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, October 24, 2023  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
Remove/Repair Orders  
1
RLH RR 23-10  
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1117  
JENKS AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the April 19, 2023, City  
Council Public Hearing. (To refer back to October 24, 2023 Legislative  
Hearing)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Because nuisance mitigation plan is successful, refer back to LH February 13, 2024  
at 9 am to review final work plan/bids, financing and/or discussion with potential  
purchaser.  
Scott Fergus, fund manager representing the owner, CAG National Fund 1 LLC,  
appeared  
Lisa Proechel, real estate agent who manages the property Keller Williams, appeared  
Fergus: we cannot commence with anything until January 2024.  
Moermond: this is our check in three-fourths of the way through to see if the  
abatement plan is working, which it is. Mr. Yannarelly, have you seen anything?  
Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: last month a window was broken into, a board was ripped  
off so we had to have it boarded. Removing the fence has helped I think.  
Fergus: the brick thrower happened to catch Lisa between her weekly visits. She’s  
proactively taken to boarding the windows so we don’t have that happen again,  
hopefully.  
Moermond: and one brick going through and it is taken care of right away, these things  
happen but you were on top of it. That’s great. I’m at this place, you’re doing great in  
terms of managing it. We get our date in January when the redemption period expires. I  
have an old bid.  
Fergus: we are either going to pursue repair and sale to owner occupant, or we are  
going to work with a local nonprofit who may also be purchasing. They are waiting for  
an outcome of a subsidy application to come in.. We’ll know which one by January.  
Moermond: are they a community development corporation?  
Fergus: they are, absolutely. We expect to know before the end of the year.  
Moermond: that’s great. January when?  
Fergus: I believe January 24 is when the 12-month redemption period expires.  
Moermond: we’ll report the nuisance abatement plan is working and you’re on track to  
do it yourselves or a community development corporation purchase it. I’ll ask for  
February 13 it to be referred back to Legislative Hearing. That gives you some buffer  
to figure things out. If things are together at that juncture, and Mr. Yannarelly and I  
have reviewed things, the Council will want to give time for rehab and if we have all the  
pieces permits can be issued then.  
Proechel: if the community development corporation does want to purchase, can they  
purchase prior to rehab?  
Moermond: you are allowed to sell directly as soon as you can do the sale. They are  
exempt. They would have the same requirements, posting Performance Deposit, or  
figure out in your purchase agreement, work plan, they will have a more complicated  
pat since they would be required to abide by laws for the kids of funds they’d be using.  
Davis Bacon law, for example. More complicated bidding process.  
Fergus: they’re an experienced organization, you will know them well.  
Moermond: I have no doubt at all. I’m glad it will get done, we’d just need to see those  
plans from them and I know it takes a bit longer.  
Fergus: and should that sale not work, we’ve done over 1,000 rehabs and sales the  
last couple of years.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 11/15/2023  
RLH RR 23-44  
2
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1213  
WOODBRIDGE STREET within fifteen (15) days after the September  
13, 2023, City Council Public Hearing. (Refer to Legislative Hearing  
October 24, 2023)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH November 28, 2023 at 9 am for discussion of contractor bids and  
schedule.  
Michael Sauer, attorney o/b/o Penny Mac, appeared via phone  
Moermond: we just wanted to update the record to see where things were at how  
litigation and insurance, foreclosure if that’s on the table.  
Sauer: we’ve spent quite a bit of time assessing claims in the case and I did end up  
answering the complaint and we are intending to dispute the amounts claimed to be  
owing by the prior contractor. That is ongoing, but that’s kind of a separate matter than  
this demolition case at this point. Eventually I hope they settle, but we weren’t able to  
come together on what they are claiming was done and whether it was done to the  
City’s expectations since nothing has been inspected and approved. After seeing the  
most recent Code Compliance Inspection it raises concerns because he raised  
concerns about framing members and charred portions that we’re not done to City  
standards. That’s how it is related, trying to get contractors in for estimates and  
comparing what was done by the previous contractor. Mr. Zane required that before  
work was done the contractor meet to discuss what is required and because that  
wasn’t done they didn’t have proper direction as to how to go about addressing some  
fire damage. That will direct how we approach Rest Pro in the litigation and there’s a  
chance we’ll have to redo work that was done.  
The foreclosure sale is currently pending. It hasn’t happened yet because there is  
some case law in MN that suggests if you hold a foreclosure sale that a hazard  
insurance company can deny further claims. Insurance companies have caught on to  
that since it is deemed satisfaction of the claim. We’re working to determine whether  
there are additional payments from insurance before that sale is held. That sale is  
pending publication and we’re trying to resolve issues so we don’t get told by the  
insurance company it isn’t happening. It was set for 11/7 and I’m not sure if that will  
happen and insurance will be resolved by then. That’s where that stands currently. Our  
client has been burned in the past by insurance company using MN statues against  
us. It’s the literal sale that triggers that. A lot of balls juggling.  
