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, November 5, 2024

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 24-441

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2117

MOHAWK AVENUE. (File No. VB2503, Assessment No. 258802)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 3, 2024 to see if CC certificate is issued. If issued, reduce

assessment from $5,077 to $2,538.

Lee Coulter, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this covers May 27, 2024 through May 26,

2025. We’re about 5 months in. Numerous finaled permits, he appears to be close to

getting his Code Compliance certificate.

Coulter: yes, I am. The building inspection I am waiting for garage door installation,

that is on backorder. Should be done this month. As a result, I am requesting that this

may be prorated or dismissed. Miller Crest we decided to pay in full, so I’d like to

request this entire fee be deleted.

Moermond: I won’t make that recommendation.

Coulter: why not?

Moermond: you’re a Category 3 Vacant Building and already 5 months into the year. I’d

like to continue this a month and if you are done by then I’ll recommend it is prorated.

I’ll push this to December 3 and we can check in then on permits. Sounds like you’re

close. If you want to disagree with what I’m recommending, that’s fine also. Your

Council Public Hearing isn’t until February 5 so we have plenty of time. These are

property specific. I can’t conflate the two properties and delete this entire thing

because you decided to pay the other one.

Coulter: I’m available December 3.

Moermond: sounds good, we’ll talk then and if you’re done it sounds like an easy case

for proration.

Coulter: I was told if I got the whole packet in and gave it to Mai, and then when I didn’t

hear anything, I called and “Joan” and she told me I was good to go, and then I went to

get the building permit—

Moermond: is this going to somehow relate to the Vacant Building fee? Because I have

a lot of items on the agenda today.

Coulter: that’s fine. December 3 works.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/3/2024

RLH TA 24-423

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1528

HURON STREET. (File No. J2504T, Assessment No. 258507)

Kim

Sponsors:

Layover to LH November 19, 2024 at 9 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 9:38 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about your appealed tax assessment for 1528 Huron. We’ll try you back in 10 or

15 minutes.

Voicemail left at 9:51 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you again about your appealed assessment for 1528 Huron. We tried calling a second

go and got a strange connection and now it’s going to Voicemail. I’m going to push this

out a couple of weeks and we will visit with you November 19th.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 11/19/2024

RLH TA 24-439

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2130 IVY

AVENUE EAST. (File No. VB2503, Assessment No. 258802)

Yang

Sponsors:

Recommendation forthcoming after further review of math by LHO.

Julie Walters-Lee, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is for the Vacant Building fee, per

previous resolution the Hearing officer recommended if a Code Compliance certificate

was issued by September 29, 2024 the Vacant Building fee would be reduced half. It

was issued prior to that, September 12. The agreement was satisfied.

Walters-Lee: that’s not really what it says. It literally says “if a Certificate of Code

Compliance is not issued by June 29, the Council will direct the Department of Safety

& Inspections to issue a bill for the time period of May 1 to December 28, estimated

currently to be $3,300. So that was an estimation. Then says “if an unpaid Vacant

Building registration fee comes forward as a proposed assessment and is appealed, it

will be reduced by 50%." So, the $3,300 was supposed to be in the system, which it

wasn’t. Appealing it would drop that by 50%. I found the amount to be $2,815, not

$3,300 since we purchased June 3, not May 1.

Moermond: I’m reading it an alternative way, which is that at that point in time it would

have been $3,300. I’m willing to look at that further. At best I see that as an alternative

reading of it. I can get you an answer and if you object follow up more with the City

Council.

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

RLH TA 24-413

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 460

PRIOR AVENUE NORTH. (File No. J2503R, Assessment No. 258502)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

No one appeared

Voicemail left at 9:55 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Ryan Scott about an appealed special tax assessment. I’m going to recommend this

assessment is approved. The letter you received notified you about the Council Public

Hearing and how to testify. We weren’t able to reach you a couple of weeks ago either.

Referred to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/29/2025

RLH TA 24-437

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 981

SAINT ALBANS STREET NORTH, #102. (File No. J2503B, Assessment

No. 258102)

Kim

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Melanie Ebertz, o/b/o tenants of unit, appeared via phone

Juan Carlos Aguilar, tenant, appeared via phone

Moermond: do we need an interpreter?

Ebertz: I think I can interpret okay.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: June 16, 2024 St. Paul Fire Department

requested an emergency boarding after a fire that occurred June 16, 2024 at 8:29 pm.

Total proposed assessment of $534.

