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, September 30, 2025

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Remove/Repair Orders

RLH RR 25-30

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 499

SNELLING AVENUE NORTH within fifteen (15) days after the November

5, 2025, City Council Public Hearing.

Coleman

Sponsors:

Layover to LH October 28, 2025. Recommend removal within 15 days with no option to

repair subject to revision following review of additional submitted materials.

Andrew Dosdall, attorney o/b/o lessee, CVS, appeared

Various residents spoke (names noted below)

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: The building is a one story, wood frame

and brick, commercial building (CVS) on a lot of 18,121 square feet. The Fire

Certificate of Occupancy was revoked on May 6, 2022, and the property was referred to

Vacant Buildings with files opened on July 21, 2022. The current property owner is

SCP 2005 C21 045 LLC, per AMANDA and Ramsey County Property records.

On July 25, 2025, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies

which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An

Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was posted on August 8, 2025, with a compliance

date of August 23, 2025. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which

comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Taxation has placed an

estimated market value of $634,000 on the land and $2,392,100 on the building. Real

estate taxes are current. The vacant building registration fees are due and owing as of

July 21, 2025. As of September 29, 2025, a Team Inspection has not been done. As

of September 29, 2025, the $5,000 performance deposit has not been posted.

There has been a minimum of ten Summary Abatement notes since 2022; however,

actual number is unknown. There have been thirteen work orders issued for:

garbage/rubbish, boarding/securing, and graffiti. Code Enforcement Officers estimate

the cost to repair this structure exceeds $200,000. The estimated cost to demolish

exceeds $100,000.

Moermond: the value on the building you stated was $634,000 which hasn’t been

updated more than likely and isn’t current market value?

Hoffman: correct.

Moermond: when you say a *minimum* of 10 Summary Abatement Orders---often there

is an exact amount—guessing that due to the system being down we can’t get to notes

in the old Amanda system and the new Paulie system doesn’t have historic notes yet?

Hoffman: correct, due to the cyber-attack we are going off what we have available in

our paper records.

Moermond: there were a lot of proactive visits by Code Enforcement and Police, I

assume those don’t show up as inspections per se, they’d show up in different ways

and wouldn’t be in this head count either?

Hoffman: correct, this would simply be what is in the Vacant Building file we maintain.

Moermond: I wanted to restate the last thing you said, about Department of Safety &

Inspections asking for an order to repair or remove the structure. The key thing is we

are trying to abate the nuisance condition. That happens one of two ways, made

habitable again with a new Certificate of Occupancy, or demolished. I will be listening

for that as this conversation progresses. I need to abate it; I don’t care which way. I

just have to get it to the other side so it isn’t a nuisance building anymore.

Dosdall: I don’t have a lot of backstory. There is a multi-year lease. CVS has been

working with David Hoban and Nicole Newmann to find a salutation. CVS remains to try

and find a solution, but unfortunately there’s nothing specific I can report.

Moermond: are you an executive at CVS? An attorney? What is your role?

Dosdall: I’m attorney with Taft Law Firm.

Moermond: Nicole Newman is no longer with the City; the new interim director is

Melanie McMahon. What was the nature of those conversations?

Dosdall: ideally they’d find another lessee, but as far as I know there are no specifics I

can report in terms of those conversations.

Moermond: a remote owner, in terms of CVS would it be a sublessee of CVS or would

it conclude the lease with the Spokane LLC and have them find something else?

Dosdall: my sense is all options are on the table, but I don’t know what specifics have

been discussed.

Moermond: we don’t have ownership here. People who have been notified do include

the owner, Wells Fargo, a couple CVS locations. The expectation in code is

notification should be provided in 2 ways, via first class mail and posting the building

with the notice of hearing and pending orders. Those did happen. I often see personal

service to individuals but that isn’t always true with corporations. No mail was returned.

Moermond: we will assume anyone who provides an email address will be include in

correspondence moving forward. You can find all the records online, including the

attachments. You can always track what is submitted there. As soon as we’re gone

today that record will be down for a bit while minutes are added in. Once they’re done

they’ll be up again.

Moishe Wyskiel: I’ve been a member of the Hamline-Midway community for 3 years.

Organizer at Zion Community commons. I’ve supportive of abating through demolition.

I walk by all the time. It doesn’t inspire a lot of beauty in the first place, and it is in

disrepair. I’d like to see the community demand the space be used for community

purposes. As the area loses more of its food resources. I’d like to see that space be

used in a way that benefits Hamline-Midway, not just the larger economic interests. As

this moves forward and we see the building hopefully go away, the community gets a

large say in how it is used to benefit the neighborhood itself.

Moermond: as I was reading through the correspondence, I need to look at the

nuisance condition presented and that is what is connected to potential enforcement

the City takes. As much as I am interested in Urban planning, that isn’t his discussion

now. That cannot be part of the considerations today on what we do now with this.

That’s just so you know where I come from in considering. I can look at the extent to

which it is a nuisance. [defines legislative code 35.02 and attractive nuisances] That is

where you find where those are characterized and the reference. What makes it a

nuisance building isn’t going to be what makes it savable. Defining as a nuisance is all

the negative things we’re doing now. Getting it to be not a nuisance under City code is

getting that Certificate of Occupancy. Up and running with signoffs. There’s no

in-between place in the gray. You’re either done or not done.

Wyskiel: again, supportive of the abatement through demolition.

Justin Lewandowski: I’d like to start with a quick question about the costs mentioned?

Moermond: I can dial that in. Demolition is a bit easier because we’ve done a number

of these and can usually ballpark the cost. There may be hazardous materials

abatement, which because this business is relatively new I don’t expect. The cost of

getting it habitable depends entirely on the use and the bids. If someone wants to fix it

we want bids, a scope of work detailing from now to complete. The amount of money is

the amount of money their bids and contracts require. So, if it says 2.5 million to fix,

we need to see that money, in an account available.