We are working with a contractor and Penny Mac has a local vendor, Safeguard  
Properties, to get the estimate and timeline required by the City for time for rehab. We  
are anxiously awaiting that bid to see what they’ll say based on that most recent Code  
Compliance Inspection report. Assuming the estimate isn’t significantly higher than  
what it is worth Penny Mac’s plan is to rehab.  
Moermond: for litigation with Rest Pro, where is that exactly? There’s been back and  
forth and things aren’t settled. Filings and court dates?  
Sauer: we’ve answered the complaint as of the 13th and discovery order was issued  
and will be engaging in discovery for the next few months. The goal isn’t to fight and  
spend a fortune in legal fees. I think progress will be made once we receive that  
estimate. There are concerns that some of the work claiming to have been done was  
either not done or done to City standards. Those are the big-ticket issues we’re looking  
at, including the roof. It was never inspected by the City. That Code Compliance  
Inspection report solidified our concerns.  
Moermond: did Ms. Roark hire that contractor?  
Sauer: she hired them but they go to the lienholder, so Penny Mac has the insurance  
funds and can approve or not approve if work was done to satisfaction. There’s also  
dispute about scope of work and whether more of the property was gutted than  
necessary. There are many issues that are interrelated.  
Moermond: when did she hire them?  
Sauer: they started right away but then the disputes started about whether the work  
was done and done properly. I haven’t been in contact with Ms. Roark recently. She  
had been communicating, but she’s not actively assisting. There’s not much she can  
do; she is in default on the loan which is why its in foreclosure and not taken active  
steps with your office other than knowing Penny Mac is managing it. She’s back in  
Minnesota now.  
Moermond: you’ll be getting estimates. Let’s talk again November 28th. Be prepared to  
come, and if we can do it remotely we’ll let you know.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 11/28/2023  
3
RLH RR 23-56  
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1058  
JESSIE STREET within fifteen (15) days after the December 8, 2023,  
City Council Public Hearing.  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Refer back to LH December 12, 2023 at 9 for further discussion if PD is posted by  
COB Friday, Dec 1, 2023.  
Khuram Siddiqui, attorney, appeared  
Colleen Pollock, owner, appeared  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: the building is a two story, wood frame,  
duplex, with storage pods in the rear yard, on a lot of 4,840 square feet. The property  
has been vacant since December 2, 2020 due to a fire. The current property owner is  
Colleen L Pollock, per Amanda and Ramsey County Property records.  
On August 9, 2023, 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 August 15, 2023, with a compliance  
date of September 14, 2023. 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 $20,000 on the land and $60,000 on the building. Real  
estate taxes are current. The vacant building registration fees were paid by  
assessment on January 3, 2023. As of October 23, 2023, a Code Compliance  
Inspection has not been done. As of October 23, 2023, the $5,000 performance  
deposit has not been posted. There have been two Summary Abatement notices  
since 2020 and one work order for boarding/securing. Code Enforcement Officers  
estimate the cost to repair this structure exceeds $100,000. The estimated cost to  
demolish exceeds $30,000.  
Moermond: I hear no Performance Deposit or Code Compliance Inspection Report and  
there have been very few orders to maintain the property. That what jumps out to me  
as notable.  
Siddiqui: I faxed in the Code Compliance Inspection application on Friday. That was  
submitted. We have a lock box with keys on the property. We’re just waiting to hear  
back on that. We have a general contractor in mind to assess the cost for  
rehabilitating to code. I’m involved because after the fire Ms. Pollock had a generous  
home insurance policy and a general contractor came in and without her authorization  
but approval from the insurance estimator they gutted the house against her wishes.  
We’re in litigation with them. The trial is May 1, 2024. Hopefully that will provide some  
funds to pay for the rehab.  
Moermond: you have State Farm insurance in play?  
Siddiqui: they were. She hired the general contractor to do the repairs but instead of  
doing a $70,000 repair, the policy was $250,000 so they could rebuild to the limit.  
Moermond: who was it?  
Siddiqui: Rest Pro. Once she realized changes were made that she had not authorized  
the relationship broke down. They provided the money and she’d been paying Rest Pro  
so part of litigation is to get that money back because they did work that wasn’t  
authorized. State Farm is no longer involved since they did their obligation.  
Moermond: you must own this outright except you had a loan from Community Housing  
Services at some point?  
Pollock: yes, $15,000. It was plumbing and electric and posts in the basement.  
Yannarelly: so, you have $180,000 outside of the $70,000?  
Siddiqui: no, they provided the estimate to state farm of $70,000, but the policy says  
the owner has to authorize changes they just went forward and started tearing things  
out. They’ve paid what they need to pay. That’s why we’re in litigation.  
Moermond: from the City’s perspective the Fire report is the best guess that they have  
on the ground in the situation. Not the same thing as sending contractors through.  
Second thing is the situation with Fire Damaged property and being in the Vacant  
Building program, the repair standard applied to ones damaged by fair starts off  
different than repair standard of other buildings. The City allows you to remain a  
Category 1 Vacant Building for a period of time as long as progress is being made,  
which means whatever insurance says it be habitable again. We respect and try to not  
add more red tape knowing they have that going on. In your case things came to stop  
and the physical conditions of the building change once it is gutted and that means  
different codes apply.  
