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 9, 2025

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

First Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for 947

FREMONT AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 25-10. (December 9, 2025

Legislative Hearing)

RLH RR 25-34

Johnson

Sponsors:

Continue original $5,000 PD and grant additional 120 days to rehab.

Voicemail for Jay Mitchell left at 9:33 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council calling you about 947 Fremont and it looks like we have everything except that

Performance Deposit posted. Get back to us with what is going on with that. We need

to hear from you soon.

Referred to the City Council due back on 12/10/2025

Remove/Repair Orders

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 810

RLH RR 25-33

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST within fifteen (15) days after the January 7, 2026,

City Council Public Hearing.

Yang

Sponsors:

Recommendation forthcoming.

Adam Niblick, attorney o/b/o CVS, appeared

Dan Goldin, Stanford Federal Credit Union, appeared via phone

John Huegel, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we’re following up on our last hearing. Since Mr. Niblick is actually in the

room we’ll have him speak first.

Niblick: it is a new tenant under a lease, not an actual sale. Things have progressed

nicely since the last hearing. Owner and new tenant have finalized the terms of the

lease. CVS and property owner are in the final terms of the lease termination, which will

include terms of CVS demolishing it, however the terms of the CVS lease termination

will not become effective until the terms of the new lease with the new tenant become

effective. Being able to properly sequence and coordinate the necessary actions of the

parties under both the lease termination and the new lease, which includes CVS’s

obligation to demolish the structure, is important for successful transition of the

property. For this reason, we are requesting a bit more time and deadline to raze the

existing structure and any orders from the City be no less than 120 days from the

January 7 Council Public Hearing. CVS is committed to continuing its increased

property maintenance and surveillance services until the structure is properly razed.

Moermond: what I feel like I’m missing is what provisions in that transaction make that

wait necessary, Mr. Heugel?

Huegel: the McDonald’s transaction, we have signed a lease. They’re ready to go. I

can’t see where CVS needs so much time to remove the building other than it being

winter, I suppose. It has to come down one way or the other. I think it would be to their

benefit to tear down what is there. That’s where I’m at. As soon as they tear it down

McDonald’s can start, which they want to do as soon as possible.

Moermond: can you explain more about what the provisions are that make you think it

can be handled more quickly rather than slowly?

Huegel,: I don’t know how the City’s permit process and how fast it goes, but my

understanding is it does take some time. I thought the City was really wanting to get

the building down. McDonald’s can’t do anything until it is gone. Right now the ball is in

CVS’s court.

Moermond: are you involved in this contract arrangement with McDonald’s and CVS?

How does that look for you.

Huegel,: CVS and McDonald’s aren’t involved in a contract, but I am in one with CVS

and they were supposed to maintain the property which I’m sure you understand—

Moermond: and I am sure you heard my response last time that you are the owner so

you don’t get off the hook that easy, sir.

Huegel,: as I told you last time I knew it was in bad repair and sent photos to CVS and

nothing happened. They were responsible for the building. In order for me to do

anything with the land I need them to terminate the lease and tear down the building

they were supposed to maintain.

Moermond: again, you are saying they were to do it but you had legal obligation to do it

as well and I would be shocked if there weren’t provisions in your contract with CVS

that it was to be maintained in a particular way and legal remedies therein. You can

say it but I won’t believe it. What about your situation with McDonalds?

Huegel,: I’ve signed a contract with McDonald’s.

Moermond: what are the timing provisions?

Huegel: I can’t remember off the top of my head. I could send it to you after reviewing

the lease. They want to go at it as soon as they can. They need the building down to

do that. They’re ready to go as soon as they get permits.

Niblick: the new lease between McDonald’s and the landowner isn’t something CVS

has seen since we aren’t a party to that contract. We are receiving updates from

McDonald’s and the landowner. We are in alignment and would like to sign the lease

termination and get the building down ASAP, we just aren’t privy to the discussion with

McDonald’s and the landowner. We believe there were additional action that needed to

be taken before that could be finalized and our lease termination be effective. If what

we are hearing today is that isn’t the case, we would gladly get a lease termination

executed that has an obligation for us to demolish the property and carry that out.

Moermond: what do you need to come to that conclusion? You need to know deadlines

of that contract?

Niblick: all I’d really need is to get Mr. Heugel’s signature on the lease termination that

has those provisions in it, to terminate the lease and remove the building.