Lewandowski: I’d like to reiterate what Moishe said. I’d like to speak my experience

and the work of the Hamline-Midway Coalition. We had to create a reporting system to

help neighbors to contact Department of Safety & Inspection. We have them make the

call, especially around the CVS building, and then we also track that. This is because

the very nature of that building has become a public health crisis. Right now, it looks

like an internment camp CVS. Before the fence went up there was 100’s of bags of

trash. Literally a ton of trash, in addition to the couch and furniture that has been

collected over the years. The number of sharps and foils, human waste, finding them

at the greenlight station blocks in both directions, with that being the central hub. We

know that Department of Safety & Inspections gets 80,000 calls and emails a year.

We know abatement won’t be swift, but our experience with the graffiti and the trash

and needles? The abatement process has taken a very long time. I was eager to hear

someone had been assigned to this site, I believe his name is Jason. We were told

there would be running abatements and the last time there was graffiti on the building

it took several weeks.

We’ve lost business at Sprucetree Center. It is at about 50% capacity. The outward

appearance has been driving away economic growth. The lack of outside care and

maintenance has been distressing. Because we office out of the Sprucetree wee

watched the HVAC system be destroyed. I have deep concerns about what that space

looks like inside and how it has been used. With speculative holding and the United

Village development coming up, I don’t believe the people would do anything other than

the bare minimum and keep holding the property until it fits their needs and not the

neighborhood’s. Demolition I believe is the best course of action for that parcel, simply

based on the lack of trust and faith we have in the “SLCP00 whatever numbers and

letters” from Spokane Washington. The building itself no longer serves the needs of

the community. It really has taken ah it on morale. It is one of the busiest

intersections in St. Paul and when you hear stories about the Midway, that’s the first

building that comes to mind. It is a travesty and I think it should be demolished.

Moermond: Mr. Hoffman, there have been delays since July in response at least, tell

us what has happened?

Hoffman: especially since end of July we didn’t have phones, not even internally. It was

all proactive. Any abatement orders are written by hand, mailed out, same with work

orders. Things are moving slower than we like. We’re trying to remedy this as soon as

possible.

Moermond: half of your people are assigned to that end, so you are also short staffed

as people work on the system replacement. Yes, I’m being an apologist, but here is

what going on. As I look at nuisances and chronic problem properties, my own

personal definition---does it look bad, smell bad, scare you? But the other is the

impact is you emotionally and financially disinvest in the area. That’s the reason why

we have nuisance codes but doesn’t in itself make you meet those definitions in the

law.

Lisa Nelson: interim Executive Director of Hamline-Midway Coalition. Thanks to Justin

for his background on that. In addition to working there, I live a couple of blocks away

from the CVS. I just wanted to say in addition to the definitional nuisance aspects, it

has just taken up so much time and energy of the neighborhood organizations. The

amount of time we spend talking about it, answering questions about it, helping people

file complaints. We have at least monthly neighborhood cleanups, where in addition to

the tings reported to Department of Safety & Inspections the neighborhood goes out

and does cleanup. Staff time and volunteer time to abate the nuisance ourselves is

truly a lot of time. It has been a nuisance in both appearance and time. It would help

the neighborhood to have it abated in some way. Even before the exterior appearance

got bad, it was still a nuisance to us as a neighborhood. Short of it actually being

brought back to occupancy levels and being occupied by a business, I don’t see even

a maintained empty building not being a nuisance immediately again.

Cora Lewis: I live a couple of blocks from CVS. I have no car so I bike or walk by

CVS most days. I support the demolition. I am somewhat skeptical of this process

because it is clear the property owner and lessee are purposefully neglectful and

purposely harming the neighborhood’s development. I don’t think they will abate the

issue. That is clear. Moreso as a resident is the City will end up basically paying

$100,000 of taxpayer money towards demolishing a building, which I think is fine if the

building can become something for the community. That’s why I bring up afterwards,

because when we were talking about immense corporate neglect—they just ultimately

want to profit off the stadium and the neighborhood becoming less and less for its

community. As someone who makes minimum wage, who lives here, who is stressed

about getting groceries and how to even get food. I am very grateful for alternative food

distribution like the Zion Community Commons, I think if we are going to spend

$100,000 then I want to emphasize that $100,000 needs to lead towards a community

space that can actually benefit us. Otherwise, I think the whole process is just

benefiting corporate money and power growing in our City. *lots of snapping in support*

Moermond: let me just clarify. If the City goes about demolishing the structure, the City

Council will issue the order to abate the nuisance building via removal within 15 days.

That 15 days is time for the owner to take action to remove it. That means they’ve

hired a contractor, pulled a permit, things are underway. If the City does it, the City will

put it out for contract as required. The bid is awarded, hazardous materials

assessment, then they can initiate the utility cuts and then demolition. It will require

right-of-way access permits, timing issues that need more planning. The City will write

the check to demolish. It comes out of City funds, but it also becomes an

assessment onto the property. It will stay that way and needs to be paid for by the fee

owner. Would the City be out the money? Temporarily, but they’d get it back again

from the owner, unless they walk and it goes tax forfeit. If it goes to Ramsey County

when they sell we pull that amount of their profit. Ultimately the City would be made

whole. I just wanted to explain based on what I heard.

Lewis: I’m more concerned we’re making it easier for the likely developer who will buy

it. We’re making it easier for a developer to come in and not benefit the community.