We don’t know where that Code Compliance Inspection will land. One of the things I  
noticed is that when I read the fire report they characterized some of the conditions as  
hoarded. Has that been removed so someone can move about easily in the house to  
do the inspection?  
Siddiqui: yes, they were moved into storage. We actually have had a couple of  
inspections done for litigation. It should be clear.  
Moermond: and buildings in a hoarded condition sometimes people think things are  
clear and they aren’t from an inspector’s perspective. Sounds like this doesn’t have an  
issue.  
Yannarelly: we had this conversation last week. That’s when I told him about the Code  
Compliance Inspection. There are PODS on site that have been there a long time, but  
no one is complaining.  
Siddiqui: we’re working to get those removed.  
Moermond: have you had inspections for what it would take?  
Siddiqui: we had one person who said $276,000. If someone was interested in  
purchasing is that something that is allowed? That would allow Ms. Pollock to move  
forward with litigation but have it not be demolished.  
Moermond: yes, but a sale could happen but title can’t transfer until the nuisance is  
abated. You have a purchase agreement selling to ABC rehab and saying their $5,000  
down and pay X amount, but you can’t “close” until it has its Code Compliance  
certificate saying it is ready to live in. Some people handle that by way of a purchase  
agreement and adding an addendum. Some do a mortgage or contract for deed that as  
an investor they’re trying to protect their interest. We certainly do see people who work  
in these circumstances and understand the City’s process and rehab business. I don’t  
know how that works out financially, but that would be an option. How are you situated  
for posting that $5,000 Performance Deposit?  
Siddiqui: I have the application here.  
Moermond: you’ve done both, great. What concerns me is the amount of money and  
the timeline for where you’re at with litigation and the work being done. Mr. Yannarelly,  
any thoughts?  
Yannarelly: $276,000 seems like a lot of money. How much of that $250,000 was  
spent?  
Pollock: we paid for the pack out and the cleaning and storage of property, that was  
$230,000. We gave them $80,000 to start cleaning the walls and millwork and sand  
floors and 3 doors. They went into the walls and mechanicals which I had done through  
the City loan. They ignored that and proceeded without our knowledge. Of course, after  
it is done what can you do?  
Moermond: its good you have this inspection report coming. It is time you have a sharp  
pencil to look at circumstances and also what things would need to look like to sell to  
someone else. How does the math break down for you. I suggest this to many people  
sitting where you are. You need a sense of if the building completely rehabbed is up to  
its old value again. Have a realtor look at comps. Looking in reverse at what point have  
you spent more than you’ll get out of it at the end of the day. What do you need to get  
in a sale for it to make sense. How much can you afford to spend to fix it up that  
makes sense. Work out some numbers of how this is going to play out. Setting aside  
litigation and potential money there. Where you are right now, how those numbers look.  
Siddiqui: the fire damage wasn’t that extensive and the amount of change that has  
been done by Rest Pro was more than necessary. So now we’re in this situation to get  
it livable we have to do a lot more than originally. That is part of our damage claim,  
what would return the house to its previous state. It is possible that if we are just  
making it code compliant, then the cost would be lower to get it to Code. That way we  
could hopefully find a buyer to bring it up to code and put Ms. Pollock than if it was  
simply demolished.  
Once we get that Code Compliance Inspection Report we can have a general  
contractor what it would take to minimal code compliance and also what it would take  
to get to the level it was before fire. When do you need to see the money to do the  
rehab? Does that give us litigation or mediation time? Or do we need to find a buyer.  
Moermond: I’d like to take this one step at a time. I think getting those trades  
inspectors through is job one to get you started. You need that before any  
decision-making can be done on your part. The bids you develop, knowing you have  
the court case going on, and then there’s this whole thing. One you would like the  
numbers higher and one you need the numbers to be lower. Seeing the money to do  
the work is a requirement for me to ask the Council to grant time. It isn’t my practice  
to wait long for plans to come together. We’d need a plan much sooner than May 1.  
That’s a long time, and who knows how long that would take to conclude and may be  
appeals. We can’t wait for an outcome on that to be the means by which the house is  
rehabbed.  
It could be you are able to get a loan to the work. Factor that in and really start to  
think through numbers and what that will look like for you. I’m not opposed to finding  
someone who does this rehab, they can run numbers quickly.  
Yannarelly: you may even get cards put on the door or put in the mailbox now that this  
is a Public Hearing. There are people who have done this many times.  
Pollock: I live next door to my little sister, and my other sister lived upstairs. We  
wanted to stay together and we made the neighborhood nice. Crime around us, but not  
on our block. We got streetlights in; we get the alley shoveled. We’ve invested in the  
neighborhood for a long time.  