Ebertz: I am just a private part of a small group that have sponsored this family to

come from Honduras. We’re just helping them out. That was father’s day. They hadn’t

been here that long and weren’t used to an electric stovetop. Mom came home from

work, turned on the stove to heat something up, they decided to take dad out for

pizza. They went out for pizza and left the stovetop on. Came home to all the windows

broken out, so the building manager did charge them $700 to replace the glace and

repair the door. All the windows were broken. That was a hardship we helped with. The

fire, $500 we’re contesting and asking for forgiveness to help them up. It is a financial

hardship to pay and they were embarrassed and learned a hard lesson. Asking you to

please help us help them to not impose this hardship. They did pay the landlord. It is a

family 5 and it has been a financial hardship to learn this hard lesson.

Moermond: forgiveness has maybe something more to do with enforcement. This isn’t

that. The Fire Department showed up and had to secure it before they left for safety

reasons. It is them recouping costs they’ve already incurred. I understand this is a

financial hardship. How long are you estimating the family will live at this property?

Ebertz: I don’t see them going anywhere for at least a year since it is a low-income

building.

Moermond: what I can do is make this payable over time so there is less of a bite

associated with it. Ultimately the property owner is responsible for it. If its payable over

time perhaps they can pay the property owner over time to make it more feasible. I am

very sympathetic but at the same time I can’t look at my sympathies because the City

already paid the bill. The Council may see it differently than me. This is kind of

between the landlord and tenant in this case.

Ebertz: they already paid the building $700. It seemed like an excessive amount of

windows broken. They already paid it even though I told them not too. I’m asking the

City to reduce the charges given the fact this is a real hardship for them. They have no

extra funds whatsoever. I don’t really see the landlord working with them. Given the

situation with the new arrival and learning the language and how to use the stove. We’re

back to forgiveness. The bill is paid to the landlord I’d like to see some of that money

back. They took their food money and paid it. I was hoping for some flexibility from the

Silver City of Saint Paul.

Moermond: it isn’t like I’m pulling this number of a hat. It is a bill paid to a contractor

to show up on an emergency basis. I’m struggling with that. I hate to be callous, but I

can’t as a matter of law, consider income as part of this. The Council may look at it

differently. At this point I’m going to say I can’t recommend it be decreased or deleted.

It is awkward when the money has already gone out the door. The landlord has the

money, not necessarily the City.

Ebertz: the family was gone for like an hour and a half. Can something be done about

the service charge? Eight windows were broken which seemed excessive. The door is

logical. It seemed excessive and there wasn’t a fire, it was smoke.

Moermond: I’m going to have to say no. The service charge is connected to the cost of

processing. The bulk of the boarding is being called out an emergency basis. It is

instant and there’s a premium for that.

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

RLH TA 24-406

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 916

UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST (918 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST).

(File No. J2501C, Assessment No. 252000)

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 3, 2024 via phone between 9 and 11 am for further

discussion.

Grace Vo, rep o/b/o deceased owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: looks like we have a demo assessment here. [Moermond gives

background of appeals process]

You are the rep for Tam Vo’s estate?

Vo: correct.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is for the demolition and removal on an

emergency basis of a severely fire damaged building. The first cost is bringing the

building to the ground, second cost is debris removal and site restoration. Total

assessment of $91,952.

Vo: this belonged to my father who passed away June 2023. I was taking care of his

property for a couple of months before the fire. After my dad passed the building

belongs to my mother, she used to take care of it with my Dad. She suffered from a

stroke in September 2020 and this affected her speech and memory so she can’t work

anymore. No income coming in. This building was going to be retirement for her. With

the fire damage, $92,000 is a significant cost. Shortly after the fire I learned my dad

wasn’t making insurance payments. We have a lot of costs to pay up front, taxes and

demolition. My dad was also behind in utilities. Between water and electricity its

$20,000 he was behind. So, to come up with this money will be difficult for my mother.

I did speak with our lawyer who is helping us and he would like to request an itemized

bill for the demo.

Moermond: no problem, we can email that out to you. What is your ask today?

Vo: nothing really aside from that bill my lawyer wanted.

Moermond: let’s talk again so I have a recommendation for you. He should have a

chance to review over the next month, and we’ll chat again December 3 and I’ll lock in

that recommendation.

Yannarelly: is she aware the taxes stay with the property not the individual?

Vo: yes.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/3/2024

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 24-346

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 443

JOHNSON PARKWAY. (File No. J2501E, Assessment No. 258300)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Ed Brazman, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we talked a month ago and we were going to have a Supervisor go out and

check the property line relative to the photos from the cleanup in March. Mr.

Kedrowski, on the line, was out there with Supervisor Martin.

Staff report by Supervisor Kedrowski: the conclusion is the items were on his property.

