the porch, but

there are other things. I understand your son will be working on the repairs, what are

you asking for exactly?

Azzazi: I was getting there. His wife is a traveling nurse, and he isn’t going to have

time to work on it, so I did quit claim deed back to myself and he isn’t going to work

on it. That was Tuesday the 4th. My wife sent an email Sunday night saying I wouldn’t

be able to make an inspection due to the emergency dental surgery the next day. We

have rentals all over St. Paul and they saw the porch being shored up. We applied for

the permit on Tuesday but the system was down. application was turned in on the 4th.

I’ve started keeping a log, I’m on my 12th person now trying to get this permit. We got

a provisional permit for the footings. We had a stop work order issued that Tuesday. It

could have been done the same day; we keep getting shuffled around.

Moermond: that’s one of the repairs, yes. There were quite a few other violations Ms.

Shaff mentioned.

Shaff: when they decided to take the porch off, I’m surprised being in the business he

didn’t know he should get a permit ahead of time. In talking with the assistant building

official, after the appeal was filed he tried to get the permit. We came up with the

interim shoring permit. But this building hasn’t had water since February.

Moermond: that’s where else I was going with this. Porch causes exiting and entry

concerns. Your notes say no water since February 2024?

Azzazi: that is true, my son was out of town. We can get it done in a month if we could

just pull permits. We’ve been trying to get the porch permit since before the appeal.

Shaff: no Certificate of Occupancy when it was filed.

Moermond: we don’t know the interior of the building. We do know there are significant

violations that are visible in the porch and the lack of water is condemnable.

Shaff: multiple broken windows. Siding issues. Screen issues. It is obvious there’s a

lot of deferred maintenance on top of the major issues.

Moermond: You want to fix it up and just be done with getting the porch done and water

back on and use it.

Azzazi: yeah, only thing that keeps us from occupying is not getting permits. We have

the know-how and materials and equipment.

Moermond: two things. One is the permit for the porch and the other is it having been

vacant awhile, condemned, and under what circumstances it can be reoccupied. One

thing would be the condemnation lifted and the other would be needing to get a Code

Compliance inspection. This has been referred to the Vacant Building program when

found empty and they condemned it. They aren’t on the line but I need to balance the

right course of action in this condition that’s been empty for so long. I’m hard pressed

to say it is enough to fix the porch and get the water on if no one has seen the interior.

We don’t know the interior doesn’t have serious conditions as well. The best way to do

that is get a Code Compliance and have this be in the Vacant Building program.

Because the conditions leading to the condemnation haven’t been addressed I can say

yeah, you should be able to do temporary repairs of the porch and stabilize it. In terms

of getting water on and reoccupying I don’t think that is a good idea. I’d make that

recommendation to Council, they may see it differently. Right now as it stands it don’t

believe it to be habitable and the permit for the porch is one piece, another is the

water, it has other Code violations. I just think it too cleanly meets the definition of a

Vacant Building. It isn’t simple, I wish it were. But the City is really looking for this to

be minimally code compliant inside and out before reoccupancy.

Azzazi: respectfully, we are in property management and maintenance business. I was

trying to let this be a teachable moment for my son. I have since taken it over myself.

It doesn’t meet the definition of a Vacant Building on the website– if it is unoccupied

and unsecured. It doesn’t meet the definition. It was secured with normal working

doors. It locks. Windows locked. It isn’t a dangerous structure. Once the potential

hazard, the porch, was identified by me and my son it was addressed. Building was

condemned in the midst of the hazard being corrected. Friday until Monday. It was

scheduled for reinspection Monday December 2 and I did have a medical issue. I have

paperwork to substantiate that. We left a Voicemail and email Sunday December 1 to

get the Monday inspection moved. It was condemned while I was in surgery. A quit

claim deed was filed December 3.

Moermond: the building was condemned was explicitly having to do with water service

and work being done without permit. There are a couple of components there, not just

the porch.

Azzazi: once we identified the porch it became the first thing on the list. As far as the

water being shut off, usually when Fire comes out they give you 30 days to make

corrections, sometimes longer depending on what time of year.

Shaff: maybe.

Azzazi: that’s the way it is. That’s the way it has always been.

Shaff: sir, I’ve been supervising in Fire Inspections for over 20 years.

Azzazi: I’m not trying to negate your experience, that’s been my experience in doing

rentals in St. Paul and Minneapolis. I’ve never seen an inspector come out and

immediately condemn a building for not having water.

Shaff: it is no water, dangerous porch, working without a permit, unoccupied?

Absolutely it will be referred to the Vacant Building program, especially without a Fire

Certificate of Occupancy which you’d been receiving orders to get.

Azzazi: no one was occupying it at the time. My son had his possessions there but he

wasn’t physically living there. We can prove he was working out of state.

Moermond: we’re talking in a circle.

Azzazi: I don’t think so, but if that’s the way it is… I’m prepared to do the work and if

you’re concerned about public safety we should have been able to pull a permit to

finish the job and allow us to go in there and do our work. We were issued a stop work

order, we weren’t able to address anything.

Moermond: what are you looking for right now? I’m not clear what your answer was.

Azzazi: get my permit so we can finish the porch, which has been on the schedule

since December 4, 2024. Then the stop work order to be lifted so I can finish

everything else in the next 30 days.

Moermond: I understand there is a permit for porch repair?

Shaff: temporary shoring, yes.

Azzazi: that isn’t to complete repairs. We’ve had the materials there to complete it.

Moermond: you know what? I know that. I think that this should be a registered Vacant

Building. I read the definition differently. It is condemned, has multiple housing and

code violations. I will leave it up to the building inspectors about issuing a permit for

the front porch. For my purposes it doesn’t matter one way or another. It will get called

out in a Code Compliance Inspection Report no matter what. Broken windows, roof, a

permit could and should be issued to secure the building while the other things are

dealt with. That can happen, but I think we need to be playing it more safely on the

interior conditions. I don’t feel confident it is ready to reoccupy. We do need eyes on

the inside. Our next conversation could be about the Vacant Building registration. I’m

happy to recommend a 90 day waiver of the fee. If it goes quickly you’ll have no fee.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025