Moermond: and the City needs exactly that, people who are emotionally invested in the  
neighborhood. That’s what keeps neighborhoods vibrant. I’d like to put a pin in this for  
a while, you’ve done the first two critical things. That is a reason for me to say on  
December 6 at the Council Public Hearing I’ll ask the Council to continue this. I’m  
concerned how these numbers will shake out for you. Time is money. The sooner this  
is resolved the more helpful. Let’s get this done and have you have the chance to talk  
to others about costs and use that to inform your thinking on it. Let’s talk at another  
hearing after you get that report and talk to some contractors so you have a better  
notion of where you want to go. You don’t have to have decided but you’ll have a better  
idea. Let’s talk again December 12.  
[long discussion of Vacant Building fees and assessments]  
Referred to the City Council due back on 12/6/2023  
10:00 a.m. Hearings  
Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements  
RLH RR 23-52  
4
Second Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered  
for 1006 THIRD STREET EAST in Council File RLH RR 23-14.  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
If CC Certificate is not issued by Nov 1, 2023 continue hearing to November 8, 2023. If  
CC Certificate is not issued forfeit $2,500 and continue PH to Nov 15, 2023. If CC  
Certificate still not issued forfeit remaining $2,500 of PD.  
Jason Stockwell, JPS Homes, appeared via phone  
Jared Landon, contractor, appeared via phone  
Moermond: we’re going to finish the conversation we started a couple of weeks ago  
about progress we’ve had and my recommendation for the Council Public Hearing  
November 1.  
Staff update by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: there are many open permits and none  
finaled.  
Moermond: any inspections since the last hearing?  
Yannarelly: none.  
Moermond: it looked like we have a current Summary Abatement Order?  
Yannarelly: yes, for construction debris in the backyard with a compliance date of the  
16th and I did get a Voicemail saying it would be cleaned up by end of week.  
Landon: it was cleaned up before I saw the letter.  
Yannarelly: someone called yesterday.  
Landon: it was cleaned up beginning of last week.  
Moermond: I think someone from my office reached out to let you know. I’m  
disappointed there haven’t been any further trades inspections. Building inspector puts  
you at 60%. You are saying way beyond that. I was hoping for verification by means of  
inspections. I don’t feel great we’re sitting here with no information.  
Landon: the plumbers are in today doing their final work. They should have a final  
inspection scheduled the next couple of days. I did send a work plan with more  
detailed information. The floors have been done. A lot of the building stuff doesn’t have  
any real inspections, I just talked to Clint a few weeks ago. Electrical should be  
finished this week. HVAC is waiting for everything else to be done so they can do their  
final this week. We’re at touch up stage. This is why I was talking to Clint or Cliff  
saying we’re a lot farther than 60%. He was concerned about the trim and how it takes  
a long time to put on. Which it does, but we are keeping 99% of the original trim from  
the house, we’ve put up the minor things. A lot of the finals should be coming in this  
week, with inspections next week.  
Moermond: your Public Hearing is next week.  
Landon: if the inspections are scheduled next week I would imagine that’s ok.  
Moermond: I got 60% number; you are telling me you’re almost done and now people  
are working hard and they will get finals as soon as their done and if inspectors can  
come right away to verify this. I am not feeling good about the progress and  
communication. I’m looking at $5,000 Performance Deposit and thinking we’re at the  
one-year mark and though I’m gratified you’re working hard now I’m struggling. Your  
work plan is six lines long.  
Landon: there’s not much left to do.  
Moermond: I don’t know what is done.  
Landon: once they are done the finals will be scheduled of course, as soon as they are  
done. Electrical was in yesterday. Plumbing yesterday. Flooring was done before we  
expected, over the weekend. It is getting done just like stated on the plan. We’ve had  
some hiccups with the St. Paul Police Department and squatters who caused a lot of  
damage we had to repair. That slowed us down. We’ve had doors kicked in multiple  
times. There are police reports on that. I can send in photos if that’s helpful to show  
progress.  
Moermond: without final permits I have nothing. It is demonstrated by finals on  
permits. I’m looking at what I can use as incentive to get this done. You’re making a  
commitment in the email saying you’ll be done by Friday October 27th. I’m inclined to  
say that’s great, if you aren’t done I’m leaning towards asking the Council to forfeit the  
$2,500 or give grace and lay it over one week and then ask that. This isn’t great to be  
sitting at one year having this particular conversation especially since the neighbors  
had to call in such a big mess. November 1 I hope you have finals. If you don’t, I’ll ask  
for one week layover, if November 8th you aren’t done I’ll ask $2,500 be forfeit and lay  
over another week, if November 15 you aren’t done I’ll ask them to forfeit the other  
$2,500. Let’s get it done.  
Landon: what rough ins haven’t been done?  
Moermond: October 13 Joanna Zimny’s letter provided that information to you. I’ll refer  
you to that letter.  
Landon: ok.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 11/1/2023  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders  
RLH SAO 23-39  
5
Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 913  
JOHNSON PARKWAY in Council File RLH SAO 23-35.  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: we have a finding on this?  
Mai Vang: Sean Westenhofer emailed saying the nuisance is abated.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 11/1/2023  
Correction Orders  
RLH CO 23-14  
6
Appeal of Akeem Lamina to a Correction Notice at 2076 MARGARET  
STREET.  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Recommendation forthcoming pending power being restored by Nov 3, 2023.  
