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, January 21, 2025

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 25-15

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 910

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

Bowie

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Emma Swanson, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: June 14, 2024 a Summary Abatement Order

was issued to owner to cut and remove any overgrowth including trees including the

public right-of-way including alley and sidewalk. Compliance date of June 21.

Rechecked and work order sent. Total assessment of $624. No returned mail. There is

a history, a couple tall grass and weeds which were in compliance. One trip charge for

tall grass and weeds.

Moermond: four years ago.

Swanson: essentially I got that assessment and the picture, which appeared to be an

overhanging tree into the alley. I assume that’s an issue because of garbage. You can

kind of see in the photo I was provided; I can see it was an issue. The problem is the

tree isn’t on my property. Once I got that notification I trimmed the tree branches on

my property line, which I can do. But the branch that was cut down that I’m being

assessed for you can see it goes on the other side of the telephone pole. That’s my

neighbor’s property line. I would have had to go onto their property.

Moermond: is yours the kind of beige garage?

Swanson: no. My garage is white.

Moermond: this house appears to be beige with white trim in the photos and the garage

looks the same from the back.

Swanson: my house is kind of a beige color with blue trim. My neighbor’s is beige with

red trim. Their garage is beige. My garage is completely white.

Martin: I’m looking at mapping and it does appear to be on the neighboring property.

Moermond: that makes things easy. Cleanup happened on the neighboring property.

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

RLH TA 25-43

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 170

TENTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2505B, Assessment No. 258104)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Approve and make payable over 5 years.

Kristyanna Nguyen, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: St. Paul Police Department was contracted at

3:20 am after a burglar. The police report did say they tried to contact owner before the

boarding. It was boarded August 24, 2024 by the contractor for a total assessment of

$933.

Kristyanna Nguyen: I’m just calling to see if can be pardoned. This has happened once

in the past. It isn’t something we can prevent obviously. It is unfortunate it happened

twice in the same night. We’ve already paid $3500 out of pocket to replace both

windows. I’m asking for a pardon just this one time. We do have an alarm system, but

I didn’t receive a call that night. We only found out it happened when we came into

work in the morning. We have boarded it ourselves a few years ago when it happened

then.

Moermond: the police does say they tried to reach out to the keyholder of the

business. That would have been around 4 am.

Kristyanna Nguyen: we called the alarm system to update the information, apparently

the St. Paul Police Department didn’t have that. We did get that figured out.

Moermond: I’m struggling with why this wouldn’t be submitted as part of your insurance

claim.

Kristyanna Nguyen: our premium is outrageously high now. We just can’t afford to see

our premiums go up higher. It went up by 30% this last year just because of the

location. We’ve been in business 15 years in that location and rates have just kept

going up since Covid.

Moermond: this isn’t a lot, but I’m going to recommend approval but I can also make it

payable over 5 years so it would be very small bites and not a large expense at the

same time as replacing windows.

Kristyanna Nguyen: it could be helpful. But I know if it goes to taxes it is charged

interest.

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

RLH TA 25-19

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 269 FRY

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

Jalali

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

No one appeared

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Summary Abatement Order issued to remove

and cut all plant growth, date of orders May 9, 2024. Compliance date of May 17,

recheck May 24 and work was not done. Crew was sent and work done for a total

assessment of $451.50. No returned mail. No appeal filed. No history at the property.

Moermond: it looks like there was 2 months between when orders were written and

work was done?

Martin: yes.

Moermond: Mai, you reached out to the owner and suggested she send in a written

statement because she’s a teacher. If you could send a follow up email to her and

indicate I’m recommending approval because we lack any written statement. This goes

to Council February 19. I’m happy to revisit if she provides something.

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

RLH TA 25-21

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1311

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

Kim

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Delvin Mogire, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

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

overhanging vegetation including branches hanging over alley right-of-way to a height of

14 feet. Compliance date of June 17, rechecked June 17 and work was not done. Total

assessment of $537.75. Also to note, everyone in that block was written up for

overhanging vegetation in the alleyway.

Delvin Mogire: I was hoping it was possible to do a payment plan?

Moermond: we can definitely do that. I can recommend this is payable up to 5 years.

4-5% interest rate currently.

Delvin Mogire: I was also appealing because the photo I received in the mail it wasn’t

clear which tree needed to be cut down. I had a tree cut down around the same area.

Maybe the cutting down of the tree I did and paid for may not have been the tree that

was assessed.

Moermond: it looks to me looking at the photos a fair bit of work was done by the

contractor. I can’t tell looking at what I have which tree it would have been. There’s an

equal problem with undergrowth as there would have been with higher branches. It

does look overgrown in both photos in the Summary Abatement Order and in the

photos taken by the contractor who did the work three weeks later.

Delvin Mogire: the photo I originally got in the letter it was not clear in where the tree

was that needed to be cut. That’s what I’m saying. The photos three weeks later I have

not seen. When I was scheduling for this hearing the clerk mentioned there were other

pictures but she couldn’t share them with me. I had to have someone cut down the

tree, because it wasn’t clear I had to guess which one.

Moermond: they went along the entire back of your property and trimmed the

undergrowth; it wasn’t a single tree that was missed. It was cut from boundary to

boundary.

Delvin Mogire: it also mentioned they would mark which trees?

Moermond: no.

Delvin Mogire: they don’t? When I spoke with, I think his name was John, he

mentioned it should be marked. What you are saying it wasn’t a singular tree it was

uprooting the trees on the alley? Down the whole alley? It wasn’t a specific tree or

branch; it was the entire tree?

Moermond: to me the length of the back of your property there were shrubs and

undergrowth. Ms. Martin?

Martin: it was basically overhanging vegetation into the alley right-of-way. Alleys are to

be clear from edge to edge. When I look at 560 Wheelock and 1303 next door, both of

them DID comply. You were the one that did not comply and that’s why the work order

was for your property.