Lily Eggers: I want to echo the comments of Cora and others. I’ve lived here 4 years,

currently in Rondo/Summit U. I’ve been particularly active in Hamline-Midway and

officed out of Sprucetree for quite a while. I took the time off work to come here today

to support the removal. The only good the community gets right now is the 2 feet of

shelter on the Snelling side of the building. And that’s only because it’s something that

can be provided without any attention or care by the owner or lessee. I knew this was a

likely result in the 2000’s when St. Paul allowed an unaccountable conglomerate who

closes and opens stores willy-nilly to set up a location at a critical artery of both our

City and the Hamline-Midway neighborhood. You get the community you plan for; you

get the community you build for. You don’t need me to tell you that. We need to think

about how we can get this lot to actually address community needs and works within

the broader urban fabric. Food access, low income and affordable housing come to

mind. This has been the site of such high-income housing development that is also

coming from less accountable outside community sources. This opportunity at this

location both in terms of its access, transit links and the situation with future

delinquent ownership status is also relatively rare in combination. I would support

demolition as the current set-up of the building, even if rehabilitated, is not conducive

to the community’s needs at all. It is one story, set up for a particular kind of

commercial operation that I think we’ve seen in the last 20 years does not ultimately

serve the community long-term and it is more costly to refurbish anyway. If it was

refurbished I’m of the understanding it would have to be another commercial space?

Moermond: not necessarily. We’d look to the underlying zoning and the allowed use. If

they need to change the zoning for the use they want there is an entire process for

doing that separate from this.

Eggers: and that’s the lot owner’s responsibility?

Moermond: yes.

Eggers: I have significant doubts there would be any initiative on that process given

the current history of the lot. It is currently set up to serve corporate commercial

interests that are clearly disinterested and actively incentivized to drag their feet as

evidenced by the lack of familiarity of the lessee’s representative, as we heard, with

the situation of the case. The cost is currently being born by the community. There is

an active cost right now and it is going into the time and effort the citizens of

Hamline-Midway and surrounding neighborhoods are putting into just keeping the

building from completely collapsing—both figuratively and literally. There is a public

cost, but also an informal cost being born by residents to clean up trash and set up

entirely auxiliary support systems for reporting issues at the site. That is all coming out

of our time, paychecks, and essentially subsidizing negligence by the owners and

lesser extent the lessee of the lot. That is going to continue and that’s why I have

extreme skepticism about any rehabilitation of the lot. I would personally support

demotion but either way the abatement needs to happen and happen now.

Carter Bell: I just moved into an apartment 1.5 blocks south of the building back in

May, though I’ve lived in the area for a better part of 5 years. It is impossible not to

notice this building. I agree with the comments about how it is going to be much

cheaper and better for the community to demolish and redevelop it later. Frankly, my

biggest reason for supporting the demolition is the fact that it is at the crucial spot at

the crux of public transit and currently doing a whole lot of nothing for the community

for the moment. There is so much that could be done with that site, so many

opportunities of what it could be. I know you can’t consider the future in your decision,

but it could fill the needs of the community through supporting more food options.

Though we have alternative food distribution places, they lack adequate space and

ideal location. One potential is they could have a site where they could do that

dedicated work at the crux of public transit and maximize their ability to help lower

income and unhoused members of our community get affordable groceries. Affordable

housing is a serious issue both in the Midway and across St. Paul. I would support

putting some sort of affordable housing in the spot, maybe above a ground-floor

business. There is so much potential for the site that is not what it is currently doing,

and to do them you need to demolish what is currently there.

Nicole Brown: I am a sixth-generation Midway resident. I have four 7th generation

resident children in the Midway. Ever since the riots/uprising/protesting in 2020 this

building has suffered. It surprised me when it went in. The transient culture and history

at this crossroads have always been developed by outside hands and large corporate

money. The CVS was no surprise with its promises of health but it hasn’t served on

that promise. My children ride the A line to school and the light rail to events, but

because of its negligence and lack of care for 5 years it has drawn this sense of no

one paying attention so we can just defecate on it. There are no consequences. It is a

perpetual case of if corporate America can get away with this then it brings in the

oppression and the oppressed of the neighborhood. Then the outcry of the

neighborhood. No big surprise that a lot of the outsider big corporate billionaires come

and in neglect the property. This has been all up and down University. This is the

busiest and oldest intersection in the neighborhood, midway between St. Anthony falls

and the landings of St. Paul. This is on every Minnesota map in history and we’d like to

be able to reclaim our space. This has not been done. I would like to see CVS

demolished. I’d like to start envisioning this history of people—including my folks, my

ancestors who have been here since 1895—all these billionaires, railroads, light rails,

trains, businesses have come in and they aren’t sustainable. You can plant a tree and

it sustains itself. A lot of these buildings, once the billionaires have run their gamut

and got their money, they’re out. Then we’re left to try and make sense of this. CVS is

just the biggest eye sore in this. 2.5 million people attend the fair. They see this. they

talk about this. This is out of their months. It is big. My children don’t want to approach

that corner, yet I am supposed to encourage them to take public transit. This is a

culture of transit here and this eyesore just says, “what are we going to do?” I would

like to look forward to something. I am going to piggyback on a couple notes that say,

“what are we going to do?” I’m not a legislative person, I don’t understand a ton of

politics, are we going to make it easy for them to place hold and keep neglecting? Are

we going to clear it out for the next billionaire to come in and “rescue” our

neighborhood. We don’t need any more rescuing. Collectively we are ready to start

reimagining how residents and small business owners can invest and own our

neighborhood and represent this transient diversity culture of our place that isn’t

billionaire placeholding for the next billionaire. We could demolish CVS and make an

example of that that snowballs into a reclaiming of our neighborhood which we have a

dire need of. We’re doing it one tiny plot at a time. This ugly building standing there

surrounded by needles and feces? My children have now taken opioid overdose

classes and know how to look for overdosing people and when to call 911 instead of

stepping around them at this corner and building. With the demolition it would be

safety and aesthetics. I have a whole vision for this but I do not, 1000%, they’ve had

all the time and its time for them to let go. I don’t want to see it demolished to make it

easier for another corporate outsider who doesn’t have any place or investment in our

community to come in. I don’t want it to be a perfect set up for yet another one.