Akeem Lamina, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: October 3, 2023 we sent a correction notice in  
order to get compliance with Xcel. The electric and/or gas was shut off. Needed to be  
restored by October 11. I called this morning and power has not been restored at this  
time.  
Moermond: you talked in your appeal about some things going on, why are you  
appealing?  
Lamina: no one is living there. I’m trying to sell. We’re behind on bills so we decided to  
move out. I listed it. I am trying to make a payment plan with them. As of today they  
restored the power.  
Moermond: you’re saying the power is back on as of this morning, but you are out of  
the house?  
Lamina: yes.  
Moermond: Ms. Martin, is that consistent with your understanding?  
Martin: I spoke with Xcel at 8:30 and they verified no power. I can go out tomorrow to  
verify it was restored.  
Moermond: that’s fine, we can set this up to talk again. This is a correction notice, the  
first notification sent out about the power being restored to continue to be habitable.  
Not getting it restored would result in an order to vacate. They haven’t issued that yet.  
We don’t have hearings next Tuesday. I’ll ask Ms. Martin to follow up with me. If the  
power hasn’t been restored we’ll revisit with a recommendation going out October 27th.  
If it isn’t and it is condemned, that is appealable as well.  
Lamina: please send things to 12125 Larch St NW Minneapolis 55448.  
Moermond: great. We’ll hear back from Ms. Martin and if for some reason she has a  
different finding we’ll say it needs to be addressed by close of business November 3  
I’ll recommend the Council deny your appeal. If they are your appeal will be granted  
noting you are now in compliance.  
[recess]  
Moermond: as a bit of follow-up after the hearing, Ms. Martin you were just on the  
phone with Xcel?  
Martin: I spoke with Lisa who said there is no payment arrangement and the power is  
not restored.  
Moermond: so conflicting information that needs to be resolved.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 11/8/2023  
Orders to Vacate Code Enforcement  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
7
RLH VBR  
23-59  
Appeal of Greg Lehman to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and  
Fire Certificate of Occupancy Revocation Notice at 839 FOURTH  
STREET EAST.  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
VB fee waived 120 days (January 15, 2024) or deadline established in Building Code  
appeal determination. Grant to December 1, 2023 for compliance with item 4 and 7 of  
September 12, 2023 orders. Grant to December 1 2023 for compliance with item 1 in  
orders or appeal to Building Official for item one. Remaining items have been abated.  
Greg Lehman, owner, appeared via phone  
Staff update by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: September 12 it was revoked for long-term  
noncompliance. Inspector Tessman and supervisor were out there last week and some  
things are taken care of, some are not. Unit 1 still has an issue with the heater,  
vertically installed without a permit.  
Lehman: it has been there 30 years.  
Moermond: this was one where this was a difference of opinion on how to proceed. I do  
have a photo that shows it has been enclosed some.  
Shaff: it looks like a small corner closet that has some decorative doors with vents to  
release heat and prevent injury. Companies spend a lot of money to have their things  
listed and we don’t know it is an approved product in that position.  
Moermond: and we can discuss more, but it is not uncovered as it has been in the  
past. It is now covered. Number two, access to unit 1?  
Shaff: the inspector did go in. Item 3, the referenced ceiling tile was an access cover  
and that has been abated. Number 4 there was still an uncovered baseboard heater at  
time of inspection. Number 5, there was documentation from July that the rodent  
infestation was taken care of. Number 6 is taken care of I believe. The smoke alarm  
affidavit has not been submitted, item 7.  
Moermond: do you need one sent to you?  
Lehman: yes. I never got one.  
Moermond: we can get one to you. That leaves us discussion around the two heaters.  
Lehman: I have no idea what you’re talking about because I never saw any photos.  
Moermond: its an uncovered baseboard heater with black and white tiles.  
Lehman: what room is it in? Living room, bedroom? I don’t know what you’re talking  
about.  
Moermond: we’re happy to send it, I’m surprised you don’t know which room has black  
and white tile.  
Lehman: let’s forget this, I’m going to appeal to the City Council. Send me a date. We’ll  
go from there. I’m done here.  
Moermond: ok.  
Lehman: you got that?  
Moermond: I’ll send a referral for you to talk to the trades inspector to consider whether  
they would consider the installation vertically as compliant.  
Lehman: I’ll just appeal to the Council.  
Moermond: that’s a building code determination. It isn’t up to them.  
Lehman: can we appeal to the Council please? Thank you. There’s nothing wrong with  
it I’m done here. So, let’s go in front of the City Council.  
Moermond: the judgment on the existing installation isn’t that of the Council or the fire  
inspectors, the appeal of that goes—  
Lehman: just send me to the Council.  
[hangs up]  
Moermond: three items left on the report from September 12. Item 1 has to do with the  
baseboard heater vertically installed. Originally there was two concerns, one it isn’t  
built to be installed vertically and doesn’t operate as intended by the manufacturer and  
at that time it didn’t have any kind of a cover on it so it presented a danger both  
operationally and someone touching it. It does have a cover now. Whether it is allowed  
to continue to exist is a building or mechanical code issue. My referral is ongoing  
appeal on that would go to them. Second issue is uncovered baseboard heater. Mr.  