Huegel: we also need some dates in there. But yes, it is something that needs to be

worked out, but I’m sure we can put some provisions in and get the building down right

away and these other things worked out. The building is just destroyed. I think I can

work with CVS to start their demolition.

Moermond: how much time will that arrangement take to make?

Niblick: I leave that in Mr. Heugel’s hands. We’re ready to execute now, but I also don’t

want to over promise and under deliver. We are in however in contact with McDonald’s

real estate department so there’s a seamless transition from demolition, pulling

permits, and building going up, but we aren’t privy to the detailed terms.

Moermond: understandable, but yet we want a delay due to terms that are invisible. I’m

hoping in the next couple weeks you two can come to some sort of understanding so

we have clarity on timing and based on that I can develop a recommendation to

Council moving forward. The Council Public Hearing January 7th. Mr. Heugel, are you

represented in this type of transaction?

Huegel: no, I’m not.

Moermond: so McDonald’s is providing the documents and you are signing them

without an attorney?

Huegel: no, I did have an attorney from St. Paul review them. I’m just a little guy; I’m

not Donald Trump believe me.

Moermond: I’m not sure that being a little guy means you can’t have an attorney Mr.

Niblick could work with the expedite this. Are they still representing you for this piece

of land?

Huegel: he was just doing the McDonald’s lease for me. After that I terminated that. I

suppose I could contract him again.

Moermond: I think there’s a lot of money on the line and municipal interest on the line

and paying an attorney right now makes sense to make your life easier. If I were in Mr.

Niblick’s shoes and forced to do something I thought was your fault, that’s not great for

you either, even if you are right. Paying an attorney now to work through it ahead of

time is penny-wise.

Huegel: I don’t work with Mr. Niblick. There’s another guy from CVS who I’ve been

working with and he works with Mr. Niblick.

Niblick: I believe he’s referencing CVS’s in-house Council who I am in contact with

regularly. I work with them since I’m boots on the ground and local and CVS’s in-house

counsel isn’t. I would love to be able to come into the January 7th meeting say it will all

be done before the City’s deadline to raze, but we are only one party to this lease

termination agreement and I can’t commit to an executed agreement until both parties

are signed off. I’ll make sure we’re in contact with Mr. Heugel and ironing out these

details and if Mr. Heugel is representing we can get it done in that time period I believe

CVS is also going to be very excited to get it done within that period. My only hesitation

is I don’t want to over promise and under deliver and be back in front of Council and

have it look like we didn’t do what we promised to do. Things always take longer than

everyone anticipates.

Goldin: Mr. Niblick I want to point out we’ve executed a Subordination,

Non-Disturbance, and Attornment Agreement (SNDA) with CVS. I want to point out any

termination of the lease would require lender approval. I believe you have my contact

information. I believe that SNDA is in force and agreement between SFCU and CVS

as tenant and the Heugel’s as landlords.

Moermond: I’m thinking certainly CVS’s in-house Council is aware of that.

Goldin: we aren’t represented by Counsel at this time.

Moermond: I need specific reasons why there needs to be a delay from CVS if an

agreement can’t be reached and how that demolition timeline affects CVS and why.

Niblick: the principle reason is the timeline and manner of demolition would be

controlled by either McDonald’s, the landowner, or CVS, and we are trying to sequence

and coordinate these efforts and we don’t want an undefined period of demolition—I

know it is 15 days for the property owner to have—but it is a big process that doesn’t

happen overnight. City hires vendors, lots of work and assessments against the

property and creates a whole lot of issues relating to the real property itself and we

don’t want that to interfere with a smooth transition otherwise. I know that there are a

lot of moving pieces, but it is typical for a situation like this, and I know things typically

take just a little bit longer than everyone believes, which is why we’re asking for more

time. We want to make sure it is a smooth transition and no deals blow up because of

a delay or because the City is in control of the demolition, or a City vendor does

something we don’t have recourse against that would delay us being to effectuate the

termination and McDonald’s being able to effectuate their lease.

Moermond: if you gentleman could get back to me by the new year so I can look at

something January 2nd, that would be really helpful for me to do before the Council

Public Hearing January 7th. Then I have something to consider in writing. No question

it is an order removal and now we’re working around the edges.

Hoffman: and it needs to be shoveled. It is bad. And will need to happen today.

Tomorrow. Probably again later this week.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/7/2026

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 52

ELIZABETH STREET EAST within fifteen (15) days after the January 14,

2026, City Council Public Hearing.