Brazman: the garbage that’s back there is not ours and was there when we bought the

house. I can’t argue a property line. That’s really I can add. The Bagster and wheelchair

lift are ours, but the debris on the side of the garage is not.

Moermond: it is your property though. We’re all held accountable for maintaining our

property. That’s the rub for me. I can’t say the property tax payers at large are

responsible for picking up the tab for cleaning up next to your garage. Maybe you want

to add something?

Brazman: realistically, it is inarguable then. It is the property line, regardless of it not

being ours. I’d just ask for 30 days.

Moermond: this doesn’t go in front of Council until January 8, 2025 and after that if it is

ratified they will mail out an invoice. And if the invoice isn’t paid it will show up on your

2026 property taxes. So, you have time to pay.

Brazman: then I guess my request would be, this is for $135? Thereabouts?

Moermond: total assessment of $169.

Brazman: I would ask for that fee to be removed for the simple fact that when it was

issued I took this up the neighborhood inspector and didn’t know the property line. Is it

possible to lift that fee, and in the time you specified it will all be removed?

Moermond: I don’t know what you mean by “it will all be removed”?

Brazman: the garbage on the side of garage.

Moermond: it isn’t gone yet?

Brazman: correct.

Moermond: I thought you were asking how much time you had to pay the bill, not to

clean it up.

Brazman: no, ma’am.

Moermond: the Department can continue writing you bills for it not being cleaned up

now that we have squared away it is definitely your property. Do we know know—is

there more than one bill out there?

Mai Vang: no, just this one.

Brazman: I guess that’s my question, now we’ve established the property line and

you’ve established that I have time to get it gone and remove it.

Moermond: no, we established the bill was payable over time. I didn’t understand you

were asking about removing the items. The deadline for that would have come and

gone. Quite a long time ago.

Brazman: again, is it possible to lift that $169 and I’ll get it gone and you can revisit in

2 weeks with an inspector going by.

Moermond: I actually can’t. This is something come and gone. I only have 10 days, two

weeks max, to hear an appeal on an order. This went out in February originally. Mr.

Kedrowski?

Kedrowski: knowing it hasn’t been removed we would be reinspecting and assessing

further fees for noncompliance.

Moermond: I think we’re talking at cross purposes. Mr. Brazman I see in the file that

you had things cleaned up by March 26. Now we have different items, but the original

orders were taken care of. No current orders, even though things are at back. So, a

word to the wise to get to it before orders are issued.

Brazman: this I understand. That’s all well and good. My request is to remove the $169

and not have that hanging over my head, and I’ll remove the things back there.

Moermond: I’m not willing to make that recommendation. We have a history of other

orders to clean up on the property. What we’d be talking about it terms of deletion, at

best I’d look at no same or similar, but that’s for someone with a clean record. This did

happen again, even since March. I’m saying no, the Council may look at it differently.

I’m recommending approval. January 8 is the Council Public Hearing.

Brazman: you’re looking at a record of complaints and whether or not they were

legitimate? Because the City made a mistake of hauling away a Bagster when the

original complaint was for a completely different Bagster. I spoke with the City about

this, and it was found they didn’t charge me for it realizing from the photos they were

two different Bagsters. People are penalizing us for cleaning up our yard. I don’t think

that premise is necessarily “fair” when looking at this incident. We were waiting for the

establishment of a property line. I’m not going to remove garbage that isn’t mine.

Moermond: while I appreciate that argument, I’m going to say no, you didn’t appeal the

original order because it was objected that it was on your property. I have five

instances in 2022 and 2023 where there were orders written on your property. Four of

them are beyond what was there. Those are basic things, and we still have another

instance since March. I cannot look at this and be lenient. I think this is exactly why

there are Excessive Consumption fees for Code Enforcement services. Again, the

Council could look at it differently.

Brazman: you know we pay property taxes right?

Moermond: so do I, and my job isn’t paying taxes for extra inspections for your property

either.

Brazman: so, a problematic neighbor—

Moermond: no, you have a bad property.

Brazman: we’ve been trying to get this turned around as a harassment charge and no

one is willing to collect information as we’ve been pinpointed by an unknown neighbor

and we’re being penalized for some record I find farcical at best. We don’t run a junk

yard. There’s nothing going on that is above and beyond and there are plenty of other

people that have refrigerators in the alley for months and yet we’re here talking about

trivial garbage that isn’t the end of the world. Yeah I understand salaries cost money

but uh, it seems a bit excessive despite a “record’. This is a bit of an overstep.

Moermond: I don’t think we’re going to make progress on this. You are welcome to

testify at the Council Public Hearing January 8.