Lehman wasn’t aware of this condition existed, black and white tile with a window  
showing a wrought iron fence. Looks to be a simple fix because he has a cover on the  
rest that were an issue previously. We’ll send the smoke alarm affidavit and he should  
be able to return that. The only question remaining is compliance date for remaining  
items. Item 4 with respect to the uncovered horizontally installed heater has a  
December 1, 2023 deadline, along with the affidavit. For the vertically installed heater  
I’ll put a deadline of before it is reoccupied. I am referring the matter as an appeal to  
the Building Official.  
Notes from Inspector 10-19-23: Visited property with MI to take photos and collect  
evidence to pass along for appeals process. The unit is actively undergoing cosmetic  
renovations.. No permit has been pulled for any changes. A cover has been placed  
over the wall mounted heater. Guards were installed on all but one section of  
baseboard heaters. Access panel was replaced in closet. Pest control had serviced  
the property. RP stated that tenants always have been and will continue to be given a  
key to electrical panel room in basement. Pictures are attached in AMANDA. - RT  
Referred to the City Council due back on 11/8/2023  
8
RLH VBR  
23-63  
Appeal of Manoj Bhakta to a Vacant Building Registration Renewal  
Notice at 1046 JESSIE STREET.  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Waive VB fee for 90 days (to Feb 1, 2024).  
Manoj Bhakta, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: this was made a Category 1 Vacant Building  
October 2022 per Department of Safety & Inspections receiving a Vacant Building  
registration form and fee from the ownership group at that time, a bank. We inspected,  
found it vacant. Moving forward we had to issue a work order for snow and ice January  
10, 2023, it is my understanding the new property owner took over in March, the  
appellant. It has not been a nuisance and we’re here to discuss the forthcoming  
Vacant Building fee.  
Moermond: are you Red Maple?  
Bhakta: I am part of it, and my nephew is part of it. We formed the LLC. We bought  
this property together in March hoping we could fix it and rent it as soon as possible.  
We had some issues, mainly some health issues. We do have the funding to repair.  
When we bought it we didn’t know the Vacant Building part, I do know it was empty. I  
spoke to Inspector Hoffman after that. Our goal is to fix and rent, if you could give us  
some time. That’s my request.  
Moermond: how are things looking? Have you started? What is the schedule.  
Bhakta: we have not. We can start now. It is a duplex. We found out the lower unit had  
the electricity turned off, and they wanted pressure test for gas first. We need to find a  
contractor with challenging. Three to four months at least. Mainly it is the flooring.  
Moermond: yes you did buy the property and at the time of purchase there was no  
TISH done. That is what should have been done by the seller and evidently wasn’t. If  
you were represented by a realtor they should have made that available to you. A Code  
Compliance Inspection Report could have been used as a substitute. Another would  
be the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. I’m happy to do a 90-day waiver on the fee, from  
October 31, so to February 1. If it isn’t enough time you can let it go to assessment  
which is also appealable.  
Bhakta: that is more than fair, I appreciate it.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 11/8/2023  
RLH VBR 23-64  
9
Appeal of James Nguyen to a Vacant Building Registration Requirement  
at 607 LAWSON AVENUE EAST.  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH November 14, 2023 at 1 pm to review findings of the 9:30 am inspection  
November 7, 2023.  
James Nguyen, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Nguyen: I have submitted documents and reason for appeal.  
Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: the first inspection was to take place March  
28, 2023. Inspector Anderson went to the property. Front gate was chained, she did  
call SPRWS to verify owner info and get and updated address. Low water usage since  
January, rescheduled inspection. April 5 she received a Voicemail from the property  
owner saying tenants were evicted, was out of the country to end of May and wanted  
extra time for repairs. Rescheduled for 6/1. Ms. Anderson left and Der Vue took over  
the file. June 26 she spoke to property owner who said it is still unoccupied and  
requested an extension, and he was given the time but also revoking unoccupied,  
which we only carry 90 days as practice. That was explained to property owner. We did  
get an update in August from the property owner and they wanted more time, inspector  
Vue gave to September 5 and the property owner left a Voicemail that the turn was in  
progress still. She returned the call and advised it has been this way a while, yard was  
cleaned up but the exterior deficiencies on the property peeling paint and soffits, still  
remained. property owner was told about Vacant Building procedures. 10/3 no change  
in interior. property owner was not responsive to Inspector Vue, so per explanation and  
practice she revoked the Certificate of Occupancy for long-term noncompliance and  
referred to the Vacant Building program.  
Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 1 Vacant Building per  
that referral and Inspector Shaff’s report October ,5 2023. Inspector Hoffman found it  
vacant and secure and took some photos. ]  
Moermond: I do have your email and photographs you submitted yesterday morning Mr.  
Nguyen.  