Moermond: you said you didn’t get these photos? It looks like there was an email to

you on December 19th, which included the contractor photos. Did you get that email?

Delvin Mogire: who would it have come from?

Moermond: Mai Vang.

Delvin Mogire: what is the email it went to?

Moermond: delvinnhorace23@gmail.com

Delvin Mogire: I didn’t see this email. I just found it. I’m looking at it now. Was I

responsible to clear out this entire area? Which one specifically was I to do?

Moermond: everything on your property that was growing over the right-of-way. That is

particularly so garbage trucks and other vehicles can make it through without being

impeded or scratched by overgrowth.

Delvin Mogire: not necessarily a tree. The small vegetation on the side? I was under

the impression it was a tree from the letter. I requested for clarification from John I

believe. That’s what he said. I guess I was misdirected. What other options do I have?

Just the payment plan?

Moermond: I can do that; you can also look to the Council to decrease it further if they

see fit. That is also an option for you.

Delvin Mogire: I would like to see if they could decrease it. That would help me

financially.

Moermond: we can send a follow up email with that information. It is also in the original

letter you received.

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

RLH TA 25-24

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 884

MOUND STREET. (File No. J2505E, Assessment No. 258304)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Tried calling 9:37 am: call dropped; unable to leave message.

Looking at 884 Mound, we reached out January 9, tried again today to discuss this

Excessive Consumption. We’ll do a quick Staff report.

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Summary Abatement Order issued June 17 to

remove and dispose of buckets and cardboard from the boulevard and property.

Compliance date of June 24. An Excessive Consumption fee was sent. No

compliance, work order sent. By the time the crew got there the work was done by the

owner, so this is a trip charge. Total assessment of $169.

Moermond: it seems to me lacking an argument about whether or not this should be

assessed, it is clear it should be. The work was ordered and not cleaned up by

deadline. Recommend approval.

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:

Approve the assessment.

Ari Washawsky, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

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

6, 2024 for overhanging vegetation in the alley. Compliance date of June 13,

rechecked June 13. It wasn’t done so the crew did the work on July 10th, 2024 for a

total assessment of $537.75. Brief history, May 2019 a correction notice and

overhanging vegetation, no action taken.

Washawsky: we didn’t own the house in 2019. Now I understand the full picture I

understand it is our responsibility. When I initially got the orders last summer, I got

them after June 13 and I remember being confused, it looked like just a photo of our

neighbor’s fence, which was confusing. It was already past the 13th so I thought it was

a mistake anyway and didn’t hear anything else. When I got the packet around

Thanksgiving with more photos it made more sense.

Moermond: I understand being confused, but I also don’t understand why you wouldn’t

call if confused.

Washawsky: that’s a fair point. All I remember is opening it past deadline. I thought it

was sent to the wrong place; I thought it was supposed to go to our neighbors. I

thought it was figured out; I should have followed up. The photo was of the neighbor’s

fence so I didn’t think about it again; I thought it was a mistake.

Moermond: I’m struggling because a crew did have to go to deal with this and also

affects garbage trucks going up and down the alley and affects costs that way. I am

thinking this is an approval because of that. I know the deadline was the 13th but it

continued to be there well after that. You didn’t call.

Washawsky: that’s fair. I understand, it is my fault for not taking more time to

understand the letter. The window was short but they took a whole month to get it done

obviously. I should have called.

Moermond: I do wish you a good rest of the day.

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

RLH TA 25-48

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1816

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

Jalali

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: 1816 Iglehart we don’t need to call. In preparing the file we noted there are

no contractor photos in the record. Staff notes are also a bit confusing, we switched

from one inspector who was leaving and another taking over. Notes don’t quite match

up. Recommend deletion.

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

RLH TA 25-41

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1204

SEVENTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2507R, Assessment No. 258512)

Yang

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $431 to $397.

Hamid Safdari, owner, appeared via phone

Safdari: it was a bad tenant. I was hoping you could give me a break, its tough in that

area. Once people see garbage other people come and dump. I’m not hands on there.

I am hoping you could give me a break.

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

8 to owners and occupants to remove and dispose of garbage and trash from alley and

property. Photos show overflowing trash. No call from owner, no appealed file. A long

history at the property. The total assessment is $431.

Moermond: you were just telling me you had bad tenants and bad property

management and you were leaving things to them and not checking yourself?

Safdari: yes. It is managed by property management, by the time I get it in the mail its

already 5 days old. They say they’re on top of it. They say it is done, but by the time I

found out they weren’t doing their job I let them go and hired someone else. I’m a small

landlord who doesn’t really get involved in the daily running of things. I have property

managers. That’s where I’m coming from.

Moermond: ultimately you are responsible for the property, it is fine the manage that

out but that is a private agreement. The City won’t subsidize a private arrangement

between you and them not doing the work. It is hard to justify taxpayer dollars are

spent to manage this situation. I’m glad you’ve fixed things moving forward. I’ll

recommend approval. Hopefully it is taken care of in the future. In reviewing the

photos, the contractor photos show there is a mattress observed and likely removed

but they didn’t take an after photo, so I can remove that mattress charge. That’s $35

down to $397.

Safdari: with taxes going up every year we really aren’t generating enough fees to cover

things like that. The City makes it tough on landlords to stay in business.

Moermond: while I sympathize but a simple cleanup would have resolved the entire

matter. I don’t think the taxpayers are responsible for cleaning up your property. If you

want to share those comments with Council that is the place to do so.

Safdari: if you could give me any more discount. The property manager didn’t do their

job, and once I found out I let them go.

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

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 24-523

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1721

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

Johnson

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: I’ve had a chance to review the photographs submitted by the owner and

talked to staff more deeply and it is not 100% clear from contractor photos if this was

the property associated with the white garage, hers, or blue garage, the neighbor’s.