RLH RR 25-35

Noecker

Sponsors:

Remove within 15 days with no option to repair.

No one appeared

Moermond: no one has reached out to our office to indicate they want to participate,

and the certified mail was sent to the owner at the address of record with Ramsey

County and we have returned mail.

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman:

The building is a one story, wood frame, single-family dwelling with a detached two-stall

garage on a lot of 4,945 square feet. The property was condemned on February 7,

2025 due to a fire and was referred to Vacant Buildings with files opened on February

10, 2025.

The current property owner is Lane J Rapp Jr, per AMANDA and Ramsey County

Property records. On October 1, 2025, an inspection of the building was conducted, a

list of deficiencies which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and

photographs were taken. An Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was posted on

October 8, 2025, with a compliance date of November 7, 2025. As of this date, the

property remains in a condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the

legislative code. Taxation has placed an estimated market value of $20,500 on the

land and $235.00 on the building.

Real estate taxes for 2023, 2024, and 2025 are delinquent in the amount of

$11,405.29, which includes penalty and interest. The property is scheduled for tax

forfeiture on July 31, 2026. The vacant building registration fees were paid by

assessment on April 2, 2025.

As of December 8, 2025, a Code Compliance Inspection has not been done. As of

December 8, 2025, the $5,000 performance deposit has not been posted. There has

been a minimum of two Summary Abatement notices since 2025. There have been

five work orders issued for: Garbage/rubbish, Boarding/securing andTall grass/weeds.

Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this structure exceeds

$100,000. The estimated cost to demolish exceeds $30,000.

Moermond: staff found no obituary. One fire February 7 and that was significant

meaning it needed holes in roof and floors and a second fire February 14th, it looks

like a squatter situation. The house was reported to have heavy content.

Hoffman: based off of the conversations I’ve had with Mr. Dornfeld, the owner was the

one who started several fires in the building on different occasions. I believe more than

twice, but I don’t have that documentation.

Moermond: so he clearly has some issues. Two Summary Abatement Orders since

2025 and we simply don’t know the situation prior to that because none of that is

accessible.

Hoffman: correct.

Moermond: so that’s problematic in determining the extent of the nuisance. I’ll

recommend the Council order it removed within 15 days with no option for its

rehabilitation.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/14/2026

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments-Garbage

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 715 HOPE

STREET (File No. CG25Q2B4, Assessment No. 250121)

RLH TA 25-470

Johnson

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: staff is recommending deletion and it sounded like that was because she

was ill and passed away?

Barden: yes.

Moermond: we can’t delete assessments for that. But it does appear there was the cart

situation with the previous hauler and wasn’t shared and given to the City correctly,

because of that we can delete it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 12/17/2025

Special Tax Assessments-Regular

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 586

BURGESS STREET. (File No. VB2513, Assessment No. 25889) (Refer to

December 9, 2025 Legislative Hearing)

RLH TA 25-392

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 13th, 2026 at 10 am.

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

about Vacant Building fee for 586 Burgess St. Wondering if we can talk to Mr. Tom

Novak. We’ll try back in a few minutes and if unsuccessful we’ll call you back.

Tried calling again at 9:59 am: no Voicemail left.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/13/2026

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1171

MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2601B, Assessment No. 268100)

RLH TA 25-412

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH January 13, 2026 at 10 am (CPH January 14).

Voicemail left at 9:57 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about 1171 Minnehaha Avenue East. We really need a number to reach you during

the hearing time, we can’t really have you calling us. This is for a boarding May 21st.

We’ll look at this again January 13th and talk to you then.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/14/2026

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

Appeal of Deborah Ruberto to a Summary Abatement Order and Vehicle

Abatement Order at 235 BATES AVENUE.

RLH SAO 25-62

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 16, 2025 at 11 am. Staff to discuss parcel with CAO.

Voicemail at 10:31 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you

about the order on the property on Bates. We’ll reach out to Mr. Owens as well. We

don’t have all the info we need on this, but we do have some. Your hearing isn’t until 11

and we thought we’d try and catch you.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/16/2025

Appeal of Emmett J. Owens, Jr. to a Summary Abatement Order and Vehicle

Abatement Order at 239 BATES AVENUE.

RLH SAO 25-60

Johnson

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 16, 2025 at 11 am. Staff to discuss parcel with CAO.

