15 West Kellogg Blvd.  
Saint Paul, MN 55102  
City of Saint Paul  
Minutes - Final  
Legislative Hearings  
Marcia Moermond, Chief Legislative Hearing Officer  
Joanna Zimny, Deputy Legislative Hearing Officer  
Mai Vang, Legislative Hearing Coordinator  
legislativehearings@ci.stpaul.mn.us  
651-266-8585  
Tuesday, August 11, 2026  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
Remove/Repair Orders  
RLH RR 26-14  
1
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 914  
CENTRAL AVENUE WEST within fifteen (15) days after the August 19,  
2026, City Council Public Hearing. (Refer to September 15, 2026 on  
condition)  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Refer back to LH on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 9 am on condition the CCI is  
applied for no later than COB Monday, August 17th, otherwise remove within 15 days  
with no option to repair.  
Voicemail at 9:06 am: Mailbox full and unable to leave message.  
Voicemail at 9:10 am: Mailbox full and unable to leave message.  
Zimny: We tried calling Ms. Adams at 9:06 am and at 9:10 am, unable to leave  
message, the mailbox was full. It has a Council public hearing of August 19th. She did  
post a performance deposit but has not applied for a code compliance inspection. If  
the code compliance is applied for by next Wednesday, I will refer it back to  
Legislative Hearing on September 8; otherwise the recommendation is to remove.  
Update and correction: the Legislative hearing date will be September 15 on condition.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026  
SR 26-165  
2
Review the Second Making finding on the appealed substantial  
abatement ordered for 947 FREMONT AVENUE in Council File RLH RR  
25-34.  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
CPH 8/19. Continue the grant of 180 but forfeit $2,500 of remaining $10,000 PD.  
Voicemail at 9:08 am: Mailbox is full and unable to leave message.  
Tried again 9:12am: Jay Mitchell appeared via phone  
Zimny: I know you spoke with Mai Vang, and you weren’t complete yet and you have  
$2500 on the line. I will have Mr. Hoffman give a staff report to see what is going on.  
Hoffman: nothing to report  
Mitchell: I thought that there was a recommendation that Ms. Moermond’s  
recommendation was to forfeit and to forfeit. There was another where I have in the  
email where they said hey it’s going to be something different. Thought this part was  
gone. I thought it was a forfeit of $5k and then grant another 180 days.  
Zimny: Yes, with check in every month and the $2500 is on the line every month.  
Mitchell: No, that is not the one I have. What I have doesn’t say that.  
Zimny: what are you looking at? Are you confusing with another property?  
Mitchell: I don’t think I am. I can look it up. I am on my phone and not on my laptop.  
Zimny: this is the one you tried to get to the Council public hearing for and then had  
the car accident  
Mitchell: Yes, and I sent over a proposal that the forfeit was going to be $5,000.  
Zimny: You did forfeit $5,000.  
Mitchell: and then it will be 180 days stay, but no more forfeiture in there.  
Zimny: the Resolution that passed Council on that was forfeiting $5,000 performance  
deposit and then forfeiting additional $2500 each month beginning in August until  
project is completed and/or funds are exhausted the Legislative Hearing Officer will  
review this on August 11 for an update.  
Mitchell: I have an email that says something different on this. I will have my office  
look.  
Zimny: you can send that to Mai or I. Regardless, that is what the Council resolution  
says. You are welcome to send in anything that states the opposite and we will review.  
As it sits now, what is the update on the property.  
Mitchell: I was working on the presumption that it was approved and doing the wall and  
I just have to find it and email over.  
Zimny: send to CC next week, Continued the 180 days but another check in next  
month with a $2500 forfeit.  
Continued the 180 days, but forfeit the 2500 of the remaining $10k.  
Received and Filed  
10:00 a.m. Hearings (None)  
Special Tax Assessments-ROLL  
3
RLH AR 26-61  
Ratifying the assessment for Securing and/or Emergency Boarding fees  
billed during May 2026 on Private Property. (File No. J2613B,  
Assessment No. 268119)  
Noecker  
Referred to the City Council due back on 9/16/2026  
Sponsors:  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders  
4
RLH SAO  
26-60  
Appeal of Erin Metz Verdeja to a Summary Abatement Order at 1518  
SELBY AVENUE.  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Recommendation forthcoming.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/26/2026  
5
RLH SAO  
26-72  
Appeal of Anna Fraser to a Notice to Cut Tall Grass and/or Weeds at  
844 STRYKER AVENUE.  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Grant to August 28 for compliance including removing all rocks/obstructions and  
cardboard from blvd and grass/weeds are below 8".  