Arlie Lee: I live 2 miles from this intersection for a year now. When I moved to St. Paul

the CVS was boarded and abandoned along with a significant number of other

buildings across the University corridor. I know you can’t consider plans for what will

happen after the building is abated, but as you can see from the turnout here, we really

care about our community. The empty and abandoned buildings forebode the further

gentrification of our community and we simply deserve better. The way people talk

about the dilapidated state of the building mirrors their sentiments of our unhoused

and dispossessed neighbors in the area. These folks are seen as nuisances as well;

however, you cannot rule to demolish their lives—not explicitly—I’m not here to harp on

it but it is a fact that there is a fundamental lack of support systems. Especially at

such an important transit hub we need community centers, food distribution systems,

affordable housing, child care, free clinics. We have more than enough space for

those in our neighborhood. We don’t need to worry about feces in the street if there

were actually places for people to use the bathroom. I just wanted to state that point.

Gunnar Aas: I live a couple of blocks away from this intersection. I really don’t think

this property or ownership especially is capable of filling any need of the community.

The big reason I came today was I was really hoping that *somebody* from CVS or

this LLC would show and try and defend their ownership so we could put a face to this

building. The fact that no one showed up and all they sent was a lawyer who didn’t

seem to know much about the property shows how little they care. If you came and

told me you were going to tear my house or business down, I would be here kicking

and screaming to save it. Where is that interest from CVS? It isn’t just a failure of

responsibility, it isn’t just negligence, it is an insult to this community, to the City, and

it shows me they haven’t just neglected the building, they’ve abandoned it. I would love

to see the City approach it from that perspective. They keep telling us they will

continue to try, but I walk past that intersection almost every day. I’ve not seen any

effort over the last couple of years. They were forced to put up the fence that only

made the problems worse. There is trash everywhere. I clean up trash around there

multiple days a week. I’ve probably filled thousands of trash bags in the area. I’m

never going to get that time back and I feel like CVS needs to pay for that. People

talked about how this is driving investment interest away. I hear that every time I talk

with people. They say I could never see myself living here, and they are mainly talking

about the CVS they see when they’re driving to my neighborhood. It makes me feel

sad and disappointed about the place that I live and the whole reason I am in involved

with groups like the Hamline-Midway Coalition is to try and change our neighborhood

for the better. I am glad to see the City is finally doing something about this problem

property. I’d love to see something happen with this; at the end of the day, we deserve

better. One question about demolition, I think about other properties that have been

demolished that are now just fenced in grass that doesn’t get cut, filled with trash.

What will this look like in the aftermath of demolition? Will it be the same empty lot no

one takes care of? Can it be a green space for our community in the interim? What

can I expect a year from now?

Moermond: I don’t have foresight to see that. I can say a property’s ability to become

productive again is directly tied to the property values and ownership. The City will not

own this property. That isn’t what this is about. Someone who owns the property will

continue to be on the deed unless they lost it for nonpayment of taxes or they sell it. I

can’t change that, and I can’t say what the future will look like there. What I can say is

management of those types of lots, Mr. Hoffman, you see a lot.

Hoffman: when it is done it will be a hydroseeded dirt lot. From there, if the owner

doesn’t do anything with it, we monitor it as a vacant lot. Cut the grass if they don’t.

Moermond: one thing that surprised me, particularly with residential properties, is

sometimes owner’s thinking gets muddled about the cost of holding the property

versus its productive value. I don’t know inaction right now falls in that category but it

is a matter of a financial analysis they have to do. Often it isn’t sitting on a property

and paying high property taxes. The marginal increase in benefit is eaten up by holding

costs. There needs to be that analysis, I don’t know if that’s happened. I don’t see

them in the room. That is what I look at and would also say that plays directly into their

willingness and energy towards rehabilitation.

Aas: would the demolition of the property down to the dirt include the parking lot?

Hoffman: correct, yes. The entire parcel, excluding any alley easements typically.

Mike Morrow o/b/o Union Park District Council: as our letter stated, we support the

City’s action of removal or repair. I just want to echo the concern about the owner not

showing up. If you sent me a letter telling me to mow the lawn, I’d at least contact

Department of Safety & Inspections letting them know I was taking care of it. That

letter wasn’t enough. We wanted someone physically here because this isn’t a small

matter. It is important. I was hoping we would hear something from the owner so we

knew where they stood. I am disturbed, concerned, bothered, by that. The lack of

attendance IS a position by the owner.

Jacob Hooper: I live just outside the Midway in southwest Como. I’m grateful for

Councilmember Coleman for introducing this. Justin Lewandowski really put it very

well, but does it look bad, smell bad, scare you? Yes, yes, yes. Is it negatively

impacting the economy of the neighborhood? Clearly, yes. People are not interested in

renting spaces at the Sprucetree. I took a selfie at that intersection and posted it on

social media a while ago and a bunch of people responded like “oh my gosh that’s the

worst intersection in St. Paul.” There’s a beautiful used bookstore, a statue of a loon,

when people say it is the worst intersection in St. Paul they’re talking about CVS. It is

definitely impacting people’s willingness to invest in the neighborhood. CVS doesn’t

care about us, doesn’t care about Snelling and University, doesn’t care about the

Midway, doesn’t care about St. Paul. We are a rounding error on a spreadsheet to

them. Maybe this is just what happens when we court national corporations rather than

cultivating local businesses. Either way they have no plan or intention to improve the

obviously unsafe blighted botched painting of the property. They won’t improve the

nuisance condition, they’ve proved that over the last several years. They’ve also

approved it in their unbelievably disinterested testimony here today. The owners didn’t

even show up. This thing is occupying one of the most important intersections in the

City. It should be one of the most exciting places to be int eh City, instead it is

dragging down the whole neighborhood. It is dragging down the rest of St. Paul. The

City should prove it cares about blight and I think we should get rid of it. We should

replace it with literally anything. I would love to see housing. To be clear I think a patch

of dirt would be better than the current CVS. *lots of snapping in background* I think

you should either demolish it or let us, the community, after it and we will tear it down

ourselves with sledgehammers and our bare hands like it is the Berlin wall.