Emmett Owens, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: I’m calling about your orders for your property. I’ve looked at the map on

this one to try and figure out who is responsible for each piece and it looks like you

and Deborah described it that the only part you own on the parcel are the

building/units. But it doesn’t tell us who is responsible for the rest of the parcel. That

typically means everyone is equally responsible, but I’d like to talk to the City Attorney

about that more. Orders went to everyone including Bruce, so we want to make sure he

is aware and working with you. Have you spoken to him?

Owens: he refuses to talk to us. His tenant is partly responsible. It is a ball of

confusion over here. I own my 3 units and pay my property taxes. I’m trying to comply. I

don’t know how he runs his stuff. He isn’t a liked guy at all.

Moermond: how is the cleaning going. Are you on deadline? We did some extensions

last time we spoke.

Owens: it looks fine, it is going ok.

Moermond: I’m going to consult with the City Attorney’s office about this shared space.

From everything I know all 5 properties are responsible for the shared space, but I’d

like to get confirmation of that. Someone has to be responsible. We’ll talk to you next

week.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/16/2025

Correction Orders

Appeal of Lita Fierro to a Revised Correction Order and Summary Abatement

Order at 927 DESOTO STREET.

RLH CO 25-15

Kim

Sponsors:

Grant to December 22, 2025 at 10 am for compliance with items: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,

16 and 17; grant to June 22, 2026 for balance of the October 13, 2025 orders (items

6,8,11,12,13, 14 and 15). Grant to December 22, 2025 for compliance with the SAO.

Lita Fierro, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we haven’t seen anything on deadline work plans that you were supposed to

do.

Fierro: I just got the papers yesterday. Me and my sister opened it last night. I called a

lot of people about windows. They came out. I did that like four times. The cheapest

was Window Nation. They did a deal for us, for $19,000. Everyone else was like

$35,000.

Moermond: here’s the thing, the windows are one thing. I’m willing to push that into the

future but there were some things that gave me concern that will cost little to no

money. I will also say you may not have got the letter until yesterday but you’ve had

the orders for a while and also were on the line last week hearing the same thing. The

letter was simply confirmation of what we talked about. Where are you at with the

garbage in the back yard?

Fierro: that’s gone, they did it the same day.

Moermond: because we don’t have deadlines from you we need to give you some. I’d

like to walk through this and we will send a letter as we have been. We’ve also been

emailing these things to Tasha too. I think a bunch of it can be done by December 22.

Then we can push the rest to June 22nd, 2026.

Martin: October 13th orders. These are revised from a July 10, 2024 order. December

22, 10 am: #1, access, #2 extension cords, #3 exterior sanitation rechecked, #4

extermination, #5 interior sanitation, #7 mechanical clearance, #9 combustible

materials (removing lawn mowers from enclosed porch),

Fierro: it is batter, not gas. They said we can keep it there. The battery isn’t stored in

the machine.

Martin: #10, electric cover plates, #16 smoke detectors, then June 22 for balance of

the orders.

Moermond: so all the expensive things are pushed out. The extermination is the most

expensive thing on the short-term deadline.

Fierro: you will send me the list?

Moermond: of course. Again, these are the cheap or no cost items.

Referred to the City Council due back on 12/17/2025

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations, including Fire Vacate Order

Appeal of Eng Tat Ng to a Registered Vacant Building placard plus Notice of

RLH VBR 25-32

Condemnation-Unfit for Human Habitation-Order to Vacate at 1032

MAGNOLIA AVENUE EAST.

Yang

Sponsors:

Deny the appeal and waive the VB fee for 90 days (to February 25, 2026), make

property a Cat 1 VB and allow permits to be pulled. Once waiver period expires property

will become a Cat 2 VB and require a CCIR.

Eng Tat Ng, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Keith Demarest: we had contact at this property starting in

October. This is a single-family home that does have a fire Certificate of Occupancy.

We responded to several referrals to this property. October 30th 2925 a referral was

sent about an extension cord was being run across the street of Magnolia from 1035 to

1032 Magnolia. Another complaint November 10th stating multiple power cords running

from 1032 across the street to 1035 Magnolia. November 13 a referral was sent stating

a generator was being used to power home in lieu of electricity. November 18th a

referral was sent again stating a generator was being used to power the house.