She indicates it was the neighbor’s and it wasn’t clear from photos. I’ll recommend

deletion.

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

RLH TA 25-16

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 322

WINONA STREET WEST. (File No. J2507T, Assessment No. 258515)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Approve and make payable over 2 years.

Emily Lobitz, owner, appeared via phone

Lobitz: we have been taking care of the vegetation in the yard. We had to borrow a

lawnmower. I do want to appeal.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

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

28, 2024 to owner and occupant to remove and dispose of some trash bags and

contents, scrap wood, brush pile from around house, deck, and entire property, and

specifically to cut plant growth into alley to a height of 14 feet. Compliance date of July

10th. Work was not done, we did send a work order on August 9. Total assessment of

$566.50. No appeal filed. No call from owner. No returned mail. History at the property

going back to 2016. This was in the Certificate of Occupancy case, who sent it to our

department for follow up. It is now owner occupied. We have sent orders and not

received any feedback from the owner.

Moermond: the original order that went out included two things, both the garbage bags

and the overgrowth of vegetation. Was the vegetation was the only thing the contractor

took care of? Were the garbage bags gone?

Martin: yes, just the overgrowth around garage and alley which is very dilapidated.

Lobitz: I just started living here maybe two years ago. Going back to 2016 were some

other renters who lived here. I actually was not aware of the vegetation portion. I know

they talked about the trash which I removed immediately. I guess I just hadn’t taken

care of the overgrowth where the garden used to be. I’ve been trying to get things back

on track but money is an issue. I’m taking care of things best I can with the amount of

money I had.

Moermond: this doesn’t look like a garden area. It has some shrubs, vines, volunteer

trees growing at an angle into the alley. It is that they cut so trucks could get through.

Martin: yes, basically back by the garage around what could have been a driveway

area but it was so overgrown it was probably difficult to even park back there. The

garage is so dilapidated it is unusable. Those orders have been getting Excessive

Consumption fines, which will start again in the spring.

Moermond: the work being charged was for removing the trees and bushes growing

into the alley and causing issues for vehicles. That’s the only thing, no garbage picked

up?

Martin: yes, the garbage was all taken care of.

Moermond: I’m not sure if that’s what you were expecting Ms. Lobitz?

Lobitz: you’re saying you came and cut down bushes in the back?

Moermond: yes. You should have received an email December 30th from my office

from Mai Vang which included contractor photos.

Lobitz: what email did that get sent to?

Moermond: emilylobitz911@gmail.com

Lobitz: I wonder if it went to spam or something. I don’t recall getting that email.

Moermond: I don’t know. We can definitely resend that email out to you today.

Lobitz: yeah, that would be great.

Moermond: based on what I see from photos it does look like the contractor did take

care of it and it’s a legitimate charge. Financially what I can do is recommend the

Council make it payable over a couple of years. Then it would decrease individual

payments at least.

Lobitz: yeah, otherwise I have no way of paying for it.

Moermond: Ms. Martin, the garage and inspections there? What is going on?

Martin: there’s some conflicting information. Ms. Lobitz, do you live at the property?

Lobitz: I do now. I own it.

Martin: we’ve sent orders to you regarding the garage, as well as Excessive

Consumption fines for not taking care of it or contacting anyone regarding the

condition of the garage. We were going to send a Summary Abatement Order to tear

down your garage, again instead of doing that we sent information for loans through the

City. We still haven’t heard from you. We are currently staying enforcement until

spring, but between now and then you’re going to want to contact the inspector or that

garage could be torn down. Do you need that number?

Lobitz: can you send the letter again with the loans and stuff?

Martin: it was information from Planning and Economic Development on loans if she

qualified. Otherwise the correction notice was sent June 28, 2024 directly to that

address and I also knocked on the door and left my business card.

Moermond: it sounds like you are in a place where you need to make a decision on

whether you want to fix it or want t have it demolished because you don’t have the

funds to fix it. I’d think about that by spring and let the inspector know.

Lobitz: we have a nosy neighbor that’s been harassing us.

Moermond: my guess is this type of thing, with trees and bushes in the alley, is

frequently the garbage truck company who complain because they are having trouble

getting through.

Martin: the previous owner—I didn’t see a TISH—there was a fire inspection correction

notice listing quite a few deficiencies that needed to be taken care of. Since it is now

owner occupied that list comes to our office to enforce. There are quite a few on the

interior that need to be taken care of as well. You need to reach out to Mr. Kedrowski

for assistance.

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

RLH TA 25-40

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1978

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

Jost

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Sripriya Rajamani, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

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

13, 2024 to cut and remove plant growth and branches hanging into alley to a height of

14 feet. Compliance date of June 20th. It wasn’t done so work order was sent. No

history at the property. Total assessment of $368.

Rajamani: June 13 my husband and I did make an effort to clear it. We got the long

scissors from Amazon. We left a message for the inspector. Looks like that wasn’t

enough. He assumed we weren’t doing anything, but we thought we did our part and got

no response from the inspector. I was shocked when we got the bill.

Moermond: when I look at the photo here from when the crew showed up and it does

show work was done by you and your husband. I would say a good faith effort to

address it was made. I’m going to recommend this is deleted.

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

Special Tax Assessments-Rolls

RLH AR 25-8

RLH AR 25-9

RLH AR 25-10

RLH AR 25-11

RLH AR 25-12

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during September 9 to 20, 2024. (File No. J2509R, Assessment No.

258514)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services

during September 4 to 30, 2024. (File No. J2508T, Assessment No.

258517)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during September 23 to October 4, 2024. (File No. J2510R, Assessment

No. 258516)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services

during October 1 to October 9, 2024. (File No. J2509T, Assessment No.

258518)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

Ratifying the assessment for Miscellaneous Abatement services during

July to October 2024. (File No. J2501A, Assessment No. 258521)

Jalali

Sponsors:

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

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 25-2

Appeal of JoAnn Lorvig Tsoumanis to a Summary Abatement Order and

Excessive Consumption Order at 1400 CHARLES AVENUE.