Moermond: don’t do that.

Ron Barze: I work with the Neighborhood Development Center in Frogtown. I don’t have

a lot to add other than we’ve been in the community for 30 years working in economic

development, working with entrepreneurs and small businesses and we are here to

help.

Moermond: this goes to the City Council on November 5. We like to give an

opportunity to make available for plans that have been developed for a building’s

rehabilitation to be reviewed prior to the Council hearing. That is our standard practice,

so if there were an owner sitting here and they had ideas we’d want to see them nailed

down in short order. We’d have to review and approve them. In the normal course the

things I would look for would be a $5,000 Performance Deposit, a team inspection with

the trades’ inspectors going through. We need to see bids for the relevant trades as

well as scope of work/work plan/sworn construction statement. We need to see the

money to pay all of those bills. What this one presents to me two things: 1) it has

become evident in reviewing the file that the placement of a fence around the property

has not amounted to a nuisance abatement plan for managing the site, whether it is

removed or repaired, there needs to be something during these several months to

happen. At other locations we’ve asked for not only securing the site but also cleaning,

lighting, cameras, involving the St. Paul Police Department. Again, that would be part

of the owner showing up in good faith to be able to address the situation at hand. I

would like to point out that I’m not 100 percent clear on the exact relationship between

CVS as lessee and the LLC owner in Spokane Washington. In terms of accountability

for who should be developing plans, getting bids, ordering inspections, that isn’t clear.

If the owner isn’t the one presenting the plans and taking responsibility, I’d need to see

a contract with the owner actively authorizing someone to do the work, that they’re

involved. I don’t want to assume anything. This is how we’ve treated other similarly

situated properties. I don’t have any of these things right now. I don’t have an owner

present.

Mai Vang: we haven’t had an owner contact us, just a Jonathan Shumrak from CVS.

Moermond: so, we’ve heard from CVS but not the LLC. They would have got the order

to abate a nuisance building on August 5, notice of hearings on August 25, most

times we hear from them. The order to abate a nuisance building itself was sent

August 8 does articulate clearly the necessity for the inspection report and

Performance Deposit. That is not a new ask today for the first time. That’s been out

there for nearly 2 months with no action. I’m frankly also surprised this hasn’t come

forward before, but I would say if there had been work with Mr. Hoban and Ms.

Newman, which I wouldn’t be party to any of that, I can see where maybe there would

have been a delay if there was a sense of movement in those conversations. I don’t

know. I don’t see movement right now and lacking that I would recommend the City

Council order the building removed with no option for its rehabilitation in 15 days. I

want you all to know the public record is still open. We could get a pile of paperwork

from anyone on this and I’d need to review that and it would have an impact on where I

am coming from with my recommendation. Public hearing is actually when the record

is closed, not today. If you have additional comments, send them in. We’re happy to

look at them. I’m going to put a placeholder on my calendar for October 28. What that

means is if I do get additional proposals for abating the nuisance condition that would

be a time to review those so I have a fresh report for the City Council. If I don’t have

anything there won’t be a lot to talk about and we can affirm where we are today. I do

want to make that clear to you all and ownership that the record is open. The least I

can do is take a minute and review that. Whatever we are sent would show up in the

public record and is accessible online.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/28/2025

RLH RR 25-28

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 430

DALE STREET NORTH within fifteen (15) days after the October 22,

2025, City Council Public Hearing.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Refer back to LH October 28, 2025 for further discussion and decisions of rehab or

removal of property. (CPH Nov 5).

Anita Alexander, member of United Memorial Methodist Church, appeared

Muhammed Ambo, o/b/o Oromo American Tawhid Islamic Center of St. Paul,

appeared via phone

Moermond: we were originally scheduled a couple of weeks ago. [Moermond gives

background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor James Hoffman: The building is a one story, wood frame,

commercial building on a lot of 22,869 square feet. The Fire C of O was revoked and

condemned on May 17, 2023 due to a fire. The property was referred to Vacant

Buildings with files opened on May 22, 2023. The current property owner is Oromo

American Twhid Islamic Com St Paul, per AMANDA and Ramsey County Property

records.

On May 21, 2025, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies

which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An

Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was posted on June 25, 2025, with a compliance

date of July 25, 2025. As of this date, the property remains in a condition which

comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code.

Taxation has placed an estimated market value of $571,000 on the land and $102,300

on the building. Real estate taxes for 2024 are delinquent in the amount of $1,640.83,

which includes penalty and interest. The property is scheduled for tax forfeiture on July

31, 2028. The vacant building registration fees were paid by assessment on June 2,

2025. As of September 15, 2025, a Team Inspection has not been done. As of

September 15, 2025, the $5,000 performance deposit has not been posted. There

have been thirty-one Summary Abatement Notices since 2023. There have been

eighteen work orders issued for: Garbage/rubbish, boarding/securing, tall

grass/weeds, snow/ice and graffiti. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to

repair this structure exceeds $250,000. The estimated cost to demolish exceeds

$80,000.