November 20th Inspector Daryl Chute did an inspection of the property. Those orders

are attached to the appeal. During that inspection done he noted the property be

condemned due to no electrical service, no heat, and no smoke alarms present. Three

additional pages of violations were also noted during the inspection. November 25th

the property was placarded as a Vacant Building and at that time Inspector Chute

drove by and found a generator running again. As of this morning, December 9, 2025, I

contacted Xcel at 8 this am and they said electrical power is still off and the owner

“needs to update the meter socket.”

Largest issues are: condemnation due to no heat, no electric, no smoke alarms. Oven

being used to warm property. Extension cords running from generator in garage to

dwelling.

Moermond: can you expand, Xcel did the disconnect why?

Demarest: I don’t have the exact date of when the power was turned off. When I called

Xcel this morning, which is normal practice to call them to see if anything changed.

They confirmed power is still off and the owner needs to update the meter socket. No

other verbiage from them other than that.

Moermond: this is not at all a financial issue with paying bills, it is simply mechanical

issue.

Demarest: I didn’t ask.

Moermond: but there’s the physical issue regardless. Got it.

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened as a Category 2 from a Fire

Certificate of Occupancy referral on November 25, 2025. At the moment inspector

Gavin has it as being vacant and boarded.

Moermond: did you find it to be vacant at time of inspection?

Demarest: that’s my understanding. The property owner was with Inspector Chute on

the 20th and it was vacant, with possibly a squatter breaking in.

Ng: my tenant was to pay the electric bill, but they didn’t pay. When they came to do

the shut off they had a bill of over $10,000. The tenant is with MHR sponsored by

Section 8, so I get the rent. There were multiple attempts by the tenant’s friend to

reconnect the electric. Xcel won’t turn it back on for them. I changed it back into my

name and they want to make sure no one is living there and the previous tenant was

out. They wanted proof of my ownership, which I sent them. They called me and said

they can’t reconnect the meter for me as a protection, they want to me have the

electrical socket upgrade to heavy level box, second they want me to move the meter

from the basement to the outside of the building. I have electrician that came by to

look and due to the holiday I have to try and do it quick, they said it will cost $6,000 to

upgrade everything. I’m not ready for that large amount of money. The inspector can

see the meter wasn’t tampered with. He told me the reason they took the wire and ran

it across the street, they were trying to listen to a boom box and watch tv. It wasn’t

connected to the whole house. Now Xcel is trying to play tough with me. That’s the

main thing.

I talked to the Xcel supervisor yesterday and telling them they shouldn’t be asking me

to upgrade. My meter wasn’t even damaged. Then do the upgrade at a later date. They

said it is a protection because of the bill. They were going to call them again today.

You can check with them it is in my name now. I’ll talk to them again about it and turn

it back on. The whole condemnation is because of no electric. The furnace works

there’s just no electric. The tenant did turn on the gas heat in the oven. I turned that

off. I also winterized the property, told SPRWS.

Moermond: what kind of furnace do you have?

Ng: gas. I got a permit through Paulie, and I contacted Mr. Humphrey to prevent this

Vacant Building to proceed. I called him 3 times and haven’t got a call back. I

proactively tried to get things moving along. I’ve been out there every day shoveling and

taking care of things every day since the condemnation.

Demarest: a permit was applied for November 26 for residential repair, issued

December 3. Notes on the permit state repair loose siding, patching holes in exterior,

repair broken window glass, roofing repair, no alteration of structure so no plan

required.

Moermond: no electrical permit yet.

Ng: one electrician gave me $6,000 estimate and another was $5,000. He’s coming out

Thursday. I’m trying to get the electric back on, but at the same time if something

needs to be done like that upgrade I can’t do it right away. It is a long process with

Xcel. Once the permit is closed, I have to go to the Xcel committee, and then they

send it to the State.

Moermond: I’m hearing you say that you had a tenant with mental health issues, and

you received the rent checks and didn’t really visit. I hear Mr. Demarest saying there’s

a compromised electrical system. I hear you say not only are cords running from house

to house, they’re running across a street with cars driving over them. I hear Xcel wants

to treats this as a case that is high risk for tampering. I wasn’t hearing them say it was

tampered with for sure, but the steps they want to take is to lock the system down to

prevent that. I don’t know if the meter box was tampered with inside the home in a way

not evident. The tone of Xcel’s comments makes me think if it hasn’t happened it is a

high concern for them. That’s why they want those measures taken, I think. Normally

your equipment would be grandfathered in unless something is hazardous. The impact

of the condemnation being in place means you don’t have rent coming in currently. The

next question is when can you rent it again? Obviously you have to have basic

services: water, heat, electric. Because you don’t have those things the Vacant

Building program comes into play. The house is empty; no one is living there. That is a

straight shot from condemned into the Vacant Building program per City law. That is

because of the Vacant Building program definition: 1 being major code violations and 2

it is condemned. There are 7 total but both of those send it to Vacant Buildings and

make it a Category 2 Vacant Building. That translates to this inspection list not being

the punch list of things you need to do; it means you have to have a Code Compliance

Inspection Report.