Jalali

Sponsors:

Layover to LH February 4, 2025 at 11 am to discuss proposed work plan by PO with

deadlines of April 1, May 1 and June 1, 2025.

JoAnn Lorvig Tsoumanis, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: looks like you have a couple of Excessive Consumption bills here as well.

[Moermond gives background of appeals process] I have the statement you submitted

here in front of me as well.

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

11, 2024 specifically regarding outside storage and structures on the boulevard which

are not allowed, dispose of the lumber and building materials, carpet, concrete blocks,

flooring, unapproved plastic barrels, tree debris, tools, totes, scattered trash and

miscellaneous debris from the entire property. Compliance was for October 18. There

are photos in the file. Again, no previous appeal filed. No mail returned. We have an

extensive history here going back 17 years.

Lorvig Tsoumanis: I guess I didn’t realize it has been going on for 17 years but okay.

The last 10 years I lost my husband, had two small heart attacks, brain injuries that

make it difficult, dealing with an alcoholic sister. I’m not asking for sympathy, that’s

just how my life is. It takes a long time with a brain injury to figure out how ill you are to

feeling better so you can accomplish things. Try as I might I go forwards and

backwards. This spring I made good progress. I have zero dollars. Yes, I run a

handy-man business and I have guys but I have to pay them, even if they help me at

the house. Things take me a while. It is tough with everything else going on. I want to

bring my gardens back to what they were 10 years ago. I’m asking through the

summer to clear out the back yard. Some of it is for work inside the house, some of

the outside needs work also. I need time to get it to where it belongs. Some of it is for

handyman also. It will get worse before it gets better. After that I should be ablet o

keep things more under control.

Moermond: when I look at photos taken in October to those taken in December, I’m

not really seeing much of a difference. What were you working on?

Lorvig Tsoumanis: organizing and counting what I need to go into the house and I was

extremely busy with handyman during that time with furnaces and hot water heaters. I

do a lot of emergency work. Moving my sister in from her house, stuff comes in, she

brings more over. It is an evolving battle I’m trying to get a trip on. If I had money for

storage I’d do that. It isn’t an option now, neither is kicking my sister out.

Moermond: if I looked at photos of your house before October, how far would I go

back and see the same thing? I feel like it’s a long time. Giving through the summer is

delaying the inevitable. At the very least we need deadlines for certain parts to be

done.

Lorvig Tsoumanis: I am ok with that.

Moermond: you mentioned a plan in your written statement. I need a proposal from you

on what you can get tackled and I’m going to say, we can look at deadlines on April 1,

May 1, and June 1 and you can give me what you will have done in each of those

periods. Could you do that by next Tuesday?

Lorvig Tsoumanis: two weeks would be better for my head.

Moermond: is there someone you can help you? I seems like the business you run

must have similar requirements to writing bids and things like that.

Lorvig Tsoumanis: I do and trying to do it for myself I turn into a complete no-nothing

housewife. You’d think I could be intelligent with this at home too, but it is a struggle.

Moermond: these deadlines are going to be real and if the deadlines are not met the

City will do the work for you and it will not be cheap. You need to figure out a path

forward to tackle this. This is the end of the line, it needs to be done.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 2/4/2025

RLH SAO 25-5

Appeal of Norma C Roberts Hakizimana to a Summary Abatement

Order at 411 CHARLES AVENUE.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Grant to May 1, 2025 to remove or store any scrap wood and not used for a specific

purpose and any interior items stored in the exterior.

Norma Roberts Hakizimana, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 7, 2025 a Summary Abatement Order

was issued to owner and occupant to remove plastic totes and scattered debris from

alley behind home. Compliance date of January 14. There are photos in the file. We

have some pallets and totes and items in the yard that are considered exterior storage

which isn’t allowed.

Hakizimana: I would like some consideration as to what I’m doing here. I sent photos

last week showing I don’t have scattered garbage. The totes are cat shelters and

feeding stations, they are orderly in the back of my property NEAR the alley. There is

nothing in the alley. The pallets raise them off the ground. The scrap wood and

material I guess? In my yard?

Martin: yes, those are the pallets.

Hakizimana: the pallets are there for my garden to divide it from my yard so my two

dogs don’t dig in it. I’ve had them for quite a few years. I don’t know why all of a sudden

it is a problem.

Moermond: sounds like there was a complaint and inspector saw it wasn’t legal storage

and though it wasn’t caught in the past they want to address it now. Sounds like you

feed feral cat and have feeding stations?

Hakizimana: I’m part of the TNR, the Frogtown stray cat project. We work to feed

them, capture them, neuter them and then release or rehome them. I do want to point

out I don’t have a garage to store a lot of items, that’s why I try to store things—I have

to outside. I don’t have a garage. I don’t understand the part about the alley. There’s

nothing in the alley. There’s stuff near the alley. When spring comes I could bring

those things back into my yard. The totes and everything. Like I said, I have the dogs

and if the cats are in the shelters or eating the dogs will eat it. I don’t know what I’m

supposed to do here. I guess I could cut the tree down for $20,000 and then put a

conventional garage in. I’m retired, that’s not in my budget.

Moermond: I didn’t read anything about a tree, did I miss something?

Hakizimana: I’m just making the statement to let you know if I can’t put a garage in

because of the tree. I had some deckwork done and the leftover wood I straightened

out. I’m just not understanding it.

Moermond: it does look disorganized to tell you the truth. I’m wondering why the totes?

Hakizimana: by the alley by the tree? There’s three totes near the tree, two are

shelters and one is a feeding area. Those three there.

Moermond: so they have openings for the cats, okay. I do see scrap wood. Pallets.

Something else piled up by the deck.