Tried calling at 10:59 am: line seem to be picked up but no one could be heard.  
Voicemail left at 11:04 am: This is Joanna Zimny from St. Paul City Council calling  
you about your appeal for 844 Stryker Avenue. I know you did submit some things  
prior to the hearing and indicated you may be unable to attend. We will try you back  
again one more time.  
Tried calling again 11:12 am: line again seemed to be picked up but no one could be  
heard.  
Zimny: this is a layover from last week. We weren’t able to reach then, and just now we  
tried at 10:59 am, left a voicemail at 11:04 am and tried again at 11:12 am but were  
unable to reach anyone. She did indicate in her statement she may be unable to  
attend. I’ll recommend the Council grants to August 28 for compliance, including  
removing all obstructions including pavers and cardboard from right-of-way and having  
all tall grass and weeds below 8”.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/26/2026  
6
RLH SAO  
26-73  
Appeal of Melanie Richards to a Summary Abatement Order at 2103  
SHERWOOD AVENUE.  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Grant to October 15, 2026 for compliance with orders on back/rear yard on condition  
that the front ROW is in compliance by no later than September 25, 2026.  
Melanie Richards, owner, appeared via phone  
[Zimny gives background of appeals process]  
Zimny: Ms. Richards, I read through your appeal. It sounds like you have some other  
things going on that obviously are a priority right now. Tell me more.  
Richards: the good news is someone today is coming to cut the tree branches and will  
hopefully be able to take that thing off. I realize my yard is overgrown, especially in  
back. [lists health issues that started last summer and continue now] I live alone.  
When I was diagnosed my physician told me I had to quit my job, which I’m trying to  
get back, I teach at a State college. I also have all these medical bills, plus the  
combination of having to quit my job and not affording to hire someone and not being  
able to do it myself. I know it needs to be done, but the deadlines were so quick. I’m  
back to teaching one class so it won’t be a ton of income.  
Zimny: I understand totally, all those things take priority. You know it needs to be  
done. What is your ask on time knowing that?  
Richards: I’ve arranged with this person working on the trees to do the front on a  
payment plan, I asked him about the back—which is a big job—he said it would be  
easier in October when things are dying off and I’d have more money then too. I won’t  
have a paycheck until the end of September.  
Zimny: he would start on the back in October?  
Richards: yes, but he’s starting on the front now.  
Zimny: great to hear, that is definitely the priority right now. Ms. Martin any comments  
hearing that?  
Martin: no, just to mention when the City does do a cleanup you’d receive a bill a  
couple months later and it can be appealed as an assessment and ask it may be paid  
over a number of years, which may be a cheaper option.  
Richards: it says $450/hour. Not a normal price.  
Zimny: it does cost a lot to have the City do it, I don’t know what rate your person is  
giving you. Ms. Martin has a good point though, if the City does have to come out and  
take care of it, you’d receive a bill and if left unpaid it comes forward as an  
assessment which is also appealable. That’s what Ms. Martin was talking about, you  
could then ask to have payments divided over a number of years. I think up to 5 years.  
Smaller piece of the bill with your property taxes vs. one large sum. Something to  
consider.  
Richards: I’m just worried about that $450/hour. That would be a huge bill.  
Zimny: it definitely is expensive to have the City do it. I do have sympathy. I appreciate  
you’ve made a good-faith effort to get some of this taken care of, especially the public  
right-of-way where it affects everyone not just yourself. What I’m leaning towards is  
giving to September 25 to have the obstructions in the right-of-way, sidewalk cleared,  
tall grass and weeds overhanging sidewalk cleared, and then on condition that is done  
I would recommend giving to October 16 for the remaining balance of the yard.  
Martin: no, but then if September 25 the right-of-way isn’t done we’d issue a work order  
for the entire yard.  
Richards: understood. That would be great.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/26/2026  
7
RLH SAO  
26-71  
Appeal of Barry Campbell to a Summary Abatement Order at 449 VAN  
DYKE STREET.  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Grant to September 4, 2026 for compliance.  
Barry Campbell, owner, appeared via phone  
[Zimny gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: July 23, 2026 a Summary Abatement Order was  
issued regarding outside storage for a storage pod. Also to note St. Paul Legislative  
Code specifically notes portable storage containers and intermodal containers aren’t  
allowed, especially in residential areas. Compliance date was for August 4, 2026.  