The Code Compliance Inspection Report itself isn’t cheap. There’s also the Vacant

Building fee associated with the program. That’s $1,600. So that’s $2,500 out of the

gate. So $6,000 is looking pretty good. I hear you say you want to focus on getting the

utilities back on safety and get it reoccupied. You have a permit pulled for basic repair

work, that speak swell.

Ng: there was a generator in the garage and it was actually a squatter, a friend of my

tenant, he tried to use the garage to repair a car. Originally he had a power cord

running from the house to the garage. It wasn’t powering garage to house. I took all the

wires out when Inspector Chute was out. When the house didn’t have power they

brought a generator to warm the garage.

A car caught on fire before the condemnation. They were doing repairs. They were only

heating the garage, not trying to power the whole house.

Moermond: you are describing a situation that continues to get worse from a Code

perspective. Squatters in the garage I have two concerns: 1) are they living there, and

2) we have a generator running in a garage with the doors closed. That’s a significant

concern. Running a business out of a garage is also not ok. The final thing is that at a

deeper level you don’t have control of the property. That’s problematic in terms of

moving forward and I need to be more conservative in my approach to your appeal.

Mr. Demarest, is this a full Certificate of Occupancy inspection on November 21, or is

it complaint based?

Demarest: they did a full inspection.

Ng: things move very fast. My tenant has breathing problems so when things shut off

he can’t be there, when I discovered the squatter was using the electric I took out all

the wires from house to garage and the next day the friends came and took the

generator and gas tank away. Chris Doree came by and saw it was gone. I asked

Chute to put a condemnation sign on the garage as well. I didn’t want anyone in any

building. Nothing illegal is happening now.

Moermond: this blue car in the garage appears to have a very old tire on top of it, on

top of cardboard and its very dusty. It makes me think work hadn’t been done lately.

Ng: the guy was there for 2 weeks, he removed stuff from the garage, and planning to

do repairs but not doing it.

Moermond: that makes me suspicious they’re sleeping in there. I also see heavy

content in the orders, so that needs to be removed before an inspection by your folks

or a trades inspector.

Demarest: we would have condemned regardless due to the heavy content and heavy

fire load in the property.

Ng: I took the flower pot from the fan.

Moermond: I’m inclined to recommend a 90 day waiver which takes us to February 25.

That means if this is habitable again within 90 days, there will be no Vacant Building

fee. A $1,600 reward for moving quickly. You need to pull permits for the electrical

work.

Ng: they actually upgraded the meter about 6 months ago. Chute saw it wasn’t

tampered with.

Moermond: a new meter as of 6 months away doesn’t answer the question about

tampering. Often tampering will result in a new meter. It doesn’t really matter except it

speaks to managing tenants. Let’s have this be at Category 1 for 3 months, and allow

permits. If it isn’t done it will become a Category 2 Vacant Building and require a Code

Compliance Inspection.

Demarest: I will investigate. I can certainly write it down somewhere.

Ng: I appreciate the 90 days, but I just thought that time is critical in this case and

with the holidays things are moving slow, I’d appreciate if the 90 days started from

today.

Moermond: not happening. We always count it from the day it joined the program. Your

magic day is February 25th. You really want Fire to sign off on everything.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/7/2026

2:00 p.m. Hearings

Fire Certificates of Occupancy

Appeal of Aychoeun Tea to a Fire Inspection Report at 318 EDMUND

RLH FCO 25-75

AVENUE.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH December 12, 2025 at 2 pm (unable to reach PO).

Called # on appeal form at 2:15 pm: voicemail box full.

Called x2649 at 2:16 pm; this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about 318 Edmund. We couldn’t reach you on your other line. We’ll try you again in

a couple of minutes.

Called x2649 again at 2:19 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council

calling Aychoeun Tea and we’ll reschedule to next week. If we can’t reach you then my

recommendation is you deny the appeal.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/16/2025