Nguyen: the last time I spoke to the inspector was in September. I couldn’t make that  
appointment because of the health conditions outlined in my email. Regarding the  
soffits outside and unfortunately I cannot climb due to my health and age. I did contact  
several contractors and handyman to help but either it was a scam or they were three  
months out. I can give the number of the people I contacted. I do have one contractor  
working on my kid’s roof and I contacted him and gave him the photos of the outside  
but he said he will stop by and look. I was sick for 3 weeks, prior to that I spoke to the  
inspector. In September I called to let them know I couldn’t make that inspection and  
left a message to get more time. After that, a week later, October 3 I got that  
revocation of the Fire Certificate. I did talk about my problem with the inspectors and  
trying to find a solution. For my part, I do the best I can to fix. I did look at the Vacant  
Building code and I believe my property does NOT violate any of those items. I don’t  
understand why the inspector made it a Vacant Building. I provided a photo to show the  
progress of the property. If you read my email, this is my income. That’s my reason. I  
work on the building for months when my health allowed, it was never empty and no  
one taking care of it.  
Moermond: a lot of what you’re arguing with respect to your health I can be  
sympathetic, and I really am, but it isn’t something I can consider over the longer arc  
of time we’re looking at with respect to the inspector being present. The role the rental  
income plays in sustaining you, I can be sympathetic but whether or not it is cannot  
have an impact in determining whether it is safe and decent housing for someone. I  
have to look at inspection results. You indicated you never had a code violation. You  
have a class C duplex, that means you have a history of not the best rental property  
with a 2-year cycle. You’ve had violations that have put you on this reinspection cycle. I  
would note you indicated you haven’t received notification of inspections, there are an  
awful lot of appointment letters directed to you as well as letters revoking the  
Certificate. I see 8 letters sent to Apple Valley. I’m struggling with that argument.  
Bottom line is I know you want things fixed before the inspector visits but there is a  
calendar they operate on and that schedule wasn’t met. I do see in the past you said a  
tenant stab the tub. Someone called in June saying it was vacant last June. The faster  
this is fixed and inspected it can be reoccupied and there wouldn’t be a question of  
being in the Vacant Building program. You need to let an inspector in. A list needs to  
be created. I need to create a deadline for you to have your Certificate of Occupancy  
reinstated. You say two to four weeks here. I don’t know why these repairs should  
prohibit access in any way. I want to confirm they’re done in a code compliant fashion;  
I’d hate for you to have to tear a wall down because you didn’t pull a permit. I’d like an  
inspection in the next two weeks. The problem is you not letting an inspector in  
because otherwise all I see is violations and a class C building.  
Shaff: Inspector Vue can be there at 9:30 am on Tuesday, November 7th.  
Moermond: you’ll get a confirmation letter from my office. Getting that inspection will  
have everything to do with my recommendation to the Council on your appeal. It will  
definitely impact that recommendation. I’ll speak with you November 14 at which time I  
will lock in my recommendation. You’ll have had the orders at that time so you know  
what needs to be done and we can figure out what makes sense moving forward.  
Nguyen: I can be close to finishing the inside in 2 weeks. But the outside is outside  
my control.  
Moermond: I think you know from past inspections that they aren’t there thinking  
everything will be perfect. This is about how things are right now. There is no reason to  
push it out because you aren’t done with a project. Not a good reason to prolong this  
further.  
Nguyen: I am more than happy to comply.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 11/14/2023  
1:30 p.m. Hearings  
Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy  
RLH VO 23-35  
10  
Appeal of Si Nguyen to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of Occupancy  
and Order to Vacate at 353 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST.  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Layover to December 19, 2023 at 1:30 pm to review permit status for deficiency list.  
Joanne Nguyen appeared  
Si Nguyen appeared  
Moermond: we’re trying hard to get things figured out. A lot of moving parts. Mr.  
Perucca did you see the most recent building permit application?  
Perucca: I did. One from the 17th of October and one from the 21st. The building  
permit from the 17th restore store front and security gate is active issued. The second  
building permit from the 21 indicates during the Restore, Rebuild, Reimagine (RRR)  
project of 2022 there were repairs done to sliding doors. I believe that was some other  
encompassing work, that permit is in plan review currently and as of yesterday still  
there.  
Moermond: the application for the second permit was Doug Jeager with Kraus  
Anderson?  
Perucca: correct. Arctic Glass also involved.  
Moermond: we’ve got that permit application in for the work already done. Then its just  
a matter of getting it signed off on.  
Perucca: the second permit is still under review but correct in the fact the two permits  
would be reviewed by building inspector Virgil Thomas. Typically, Kraus Anderson  
would reach out to inspector Thomas once all corrections have been made. The other  
associated electrical permit with ties to the front door, the power supply, and also a  
new locking element with the door that needs to be tied to the alarm system. Several  
pending permits still that are in various stages of approval or review. Now it is a matter  
of getting the appropriate trade inspectors back to approve.  
Moermond: when these two building permits are applied for there is a review thinking  
about those applications in terms of fire code and egress and locking concerns.  
Perucca: yes.  