Ambo: this building was insured but they refused to pay to repair. We took them to

court and it is scheduled for December of this year. Our plan is to repair but we don’t

have money and are waiting for it to be completed.

Moermond: the fire happened more than 2 years ago. No action and poor maintenance

of the property. I get you want to repair but I don’t see investment in terms of simple

maintenance even.

Ambo: we are doing everything. We remove refuse and snow. We boarded the windows

and fenced the entire building. We are doing everything we can. I’ve been speaking

with someone—I’m doing everything.

Moermond: I just heard from Mr. Hoffman that since May of 2023 the City has had to

send 31 notices and 18 work orders resulting in assessment. That is quite a bit. I

understand you’ve taken some action but certainly not as much as needed to be done

if the City has had to do that much to manage your property. That’s a concern to me. I

see perhaps as an organization disinvested in what is happening on site. That’s what

that history says to me. Tell me more about the insurance situation.

Ambo: they delayed and took more than six months to respond. They denied end of

2021 or 2022. We hired an attorney and they scheduled the hearing for this year. They

offered us some money, now we are waiting for trial end of this year.

Moermond: alright. We’ll come back and talk a bit more about what the future may

look like for you. In the meantime, let’s hear from Ms. Alexander on her take on the

situation.

Alexander: I am a 35-year member of Camphor United Methodist Church, located at

585 Fuller. Since the main structure fire in 2022 this has moved to a nuisance

property. 3 additional fires in the building. We got a fence installed around the parking

lot on the east side of the building which has cut down on the loitering and dumping

into the lot and around the building. We are responsible for many complaints to

Department of Safety & Inspections for trash, excessive weeds, trees, abandoned

vehicles, and graffiti removal as late as last week. The City has always taken care of

the issues we raised. Special assessments have been put on their taxes; however,

nothing has changed. Our members work hard to maintain our church inside and out.

We make sure all trash is picked up from our building to Dale Street, and from Fuller

Avenue to Unidale Mall. We file formal complaints as needed and work with the

unhoused as we are able. We have a good relationship with the St. Paul Police

Department as they help us continuously as we handle the effects of this property. The

condition of this property negatively impacts our church, the HeadStart daycare on

Fuller along with all other properties within view. Hundreds of cars travel along Dale

street and see the deplorable as viewed in the photos taken. We don’t want our area to

be viewed like this. Our church is interested in the land and possibly the building,

however we are a church and any type of acquisition would be a lengthy process. We

are ready for a change because we keep working to keep the area looking decent, but

we are tired.

Ambo: she said abandoned cars and garbage. The lot is completely fenced, so how

are we responsible for abandoned cars on the street?

Alexander: we haven’t had one in the lot in the last year, but though your lot is fenced it

is still accessible by the unhoused. We try to move things back outside the fence

since it isn’t totally secure. The police helped us last week, along with a couple people

using it for a bathroom.

Moermond: so, people are defecating and urinating on the exterior?

Alexander: yes.

Hoffman: certainly broken into multiple times. Boarded multiple times by RestPro. A

lot of trash around the building, especially the front and along the northeast corner

where a lot of people hang out. We did send a Summary Abatement Order a week and

a half ago to clear out the trees and brush which our crew did last week to deter people

from hanging out there.

Moermond: I’m concerned about the vagueness of redevelopment at this property. I

know dealing with insurance is never fun or fast, but I don’t know---what steps have you

taken to move forward with or without insurance? By not paying taxes in 2024 it is a

signal to me you may be stepping away?

Ambo: no. We don’t have money and they told us to not repair because they may

refuse.

Moermond: before you can even begin that, the question of the taxes is not

insignificant. You didn’t pay the second half of 2023. None in 2024 and none so far in

2025. There’s a total of levied, pending and assessed assessments of $24,433. Ten

already levied so far just this year for over $9,000. That’s not a small amount, plus the

cost of the rehabilitation. We have some significant issues. The money racking up

does say to me you are walking whether you are verbally saying it or not. You keep

insisting you maintain the property and pay taxes, which is demonstrably not true. I

understand you have insurance, but it may be a discussion about value lost because

you couldn’t get it done in time. Clearly the tax situation needs to be taken care of.

Why? Because I need to know you aren’t going to come to a halt in the middle

because you can’t pay contractors. I need to see a $5,000 Performance Deposit. You

haven’t ordered a Code Compliance Inspection Report. No property maintenance. No

bids. No money. I need all of that to show you are in this and willing to address the

situation. The City and the neighborhood can’t wait for an indefinite date for insurance

who may or may not pay out. Maybe talk to your leadership team at your organization.

I need to check in with you on one thing. I understand you didn’t get a mailing. When I

check the tax records I see two mailing addresses. 430 Dale and one for you at 1001

Westgate here in town. I see that Westgate property is owned by the Community

based on its initials. If there’s another address we should be using, please let us know

what that is. We’re happy to use an email moving forward and include anyone else

you’d like. I am really feeling good about the prospects of rehab, but it could be this is

the call for you to take action and get it done. I want the problem to be taken care of,

one of the two roads: knocking down the building, the other is fixing it up and making

the building productive again. One of those things has to happen or the City will move

forward with the demolition.

This has a Council Public Hearing October 22. I had to delay this hearing so I will push

that to November 5. I’m currently inclined to order it removed within 15 days with no

option to repair. I’m willing to revisit this if you. Some of these steps were told to you

months ago. Maintaining the property? Driving by you can see these things. Checking

your mail is certainly important but actively managing the property is more important.

That hasn’t happened. That tells me you are disinvested. I’d love to see that turn

around and I’m happy to continue talking if you can make this work.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/22/2025

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH RR 25-17

First Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for

887 CHARLES AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 24-17. (Nuisance is

abated)

Bowie

Sponsors:

The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved (as of 10/1/25).