Hakizimana: oh, okay. Those items—the pallets are for when I have things out to

divide the yard and garden from the dogs. I have milk crates I use in my garden to

keep squirrels out when I am starting plants. The shed I had a few years ago the roof

got destroyed by an ice dam. Now I moved it and I have to put a new roof on. Once

spring comes and I can move things I can fix that up and put things in there. I guess I

don’t have a Better Homes & Gardens yard. I’m a master gardener and I’ll admit I have

some unconventional ways of protecting my plants.

Moermond: when I look at the scrap wood, including the pallets, unless they are put to

a purpose they are scrap. Would the shed work to store them? Sounds like a good

solution. I understand you need a roof. I think what we want to do then I establish a

deadline for that and then based on that look for storage of the other things. I think

there are small pieces that could be dealt with. Maybe they’re flower pots or old

recycling containers? They just appear to be disorganized and trashy, to be perfectly

honest. When can you have a roof on the shed?

Hakizimana: considering the winter, probably mid April?

Moermond: let’s say May 1. Let’s see some progress in removing some scrap wood

that isn’t’ associated with a purpose cleaned up in the meantime. Get it as organized

as possible. If it doesn’t have to be out there get it recycled or moved to another

location. I’m not seeing any dog licenses for your property, so you may want to take

care of that. It is easy to do online.

Hakizimana: alright. With the amount of calls I made to Department of Safety &

Inspections and even “Linda” Martin, I’m wondering why I didn’t get a call back from

someone?

Moermond: I’ll ask Ms. Martin.

Hakizimana: Linda?

Martin: it is Lisa. When I received a call I did forward it to the inspector to return the

call as it is their file. Unfortunately that inspector has left the City. I saw the appeal,

then we don’t take any action.

Hakizimana: you mean this guy isn’t even working for the City anymore?! Oh my gosh.

Ok. I left two messages with him, and then you, and didn’t get anything back. I feel

like I’m being harassed, I really do. I had a neighbor who rents his property out and he

calls in and complains about things. I usually call the officer and talk about it and get

things straightened out and we are good. Just like I did when I got hit by the ice dam. I

called the officer and explained what happened, he understood. I got it cleaned up and

moved. I don’t know, I guess I’d like some consideration on the City on it.

Moermond: you just got one, we’re looking at May 1. I think that coincides with when

you’d be putting your garden in and organizing things anyway.

Hakizimana: yeah, that sounds good. If you start seeing milk cartons in my back yard,

that’s the process of starting my seeds for my garden. It is called “winter sowing”.

W-i-n-t-e-r S-o-w-i-n-g [spells it].

Moermond: we’ll let the inspector know.

Hakizimana: ok. Thank you so much Marcia, thank you "Linda".

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

RLH SAO 25-6

Appeal of William A Sylvester to a Vehicle Abatement Order at 1463

MIDWAY PARKWAY.

Jalali

Sponsors:

Grant to February 7, 2025 for compliance (boat and trailer removed from public ROW).

William Sylvester, owner, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Moermond: I’d like to start with that staff report.

Sylvester: I don’t think I got a staff report?

Moermond: no, she is going to give one now. We’ll both be hearing it at the same time.

Sylvester: is it possible to get it in hard copy?

Moermond: she will only give it verbally now. We can give you the minutes to the

meeting later, but there’s nothing written down now.

Sylvester: it is a disadvantage to get a report like that and have to respond to it cold.

My phone and internet are all hacked. I have no access to this kind of information. I

wasn’t able to look up the cites on the issues either. If you could just give me a hard

copy, mail it, do something.

Mai Vang: he should have received a copy when he came and filed the appeal.

Sylvester: what I am asking is, you said I should have got a copy when I came in.

Today? Or when I filed the appeal?

Moermond: when you filed the appeal they usually give those documents to the person.

Sylvester: well, that’s nice. That would have helped.

Moermond: you’ll have them now. Honestly, the photos are things you should already

be familiar with, it is your yard and your property. None of it should be a surprise.

Sylvester: if you took photos and there are comments—

Moermond: the comments are new to me too. I’ve read your appeal, looked at the

orders which you would have had, and now you have the photos. I’ll give you a minute

to look it over. There are aerial photos from 2022 and google street view photos, which

are dated.

Sylvester: yeah, this would have been handy to have some time with. How do you want

to proceed from here?

Moermond: I’ll go back to where I started on getting that Staff Report.

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 10, 2025 a Vehicle Abatement Order

was issued to owner and occupant specifically for an unknown boat and trailer orange

and white in color. Missing vital parts and appeared inoperable. Compliance date of

January 21. Issued by Inspector Kedrowski. Photos in the file.

Sylvester: do you have an extra pen?

Moermond: tell me about the boat, its location, and why you are appealing.

Sylvester: I would like to hear the rest of the report.

Martin: I am done.

Sylvester: did you read my comments? Do you realize citing it is inoperable is new?

That didn’t appear on the complaint. The Vehicle Abatement Order cites C and E.

Missing vital parts; dismantled. No tires on it. That’s the only thing wrong with it. The

other thing is approved surface. I think that refers to a discussion you’ve all been

through; it used to be you could not park a car on anything but asphalt or concrete.

That’s why this check box is there. Concrete is an approved surface. That is what it is

parked on. The apron of the driveway. The abatement order I have has no legitimate

reason to follow it. You may want to go out there and see if there are any real code

violations here. There isn’t as it has been presented. Do you understand it’s the

approved surface?

Moermond: I don’t know if that’s what the inspector intended. Normally unapproved

surface speaks to the type of surface it is, but I think what the inspector meant to cite

is the location and I don’t think that’s presented the best way. I think they meant to

spoke to the location it is parked on, which is the public right-of-way. Can the trailer

and boat be parked in the public right-of-way? No, that’s a violation of the right-of-way

code. Was the order written addressing that? Not specifically, no. That’s something I’ll

ask Ms. Martin to talk more about, I think it was an error which code they pulled.