Campbell: I did look at City code and there are things in there about how to property  
store storage pods. They can be in the street for a fee per day. Also, as long as the  
set back matches. I researched Code a ton since you were here. The only issue is  
that it is already on its way out of here. It will be gone by the end of the month. I  
couldn’t get it gone by August 4.  
Zimny: so it IS temporary.  
Campbell: absolutely, we are just doing work on our house. If you look you can see  
permits were pulled for an egress window going in next week.  
Zimny: that’s fine. I think most of those things are for temporary storage. Ms. Martin  
any comments?  
Martin: as long as it is 30 days or less we are fine with that.  
Zimny: you said end of the month? How long are you thinking you need Mr. Campbell?  
Campbell: I think we can have it gone by September 1. Just to mention we did pick up  
all the other building materials mentioned as well.  
Zimny: wonderful, we appreciate that. My recommendation to the Council will be to  
grant to September 4, 2026 for compliance. Gone by September 4, will that work?  
Campbell: yes.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 9/2/2026  
Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements  
RLH SAO 26-64  
8
Making finding of Tami Richardson to the appealed nuisance abatement  
ordered for 1547 CARROLL AVENUE in Council File RLH SAO 26-55.  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved.  
No one appeared  
Staff update by Supervisor Lisa Martin: the nuisance is abated and the file closed.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026  
RLH SAO 26-74  
9
Making finding on the appeal of Mark Puchala II to a nuisance abatement  
ordered for 2016 FREMONT AVENUE in Council File RLH SAO 26-59.  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
The nuisance is abated related to brush pile, the nuisance was not abated as relates  
to the stones/pavers and compost bin. Grant to August 28, 2026 for the compost and  
grant further extension to November 2, 2026 for compliance with pavers/stones.  
Mark Puchala, owner, appeared via phone  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: the compost bin definitely doesn’t meet  
requirements,  
Puhala: anything flowing out is below ground level. I dug a trench for that. We talked  
about 2x2” gaps, and I did 1x2” gaps.  
Moermond: it is open at the bottom.  
Puhala: I left it open by design so I can turn the soil underneath.  
Moermond: it should be enclosed according to code, which means it makes contact  
with the ground.  
Puchala: I need an opening so I’m not stirring from the top and breaking my back. I  
can put a board on for now so it couldn’t as abated.  
Moermond: we’ve had misunderstandings in the past. It isn’t 3-dimensional right now,  
doesn’t touch ground, im ok with the top having some space. I think you have an awful  
lot of space. I do think it could be smaller ot prevent rodents from getting in. Ms.  
Martin?  
Martin: it is wide open. Squirrels and everything are going to get in. A lot you can buy  
shows they are covered, there are air vents, they aren’t open to animals. It isn’t in  
compliance.  
Moermond: it needs to be enclosed with aeration but not wide openings. How you come  
into compliance is something you work out with the inspector. Code says enclosed.  
Puchala: I’ve been told I’m not allowed to speak to inspectors anymore.  
Moermond: Ms. Martin?  
Martin: I don’t know why, he has phone numbers.  
Puchala: I was told I could I could only call the general line, and then they also said  
they couldn’t’ talk to me. When they came to mow my lawn, the officer called Ms.  
Martin and said I wasn’t allowed to talk to her directly. Same with Mr. Munos.  
Moermond: I think things got turned sideways. I think there was some confusion about  
discussing things under appeal versus other things.  
Martin: yes, we won’t discuss or negotiate anything that’s already been voted on. We’re  
happy to discuss things but we can’t renegotiate.  
Puhala: I can submit a diagram to MS. Martin if that helps.  
Moermond: we need to have the sides in contact with the ground as well as a different  
top. Why don’t you set a goal by Thursday noon you have something submitted. Ms.  
Martin, you had concerns about the pavers?  
Martin yes, they are a huge trip hazard right now. They aren’t dug in, they aren’t even.  
Moermond: the city has no concern about a path like this generally but it is certainly a  
trip hazard for any emergency personnel. I can see giving more time for that. Let’s say  
November 2 to figure out how to level it so it isn’t something someone can trip over.  
Puchala: I think I can figure that out. I’ve just been waiting for a chance to breath so I  
can get a stone chisel. Why would the emergency personnel would go where there are  
no doors?  
Moermond: fire may use windows. You also may need to exit through a window from a  
sleeping room. For EMS, that’s probably front door, sure.  
Puchala: is there someone specific with EMS I could sit down with to discuss my  
designs with?  
Moermond: you are in the right area of inspectors. Let’s get that diagram in by noon on  
Thursday. This has a Council Public Hearing on the 19th so we can get a clean  
deadline and wrap this up.  