Moermond: so that’s covered in permit review. Presumably if this Kraus Anderson  
permit is approved then these people can call for the inspection but Kraus Anderson  
needs to know what the deficiencies are if there are any.  
Perucca: as a matter of procedure, it is the contractor who calls for the final  
inspection. Given the circumstances here, it may be able to be expedited or  
coordinated. Hopefully with little issue to resolve this matter.  
Moermond: I spoke with someone from the RRR program. Mortensen was the main  
company who oversaw everything, the organizer. When I talked to the Minneapolis  
Foundation that was their first call, to say there is a circumstance here, there was no  
permit pulled, and they reached to Kraus Anderson to say it needs to be addressed.  
They have now made application. I’m happy they did that, because the value of the  
project is estimated to be $105,662. The permit cost is calculated on that value, so  
that isn’t a small amount. I am guessing a couple grand, which you would have been  
stuck with.  
I think speaking again December 19th again to check in makes sense. That gives  
them two months. The electrical and fire alarm work is done, it makes sense they  
could get their final on that then. With respect to orders and deadlines, those are still  
floating out there. That’s ok. We’ll talk in December and if there are still items left at  
that time, we’ll figure out deadlines. The permits are the heavy lift and that’s moving  
forward.  
Si Nguyen: during the 12 days we were closed, who do we speak to about fixing that  
lost income?  
Moermond: I’d speak to someone at the Minneapolis Foundation, Russell Betts, I can  
reach out to him and ask on your behalf. I don’t know what the possibilities are.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/19/2023  
2:00 p.m. Hearings  
Fire Certificates of Occupancy  
RLH FCO 23-87  
11  
Appeal of Ia Thao to a Fire Inspection Correction Notice at 986 GALTIER  
STREET.  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH Nov 7, 2023 at 2 pm for review of work plan for addressing items  
submitted by COB November 3, 2023.  
Ia Thao, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this is a duplex inspected by Torrance Harriel.  
July 26, 2023 he was at the property for an inspection, wrote orders with 18  
deficiencies. Reinspection for September 22. He notes he was on site but refused  
entry. We haven’t been in since then, and it was appealed.  
Thao: my family is living there but I’m not getting rent.  
Moermond: I should have said non-owner occupant. My apologies. Continue, please.  
Thao: the inspector wasn’t refused entry and I met them there and told him I wasn’t  
able to fix them, he said we’d skip it so I didn’t get an extra fee, and I should appeal to  
get extra time. They are big items. That’s what happened the second time.  
Moermond: some don’t strike me as particularly costly. Tell me about what is going on  
in addressing them.  
Thao: I’m having budget issues. We are in process of doing HELOC on my husband’s  
property, we’re in that process now. That would be to fix the issues at the duplex.  
Moermond: I’m glad to hear you’re taking steps. Going back to the list, have you done  
any of them?  
Thao: we’ve done some exterior items, the grass. Things that didn’t cost us anything.  
Moermond: when it says repair glass on garage and house?  
Thao: it isn’t done. Cracks in the window. They need to be updated.  
Moermond: it doesn’t say you have to do new windows. It just says glass needs to be  
fixed.  
Thao: I guess I don’t understand. I haven’t owned it too long. I just assumed cracked  
glass means replacing the window.  
Moermond: I’m not a contractor but I know in my house you can just replace a pane of  
glass. Those aren’t typically terribly expensive, maybe some skill. Address on the  
garage? Missing doorknobs? Burn Pit? Covers on outlets? Those things don’t cost  
money. Have you done them?  
Thao: no. he said any electrical work requires an electrician.  
Moermond: are you actually reading the orders given to you. I am, and it doesn’t say  
that.  
Thao: that’s what he told me during inspection. He said we can’t touch any electrical  
without a permit, and if we can’t prove it during inspection it wouldn’t pass.  
Shaff: that may apply to the front porch lighting, that doesn’t apply to cover plates for  
switches or receptacles.  
Moermond: that’s item 5. And that does say the work may require a permit. The cover  
plates and covers are very inexpensive. I’m asking because I want to know if you’re  
serious about getting things fixed or if you’re just trying to delay all of it. That’s what it  
sounds like. HELOC is great for bigger repairs, but there are small things that can be  
done as an article of good faith in showing you’re trying to get things done. Can you put  
together a plan about how you’ll address these items so I have a sense of what your  
thinking is? I’m not even convinced now you’ve even read the orders thoroughly. Figure  
out what you can be done in the short term, versus hiring a contractor in the long run. I  
need to get a sense you have a handle on doing these fixes. Can you do that?  
Thao: yes.  
Moermond: You still have the September 22 letter with the orders?  
Thao: yes.  
Moermond: review that and come back with a plan for some deadlines for addressing  
the items. I want short deadlines on the cheap and easy ones. I understand some  
things are longer-term. Number 7, provide the address on the garage. Those numbers  
are inexpensive. That is doable. Let’s talk again November 7th, by the Friday before  
you submit a draft plan for me to review. close of business November 3. We’ll talk  
again November 7th.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 11/7/2023