Martin: I agree. If they used F, under other violation and cited 157.03 which prohibits

parking in the public right-of-way. An apron is not approved use.

Sylvester: I would like to go through this again so I can actually get some information.

I think there’s enough discrepancy here. The other one is it is not operable. Is that just

because it doesn’t have tires?

Moermond: for a trailer, yes. Not having tires makes it inoperable. There’s no engine

associated with a trailer.

Sylvester: if you have a motor boat parked in a driveway and you take the motor off

and put it in the garage. That is a vital part of a motor. That’s illegal?

Moermond: you aren’t being written on that.

Sylvester: I’m trying to make an analogy here.

Moermond: I understand, but that’s a false analogy. You’ve already got the vehicle on

private property and moved it into the garage. Operable for a boat means does it float.

Sylvester: I’m sorry I misspoke; you aren’t addressing my concern. If you have a

standard motor boat, you likely have a motor that can be taken off the boat. If you

take that motor off and put it in your garage, can you be cited for missing parts? I have

the tires for the trailer and they aren’t missing. They’re removed for safety in terms of

storage. They’re stored in my house. They aren’t missing. I’m suggesting the notion of

that. The missing parts is referring to backyard mechanics that buy several cars and

swap parts, so they have vehicles in their driveways with missing parts. It is a parts

car. The City has a perfect right to do something with that. But to call a part missing

that---it doesn’t make sense to call that trailer having missing parts. On both cases

here, it doesn’t quite meet the criteria.

I have an antagonistic relationship with my neighbors. Bole is very popular. The

clientele started out all Ethiopian and other “west east west east African people” and

anyway, one of the things they have indicated is an interest in my property, but they

aren't interested in renting or buying it. One of the things they were trying to do was use

the apron of the driveway as a.... something for Grub Hub and Door Dash. The

deliveries. They wanted to use is exclusively for that. The question I had was---they

would develop arguments about the fact they could use that but I couldn’t. There was a

point where I was trying to get a car from Door Dash not to block my driveway. I was

sitting just in the parking area in front of the apron and she pushed me out of that area

with my car. Physically pushed it. She got out and started saying something obscene.

Like 100 times. It was fanatic. That’s typical of their attitude. Their attitude is just do

whatever you want in that space.

I was trying to find a way to stop that from going on. You see in this photo? The car is

encroaching. That’s all the time. One of the waitresses would park over here and they’d

fill it in whenever I wanted to use it. Out of spite. It went on and on and on. My property

goes right up to the building. There’s about 4”. They serve alcohol. They have a very

popular restaurant. There’s going to be some problems and I was trying to deal with

those problems by moving the boat. I did that by moving the boat to the apron. That

worked. One is it that it took all the people who congregated in the area and moved

them to the other side of the door. Reduced congregation outside. By putting the boat

there, it was a nonverbal statement of ownership so people started respecting my land

more. It was like a miracle, ok. The question is, is this just to lynch me? Or are we

trying to solve a problem? Are we trying to solve a total problem? Or you just want to

solve part of the problem?

Moermond: this isn’t about any lynching. I don’t know who complained about the boat. I

am sympathetic to your problem and as you describe it my brain is cycling trying to

come up with ways to deal with the problem. I understand placing the boat did keep

vehicles from coming into the driveway. The question is whether or not that is a viable

means of preventing that apron from being blocked. I see the vehicle there; I do.

Sylvester: I’m pointing at three plastic planters; they are on the property side of the

driveway. These weren’t very effective; they’d move the plastic and park there anyway.

It is a popular place that serves liquor. I need some help here.

Moermond: the only thing in front of me is the boat on the boulevard. I think the other

problem you are facing is legitimate and should be dealt with; I wonder what the right

means to deal with this effectively is.

Sylvester: the problem has been there for several years and it blocks not only my

driveway but the rectory across from my driveway. Across from their building is a

driveway which is the single entrance to the church parking lot. The police know there’s

a problem here. They almost ignore it. I can’t call and complain. I don’t have an army.

She has one. She can say, you call. She can talk to the inspector. He comes in, give

them a free beer, free dinner. She has a number of people that are doing different

things to me so that I have impeding functions. The police, instead of towing people,

they have ignored it and almost no enforcement at all. This is all one sided. Nothing is

balanced or reasonable. I could barely move that [trailer]. I don’t have a car. In the

summer when it is warm. In the winter when grease is solid as a rock it is impossible

to move. The fine, $1,000, for not being able to move it within what I see as an

unreasonable time.

Moermond: Ms. Martin, any comments? I have an idea, which may or may not be

helpful.

Martin: with the boat up on blocks, if the St. Paul Police Department saw that they’d

consider it dangerous conditions and have it towed immediately. We are looking to

have the boat removed in a timely fashion. I understand your predicament with your

driveway. I’m wondering if we can get Public Works to put up “no parking within 5 feet

of driveway” signs. A permanent sign that may help.

Sylvester: there are some immigrant communities, and up until a year or two ago they

were driving without licenses or the licensing test because they couldn’t apply legally.

We’re dealing with the worst possible community section—that’s not saying the people

are. We put the boat in and it was incredible how helpful it was because these

people—the employees and the owners just really suck. But the people who are using

their restaurant are just wonderful. They understood it wasn’t part of Bole and moved

automatically. Of course it is silly, unsightly, dumb. But it is good urban planning

because it is non-verbal statement. Something that works. A sign? Not gonna matter

at all. I don’t really care if it is 5 feet. Don’t block my driveway and accuse me of

calling the police when you’re doing the same thing and I’m not. There was a young

man, I think he was challenged, he was a gardener for the church across the street.