Puchala: what about my brush pile?  
Martin: the brush pile was abated.  
Puchala: compost lid design and level the rocks.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/19/2026  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
10  
RLH VBR  
26-16  
Appeal of Isaac Mooney, Wells Property, to an email dated 8/4/26  
informing staff that a vacant building file was opened at 1400 HEWITT  
AVENUE.  
Coleman  
Sponsors:  
Deny the appeal but waive VB fee for 90 days (to October 31, 2026). Property to  
remain a Cat 2 VB and requires a CCIR.  
Isaac Mooney, property rep, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: was condemned by Fire Inspection and made  
a Category 2 Vacant Building July 31, 2026. Most of those details for the  
condemnation should be in that fire inspection report from Keith Demarest.  
Moermond: last week, Mr. Mooney, we talked about being condemned with major code  
violations and secured by other than normal means. You don’t want it to be a Category  
2, tell me more about your thinking.  
Mooney: in 22 years we’ve never had a property be a Category 2. We have a system we  
have done for those 22 years that works wonderfully. It would really deviate us from  
what we normally do. We’ll get this property in turn key condition. HVAC, electrical, all  
the crews will be there, specially given the location of the property. It will be beautiful  
when we’re done with it and find a buyer. We got a $2,500 for them boarding it up which  
only happened because we couldn’t access due to the mental health of the person  
squatting. If that hadn’t happened we’d already have it in perfect condition. It just  
creates unforeseen things for us. We do about 60 properties a year and try and keep  
the system as simple as possible for everything. We don’t even know what a Category  
2 Vacant Building entails, we’ll obviously get a TISH report for the new buyer and will  
have inspectors going through.  
Moermond: there are a couple of things in play here. We’re talking about your company  
and how its managed Category 1 properties, we’re talking about the situation when  
acquiring the property, and I think we’re talking about the building conditions itself. My  
focus has to be on that. With respect to buying a property with a squatter, that’s just  
something that is an internal business consideration for you guys. That isn’t something  
I can take into account. The notion your company does a great job on a lot of Category  
1s, I do think that’s great. Looking at conditions though I do think it is a legitimate  
Category 2 Vacant Building and needs a Code Compliance Inspection Report. We can  
get you information on that.  
Mooney: ultimately what we’re doing is if it goes to a Category 1 we will immediately  
start, if it’s a Category 2 it will involve a lot of meetings and will sell it to some other  
investor. We can immediately start renovating if it is a Category 1. When you’re doing  
as many properties as us we don’t want to go out of the box, we acquired it as a  
Category 1 and didn’t really have the option to fix it.  
Moermond: you’ll have to make the business decisions you need to, but you can  
definitely ask the Council on August 26th for something different. That will be your next  
stop.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/26/2026  
11  
RLH VBR  
26-15  
Appeal of Paul Mulcahy to a Vacant Building Registration Renewal  
Notice at 272 RICHMOND STREET.  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Deny the appeal but continue to allow permits to be pulled.  
Paul Mulcahy, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 2 Vacant Building  
February of 2025. Per our system it appears there was a Code Compliance application  
received March 28, 2025 and a Code Compliance report issued April 24. Per a note  
from Humphrey on 7/15 the appellant is showing ownership of property and I believe we  
are here to discuss the Vacant Building fee a letter went out recently. I am not sure  
why it went out in July when it was opened in February.  
Moermond: so this fee would cover February 2026 through February 2027.  
Dornfeld: I agree with that Ms. Moermond but the letter went out July 24, so that  
complicates things. I don’t know.  
Mulcahy: I did get the Code Compliance report a long time ago, I did get a new roof put  
on and new electric and I just figured the City saw I was moving forward and that’s why  
I didn’t hear anything. Which I have been moving on the whole house. The Code  
Compliance report most of what is on there isn’t directly relevant to what needs to be  
done on the house. Each inspector was here for under 15 minutes and most were just  
things that need to be verified. Most are done already and most of the things that need  
to be done were NOT on the report. There was a lot the house needed they didn’t put  
on the report which is what I’ve been addressing. I’ve been preparing the house for the  
plumbers, which I felt was most important to get done before anything else.  
Moermond: sounds like you’ve done a lot of work. To get the Code Compliance  
certificate it means minimum code compliance. It does need to continue to be in the  
Vacant Building program until you get that certificate. Permits all pulled and signed off  
on. We can waive the Vacant Building fee for a bit longer, then would come forward as  
an assessment if left unpaid and then we can talk about potential proration or  
spreading payments. I can’t do a lot at this time. I’m going to say the registration and  
bill are valid, but we can talk about the assessment down the line.  