Kyle Runbeck, owner, appeared

Runbeck: because of things being down the plumbing and electrical inspectors had to

come down and see again and then I had to submit photos. I did get my building

permit in August.

Moermond: the reason this is taking so long is because of the cyberattack. They’re

finally doing new permits. This requires a conversation with Clint Zane.

Runbeck: I spoke with him this morning.

Moermond: I’m going to send this to Council October 22nd. We don’t need to talk

again. It is just that final permitting piece. Let’s go ahead and we’ll check in before

then. Send us an email if something comes up. Hopefully in the next month you’ve got

the final on the building permit and it is done. Right now, you get the entire $5,000

Performance Deposit if you are done by the end of the month.

[Note: CCC issued 10/1 by Inspector Zane]

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/22/2025

RLH RR 25-27

Third Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for

195 GOODRICH AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 25-15.

Noecker

Sponsors:

Recommendation forthcoming pending finaled permits and issuance of CC certificate.

David Marks, purchaser, appeared

Moermond: let’s do the same thing, send this to October 22, and hope things are

wrapped up by then.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/22/2025

RLH RR 25-26

Third Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for

1213 WOODBRIDGE STREET in Council File RLH RR 25-23.

Kim

Sponsors:

The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved (as of 10/1/25).

[Note: CCC issued 10/1 by Inspector Zane]

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/22/2025

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments - ROLLS

RLH AR 25-92

Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services

during June 11 to July 11, 2025. (File No. J2601R, Assessment No.

268601)

Noecker

Sponsors:

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

RLH AR 25-93

Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services

during June 12 to 24, 2025. (File No. J2601TW, Assessment No.

268701)

Noecker

Sponsors:

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

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 25-53

Appeal of Paul Warner to a Summary and Vehicle Abatement Orders at

42 BAKER STREET WEST. (September 30, 2025 Legislative Hearing)

Noecker

Sponsors:

Grant to October 3, 2025 for compliance.

Tried calling 11:37 am: Voicemail box full.

Moermond: let’s go ahead and amend the resolution to have a deadline of October 3

and we can kick out an email indicating that is the recommendation.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/1/2025

RLH SAO 25-55

Appeal of Mark Puchala II to a Summary Abatement Order and Vehicle

Abatement Order at 2016 FREMONT AVENUE.

Johnson

Sponsors:

Grant to October 13, 2025 for compliance with TG&W order. Grant to November 3,

2025 for compliance with the VAO.

Mark Puchala, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: I know we’ve talked before but I’ll restate. [Moermond gives background of

appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: September 11, 2025 a Summary Abatement

Order was issued to cut the tall grass and weeds from property including boulevard.

Also, a Vehicle Abatement Order for camper in back yard, no tabs. Deadline of

September 18th for both. Nothing is changed; it is now September 30th.

Puchala: I have my partner with me, the camper is theirs. We had the inspector come

a long time ago about the camper, and he said as long as we park it and put brakes

below and around the tires we don’t need registration and can sit as it was. It is now a

stationary building essentially. The only weeds are my sow thistle, horseweed and an

ash tree and maple tree. If I fence it off does that change anything?

Moermond: fence around the weeds?

Puchala: they are my plants, but sure.

Moermond: what am I missing with the plants?

Puchala: I’m trying to get out weeds. I am finishing up the lawn to legumes program. I

went and got a sign from them. I’ve been trying to let the plants grow to identify them.

I’m removing the yellow foxtail. There is one form of grass I can see where it is above

the 8”, I just haven’t been able to identify yet, that is next to my food garden. I have

horse weed and milk weed on the boulevard but I’m removing the rag weed. I’m trying

to preserve the biodiversity for pollinators. Those are the things I’m getting flagged for.

Anthony Munos came in person a month or 2 ago and was pointing out my sedge which

is a native plant that is supposed to be exempt but he said even though it is 3” high

the fact it is more than 8” long it has to be mowed. It is covered by the U of M

extension as a native grass that should be kept.

Moermond: back to the parking, Ms. Martin, I haven’t heard it is ok to put bricks in. it

seems that it should be approved by zoning.

Martin: no site plan given for approval, you need asphalt or concrete. I’ve never seen

one approved in this type of situation.

Puchala: we simply did what the inspector told us to do. It sounds like we need to

install a lot of asphalt or concrete and that would pass?

Moermond: what you need to do is talk to Zoning about what you’d like to do for

parking in that area. The current situation isn’t code compliant.

Puchala: I’d like to ask for patience with that, because we just did what we were told.

Martin: the other thing is it is deployed. It is being used.

Puchala: it has to be closed to be stored?

Martin: it says in his own appeal application it is being used as a structure. We don’t

allow it up and open. Our concern is people living in it. If you are looking for a shed,

then it has to be a shed, not a camper used for storage. It has to have current tabs

and be on an approved surface.

Puchala: we use it as a patio essentially to go in and watch the birds without scaring

them. That isn’t allowed unless we do what is approved by Zoning?

Moermond: it is a vehicle. You are using it as an extension of your built living area,

which is fine. AS such, you’d need a building permit if it is used as a structure. IF it is

a used in a dual capacity it needs to be taken care of as a vehicle, and that would

require tabs and parking on an appropriate surface. There are a couple solutions, but

what is going on now isn’t compliant. There are considerations zoning will look at such

as if there is a parking spot with a driveway leading to it. Is it far enough from the

property line? Those types of things. I would rely on their opinion and judgment about

whether or not your proposal is acceptable. I don’t do zoning so I can’t provide that.