He criticized people parking in front of the driveways for the church and

immediately—they have an army—there is a bunch of people who criticize him and

they got in a dispute. It led to him losing a job that I don’t think will be replaced. There

was a young woman who was out walking with her little boy. He had yellow boots on

and splashing in puddles, and I told her there is a bigger puddle on the other end of my

block. She takes him over there and looks at me and says, “you know, Monday is my

favorite day now.” They’re really having an impact. The parking extends both sides of

the street—

Moermond: and I need to pull you back. I know there’s a sorry that goes with this. I’m

going to do what I can to help you problem solve. I understand this is a non-verbal way

of communicating but at the same time it is violating the City’s right-of-way ordinance.

If it were in your private driveway would it be likely to have received orders but because

of the lack of wheels, probably not. It is on blocks and in the right-of-way. The Public

Works department is going to want to send plows down that street and not worry about

causing property damage to the vehicles or the boat. The boat is going to move, but

before that happens and I give you a deadline I’m going to ask the Department to

revise the orders indicating this is right-of-way not an unimproved surface. We’ll get

amended orders to you and we’ll send you the section of Code and right-of-way

encroachment and what is and isn’t covered. Signage is an issue that may or may not

be a problem solver for you. I think Public Works should go out and see if signage

could be of assistance for both you and the rectory. I know the signs that say

“ticketing” could be possible. But signs saying you can’t park within 30 feet of a stop

sign are effective once a couple of tickets are written. It also makes it easier for the

police to enforce. The boat isn’t going to be your solution for this problem. If you can

get it moved then there is no expense associated with its removal. If you can’t, then

there is. It can’t stay there until spring. I need to figure out a deadline for removal. I

think it would be helpful to work with the Ward office who could perhaps have a

conversation with the Bole people about things they could do to be better neighbors

and perhaps have a better outcome than you as an individual.

Sylvester: if the wheels were on? You know, it isn’t as close to the—

Moermond: its still a violation of the right-of-way code.

Sylvester: I understand. I could promise you I can put tires on. I can do that.

everything else is questionable, ok?

Moermond: you are welcome to question that in front of Council.

Martin: we can have new orders out tomorrow.

Moermond: the current orders have a deadline of January 21, which isn’t what we’re

talking about anymore. I’m going to recommend the Council give you to February 7 to

remove the trailer and boat from the public right-of-way. It is both missing parts and

more importantly blocking the right-of-way. Your Council Public Hearing will be

February 5. The deadline is 2 days after, so you’ll be able to talk to Council before that

deadline.

Sylvester: so, what do I have to do? Move it back up to my property?

Moermond: out of the right-of-way, between the sidewalk and the curb. That would

address the problem to your satisfaction Ms. Martin?

Sylvester: do you have any satisfaction?

Martin: if it is in the driveway it is fine, but it does need to have those tires on.

Moermond: in the driveway, with tires. The Council may see this differently and you are

welcome to talk to them about a different outcome?

Sylvester: can I have another 2 weeks?

Moermond: no, I’m concerned about the weather and winter impact on this.

Sylvester: I looked at it today and it is well over a foot off the curb.

Moermond: and the rule is nothing is in that area. I’m not willing to give that extension,

perhaps the City Council is.

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

RLH SAO 25-4

Appeal of Mai Tran to a Summary Abatement Order at 801 PIERCE

BUTLER ROUTE.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Grant to February 10th for compliance.

Mai Tran, owner, appeared via phone

Vietnamese Interpreter appeared

Tran: I did ask for an interpreter and I also understand a little bit of English.

Moermond: [Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 9, 2025 we issued a Summary

Abatement Order to remove and dispose of scattered scrap wood, trailers, and clutter

from side of home. Compliance date of January 16. These were issued by Inspector

Wirtz, however Mr. Kedrowski and I have worked with Mr. Tran for the last 5 years. Mr.

Tran in the past has complied with orders, but has extensive continuous history going

back 12 years.

Tran: I’m really sorry about this. I just moved in here and because of that I don’t know

what is going on. 5 years ago, I don’t know what is going on. I’m sorry about the trailer.

My son brings it home. He doesn’t know, he’s a kid. I’m really sorry about the mess in

the yard, I will clean it up. When I got the inspector letter I called him but there’s no

number listed. I need an extension. My kids have two trailers and I’ll call my friend to

come help me. My kid parks there. I’m home alone with gout, that’s why its messy

there. If I could get an extension I will call my friend to help me. It is winter and it is

really cold right now.

Moermond: your original deadline was January 16. I can recommend the Council give

you until February 10th to complete the work.

Tran: that would be good, thank you.

Martin: I just want to be clear an inspector will come out January 10th, and make it

clear any further issues at the property—including his illegal auto repair—he will be

being billed Excessive Consumption fees every time we come to the property.

Tran: I don’t do auto repair.

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

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 24-33

Appeal of Jerry A. Brashier to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of

Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 511 MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Grant to February 1, 2025 for items 2 and 7; grant to August 1, 2025 for items 3 and 4;

grant to September 30, 2026 for items 8 and 9; and grant to December 3, 2027 for

items 1, 5 and 6.

Jerry Brashier, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: I have studied the orders and engineering report and come up with

deadlines. Haven’t received any from you outside of that initial

Brashier: what have you not received?

Moermond: well, I haven’t received an updated plans with deadlines after the

engineering report. You gave an initial sketch with your own personal notes, but didn’t

have specifics in there. I don’t have a plan.

Brashier: nothing in the engineer’s report was mine, it was the engineer’s.

Moermond: I understand, but a month or two earlier you did provide a schedule with

your commentary on it. That point I was trying to make was that was the only thing with

potential deadlines I had from you. I was reviewing the orders, and based on the

information from the engineer’s report, come up with some reasonable deadlines. Do

you have the orders in front of you?

Brashier: what do you mean by orders?

Moermond: the orders sent by the Fire Certificate of Occupancy team with numbers in

them.

Brashier: sure.

Moermond: number 1, foundation.