Mulcahy: when would I get that letter?  
Moermond: 8-10 weeks if left unpaid now.  
Mulcahy: and then what do I do?  
Moermond: it tells you how to appeal the assessment at that time. My recommendation  
will be deny the appeal, you can certainly talk to the Council about something different.  
Mulcahy: the computers were down for so long last summer. I just set things up with  
Robert to pull things myself. I won’t have everything complete by then. Things will have  
to wait until spring to work on since summer is coming to a close.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/26/2026  
2:00 p.m. Hearings  
Fire Certificates of Occupancy  
12  
RLH FCO  
26-69  
Appeal of Peter Larsen to a Fire Inspection Report at 368 FRONT  
AVENUE.  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Grant to October 1, 2026 for compliance with orders related to furnace/HVAC, and  
grant to August 31, 2026 for compliance with balance of the orders.  
Peter Larsen, property representative, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Keith Demarest: this is a single-family home owned by 2  
people, the sale of this property was recorded April 21, 2024. June 18, 2026 a form 4  
request was received from St. Paul Police Department stating high levels of carbon  
monoxide, furnace red tagged by Xcel. Ladder 22 left a co detector with resident. Our  
inspector contacted Xcel and Water, and it was believed the property was still owner  
occupied. June 26 we learned from Code Enforcement that it was tenant occupied,  
they were on the property May 20th and spoke with a female who said she and her  
partner were renting. June 29 Fire Safety made their initial inspection of the property,  
which found the need for a CO, high level of CO from furnace or water heater, chipping  
peeling paint, window in first floor bedroom doesn’t remain in open position. A follow up  
inspection was done July 30th 2026 with much of the same findings, plus a new  
addition of light cover on front porch, and orders to access. August 5 an appeal was  
received.  
Larsen: we purchased the property April 1, 2024.When we purchased it it was already a  
rental with the existing tenants in place. We replaced the siding and rented it out. We  
assumed the Certificate of Occupancy transferred from the old owner. We have  
learned that is not the case. We are just looking for an extension to get repairs done,  
because we agree that they do need to be done. The first issue is July 23, 2026 Anika  
had me served with a lawsuit to close down the business we own (this property and 2  
others), and I requested an HVAC inspection to determine where the CO leak was  
coming from and they were able to determine it wasn’t the water heater, and they  
advised they didn’t want to turn the furnace back on but they were sure that was where  
it was coming from. They couldn’t fix it they had to replace it. The bid was for $22,000.  
I need more time to get that money together. My friends told me they did purchase and  
install smoke and carbons. I’m a bit skeptical of what they’re saying since the fire  
inspector said they were given some. I did attempt to fix the front porch light, but  
embarrassingly I bought the wrong size. I did have a contractor scheduled out to put a  
bid in for paint and fixing the window, but we have to reschedule. I am trying to get  
things fixed. I'm limited by the fact I am being sued and money. I’ve started  
researching places to try and find funding for this. I’m a mortgage broker by trade so I  
may have some private fund option. It is hard to do anything when I may go to court  
later this month and find out I have to sell the property. Ultimately I just need more  
time for repairs.  
Moermond: where are we at with smoke and carbons?  
Demarest: as of July 30th it was still an outstanding issue.  
Larsen: I screwed up that inspection in my calendar and forgot to tell my tenants. They  
told me they put some in but I haven't independently verified that. Really the one I need  
an extension on is the furnace issue.  
Moermond: well, it isn’t winter which is in your favor. I’m balancing the seasons, the  
need for tenant to have a clear idea of where they will be living, and where you are at  
with money. It seems to me that we need to have the furnace situation completely  
resolved no later than October 1, or the property must be vacated. Whatever your  
obligation is to your tenants and talking to them about vacating you need to look at.  
Has to be done by then.  
Demarest: yes, October 1 is when the cold whether rule takes affect with Xcel.  
Moermond: so you have a six week window to figure things out. Mr. Demarest, in the  
meantime can you get an inspector onsite to confirm the smoke and carbons?  
Demarest: Inspector Harrington has a reinspection scheduled for August 31 at 10:30.  
If you want to go sooner, we can do that as long as tenants have proper notice.  
Larsen: I want to confirm it is done sooner.  
Demarest: let’s stick with August 31 so you have time for all the projects and then  
hopefully just narrow things down to just the furnace.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 8/26/2026