Brazman: I’ll be there.

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

RLH TA 24-431

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1177

ALBEMARLE STREET. (File No. J2503E, Assessment No. 258302)

Kim

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: this is a deletion, the inspector said it was issued because David Smith

said to the property owner he would delete the Excessive Consumption fee and it didn’t

happen. There’s an email in the record saying he made a mistake and forgot to delete

it. Recommend deletion.

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

RLH TA 24-420

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 515

BEAUMONT STREET. (File No. J2503E, Assessment No. 258302)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: this is one with an ongoing issue. The neighbor putting their cans in front

of this house, he’s getting written on their cans, and his pickup is around the corner. A

weird situation, so recommend deletion again.

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

RLH TA 24-387

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 869

CLARK STREET. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)

Kim

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 3, 2024 at 19 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 11:05 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about appealed special assessments for 869 and 875 Clark. We’ll try you back in

10 to 15 minutes.

Voicemail left at 11:15 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

again about the appealed assessments for 869 and 875 Clark. We’ll reschedule your

hearing, trying one more time, December 3.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/3/2024

RLH TA 24-388

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 875

CLARK STREET. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)

Kim

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 3, 2024 at 19 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 11:05 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about appealed special assessments for 869 and 875 Clark. We’ll try you back in

10 to 15 minutes.

Voicemail left at 11:15 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

again about the appealed assessments for 869 and 875 Clark. We’ll reschedule your

hearing, trying one more time, December 3.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/3/2024

Special Tax Assessments-ROLLS

RLH AR

24-100

Ratifying the assessment for Collection of Vacant Building Registration

fees billed during November 8, 2023 to May 20, 2024. (File No. VB2503,

Assessment No. 258802)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

RLH AR

24-101

Ratifying the assessment for Securing and/or Emergency Boarding

services during June 2024. (File No. J2503B, Assessment No. 258102)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

RLH AR

24-102

Ratifying the assessment for Collection of Fire Certificate of Occupancy

fees billed during May 27 to June 24, 2024. (File No. CRT2503,

Assessment No. 258202)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

RLH AR

24-103

Ratifying the assessment for Excessive Use of Inspection or Abatement

services billed during April 22 to May 21, 2024. (File No. J2503E,

Assessment No. 258302)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

RLH AR

24-104

Ratifying the assessment for Graffiti Removal services during June 18 to

28, 2024. (File No. J2503P, Assessment No. 258402)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH SAO 24-67

Making finding on the appealed of Michael E. Corcoran to a nuisance

abatement ordered for 1478 AMES AVENUE in Council File RLH SAO

24-51.

Yang

Sponsors:

Layover to LH November 12, 2024 at 11 am for inspector update.

Moermond: we don’t have a current inspection for this property so we’ll lay this over to

November 12 so the inspector can go out and see if one-third of the items have been

abated.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 11/12/2024

RLH SAO 24-70

Making finding on the appealed of Edward Albrecht to a nuisance

abatement ordered for 1529 GRANTHAM STREET in Council File RLH

SAO 24-52.

Jalali

Sponsors:

The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved.

Moermond: nuisance is abated and the matter resolved.

Referred to the City Council due back on 11/13/2024

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR

24-67

Appeal of Shai Leibovich, BP Homes 1 LLC, and Carolyn Brown,

Community Stabilization Project, to a Vacant Building Registration

Renewal Notice at 494 EDMUND AVENUE.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Deny the appeal noting that CC certificate was issued 11/6/24.

Voicemail left at 1:10 for Carolyn Brown: Good afternoon Carolyn, this is Marcia

Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you about 494 Edmund and 1271 Marion.

Edmund you got your Code Compliance certificate today, so no fee there. We’ll try

Shai to discuss 1271 Marion.

Referred to the City Council due back on 11/20/2024

RLH VBR

24-66

Appeal of Shai Leibovich, BPH 3 LLC, and Carolyn Brown, Community

Stabilization Project, to a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning

Letter at 1271 MARION STREET.

Kim

Sponsors:

Grant a 90 day waiver (to January 5, 2025) and allow permits to be pulled.

Shai Leibovich, BPH Homes, appeared via phone

Moermond: speaking to Mr. Dornfeld, he didn’t see an issue from the Department’s

perspective in giving a 90-day waiver, which would take you to January 5, 2025.

Shai: that sounds great. We should be done.

Referred to the City Council due back on 11/20/2024

3:00 p.m. Hearings

Water Bill Appeals

RLH WB 24-1

Appeal of Tom Ryan to a Water Service Bill at 1369 WINDY RIDGE

PLACE.