Brashier: the structural engineer said there was no problem. It was more than fine. In

that report. It is a scratch coating and no problems with the foundation. Your City

engineer concurred with the one I hired.

Moermond: let me pull up the documents so I can tell you what exactly I’m referring to.

Brashier: the windows, the foundation, the parapet, the tuck pointing, the repointing,

the coping. Everything, and the deck was still found to be okay but it didn’t meet the

City’s requirement for PSI. The deck was the only one, based on verbal conversation

with my hired structural engineer. He said everything was fine in the report that was

sent to your structural engineer.

Moermond: I’m the one who ran that process, the commentary in Mr. Karpen’s email

says the exterior envelope and masonry walls, but only in a limited way. Noted in the

report is cracking and mortar deterioration, evidence in pictures. He didn’t see an

overall structural concern. He still has some concerns with it. We don’t have a bill of

clean health, we have things that need to be dealt with, not immediately. I don’t have

*any* bill of clean health for the deck in the back, in fact that is very concerning both

to your engineer and our engineer. Your portrayal of that now wasn’t quite accurate.

Brashier: the portrayal of what my engineer sent to me is what is concerning, but he

did say we could certainly put two more boards on in an X pattern that would meet

criteria. I have since sent out another email since your engineer’s findings, but

everything else had zero concerning which is all I thought we were waiting for. He

actually said there is no concern with the rest. Maybe I misunderstood something, but

no concerns means no concerns for me.

Moermond: I found no statement in this report that says “no concerns”.

Brashier: mine is on a verbal conversation.

Moermond: which wasn’t provided to us, and what we have says there are concerns.

Going back here, you are saying it is a cosmetic fix on the order related to the

foundation flaking and potential water infiltration. The concern is—

[Brashier continues to speak over LHO and argue]

Moermond: would you please let me finish?

Brashier: I certainly don’t want to talk over you but I want you to know there is some

lag, so that’s when I start talking. Please Ms. Moermond, continue.

Moermond: you are disagreeing that it needs to be touched up? The exterior

foundation? You can disagree on that.

Brashier: can you give me a chance to respond? You aren’t allowing me to respond.

Moermond: well, we’ve had this conversation six times now. What is your response?

Brashier: we haven’t had it six times because there was no concern prior to November

25. So, while we’re documenting everything, I want to make sure that this new

documentation, no, there are no leaks or problems with the foundation. There was the

scratch coating, it was called into concern. The technical term is a “scratch coating.”

The structural engineer came out, viewed it, it is a scratch coating.

Moermond: I’ll take that under advisement. The electrical fixture in the rear, I’m looking

at a February 1 date, any concerns about that?

Brashier: that was already corrected. And I did talk about that last time.

Moermond: good. The unsafe stairway in the back, I have an August 1 deadline for its

repair or removal or replacement. Exterior roof, December 30, 2027, give you a good

length of time to figure that out. That’s the panels, crooked sections, gaps between

panels and structure and permitting. That’s almost 3 years, does that work?

Brashier: yes.

Moermond: same deadline for exterior walls. December 30, 2027.

Brashier: ok.

Moermond: the west side basement level vent cover missing, dryer ducts. I think that’s

done, but that’s a February 1 deadline. The windows, we have a permit that is pulled

but not finaled. I

Brashier: he came out there.

Moermond: no final is in the system. The windows installed without permit we’ll go with

September 30, 2026.

Brashier: that should work, I believe I have all the windows squared away. Inspector did

come out so I’ll call Department of Safety & Inspections and see where that’s at and

everything was green-lit.

Moermond: I think you did the smoke alarm affidavit when you were here?

Brashier: yes, I did.

Moermond: I feel like these deadlines give quite a bit of time. I will take one more look

at the exterior foundation. I don’t mean to imply there is current water infiltration but

surfacing flaws can allow it. It is just a question of maintenance, similar to chipped

paint. I wasn’t viewing it as a hole or infiltration based on the reports, just it needed to

be touched up. I’ll look again at that, other deadlines it sounds like they work and take

into consideration the concerns you brought about financing and doing the work

yourself.

Shaff: we haven’t been able to verify since we couldn’t get ahold of the appellant, but

the doors exiting onto the check should be secured and signage indicating it is unsafe.

Brashier: I can send that right now if you want.

Moermond: that would be great. When the inspector comes out on the first to check

those couple of things, the vent cover and electrical repair, they can just take a quick

look at it if photos aren’t satisfactory.

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

RLH VO 25-2

Appeal of Gomaa Elzamel to a Fire Certificate of Occupancy Revocation

and Order to Vacate at 948 COOK AVENUE EAST.

Yang

Sponsors:

Rescheduled to January 28, 2025 at 1:30 pm (per PO's request).

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/28/2025

3:00 p.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments - Delinquent Garbage Bills

RLH TA 25-61

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1132

BEECH STREET. (File No. CG2501A2, Assessment No. 250112)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Staff report by Jillian Barden: this is an assessment for Quarter 3, 2024. The property

owner has been remodeling home and used the dumpster on site. He was unaware of

the garbage bill because bills were going to the previous owner.

Moermond: I think this is a rare deletion.

Barden: agreed. He’s just about to move in, finishing up the remodel now.

Moermond: did he do an Unoccupied Dwelling Registration Form?

Barden: he’s selling it. It is on the market as of 2 days ago.

Moermond: is the hauler still going by there?

Barden: I assume so, they’d drive down the street. They aren’t allowed to put a hold on

it while it is for sale.

Moermond: he would have received the late notices though?

Barden: no, the previous owner.

Moermond: bill the hauler Aspen sent out was to previous owner, also the late notices

as well. No access to either to know. Recommend deletion of Quarter 3 bill.

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

RLH TA 25-58

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 701

HAZEL STREET NORTH. (File No. CG2501A2, Assessment No.

250112)

Johnson

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.