Let’s talk more about your managed landscape. I’m looking at MN Statute 412.925 and

I’m not really reading it to encompass the grasses as you’re talking about them. It

does really talk about a managed natural landscape that is planned, intentional, and

maintained. They do say managed natural landscapes do not include turf-grass lawns

left unattended for the purpose of returning to a natural state. My assessment from the

photos is that is indeed what is happening. It does limit height of turf lawn grasses to

be no more than 8”. I’m looking for *managed*, not whatever grows up. I don’t see that

now.

Puchala: that’s what I have trouble understanding because the only grass I found taller

than 8” is the yellow foxtail which I have been removing. The rest is only 4-5” and stays

that way. It can’t grow higher.

Moermond: the photos I’m seeing taken yesterday look much higher than that.

Puchala: could you point me to the section you are looking at? I’m in the yard right

now.

Moermond: the stop sign area. The area in the corner where two sidewalks connect.

Puchala: at the crosswalk that’s my crown vetch and my goldenrod and milkweed.

There is no grass there.

Moermond: I don’t see it is managed at all and I am not in agreement. I know we

talked about this exact same thing last year and had a conversation about what a plan

for the future would be. I don’t know if you’ve considered that further or just let it go, or

your intention at this point?

Puchala: my intention is exactly that. I’m in the yard right now trying to go slow and

confirm each part. I know with the front path from the door to the road on the stairway

we do have a bunch of grass with the yellow tails at the top. That’s the foxtail I’ve been

removing. The grass that’s shorter behind the garden at the front with the wooden walls

is all below 8”. Does that all count as too high?

Moermond: I feel like you’re splitting hairs on this. Is the crew going to look at which

plant is higher or lower? No. If the area has grasses taller than 8” they will mow it.

Honestly, we’ve had this conversation last year at this same time and you said you’d be

meeting with a master gardener to put together a plan, has that happened?

Puchala: yes, it did. That’s part of why I’m removing the fox tails. I apologize, I don’t

mean to seem like I’m splitting hairs I’m actually meaning to say I’m trying to whittle

down what I can confirm I am removing and what I’m not removing fast enough.

Moermond: I don’t see this being managed native planting. It doesn’t look managed, it

overgrows the sidewalk, no distinguishing features besides overgrown lawn. I see cut

plants drying in piles. Piles of sticks. These are signals to me it isn’t maintained. I

don’t see distinguishing between the grasses. It looks to me like a lawn that went

un-mowed, you may be pulling things you deem noxious, but I don’t know you are

managing it. Council may look at it differently. As such, I don’t think it meets the spirit

of the law or the code, but you can certainly make that case to Council on October

8th. I’m going to recommend that they give you October 13th to deal with the tall grass

and weeds. As far as the camper, sounds like you want to talk to Zoning about what

may work to store it. It does have to have tabs and they will talk to you about ways for

it to be accessible to a driveway, and be on an appropriate surface. That needs to be

addressed by November 3rd, that will be my recommendation.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/8/2025

Correction Orders

RLH CO 25-8

Appeal of Nachman Goldberg to a Correction Order at 1809

YORKSHIRE AVENUE.

Jost

Sponsors:

Layover to LH October 21, 2025 at 11 am (rescheduled).

Moermond: layover to October 14 in Legislative Hearing.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/21/2025

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Fire Certificates of Occupancy

RLH FCO 25-61

Appeal of Abdalla Tobasi to a Fire Fire Inspection Report at 933

MINNEHAHA AVENUE WEST.

Bowie

Sponsors:

Layover to LH October 14, 2025 at 1 pm for further discussion.

Abdalla Tobasi, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: I am calling about your two appeals at 933 Minnehaha and 809 Selby

Avenue. [Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: at 933 Minnehaha we have a correction

order related to a Fire Certificate of Occupancy inspection for a commercial gas

station. One of the codes cited is the one being appealed, the requirement to provide

outside telephone or communication for unattended fuel dispensing. This is for when

the gas station is not staffed or open inside. This gives people pumping gas a means

to contact front desk or emergency services such as fire or fuel spill that sort of thing.

“A telephone not requiring a coin to operate or other approved means of notifying the

fire department shall be provided on the site in an approved location. The telephone

must be available at all times that dispensing can occur.” Historically that’s been met

by a pay phone on the site. This is a somewhat frequent issue we come across due to

many payphones no longer existing. The Selby address is a very similar issue with the

addition that there is another order for a piece of missing signage from a similar code

requirement.

Tobasi: I’ve owned one of those gas stations for 34 years, the other 24 years. I’ve been

through lots of inspections before and the gentleman who came in to inspect because

of my experience I am up to date and I get everything done. Maybe a couple small

things to fix which I do right away. This time around he gave me a few things to get

done and I have no issues except when it came to the phone outside. I said I will do

my best to provide something and spent about a month talking to the Minnesota

Service Station & Convenience Store Association. They said they’ve never heard of

this requirement. I talked to my alarm company. They don’t do that. I spent a lot of

months trying to figure out how to get a phone outside and I wasn’t successful. Then I

called the inspector and said I couldn’t find anyone to provide this service. I have no

issues doing things required, but I couldn’t find any company that provides this service.

That’s why I’m appealing. I am happy to do so in the future if I can find someone who

will do it, but that’s why I’m appealing to get permission to pass for now until I figure

something out. I checked a lot of gas stations in the area and no one has it. Someone

told me an alarm company and I contacted them and they said they don’t do that.

Moermond: has this been called out in the past Mr. Imbertson? It seems pretty

straightforward.

Imbertson: one thing that is unfortunate is being unable to get feedback on similar

situations from the Association. It is a common suggestion we make to check with a

trade or business association to see what similar businesses are doing to comply.

Things we may not even be aware of. This isn’t specific to St. Paul, this is MN State

fire Code, which is pulled from the international fire code. Most states should have

same or similar requirements. It isn’t a unique requirement to St. Paul. As far as other

stations, many may not be open for dispensing after hours or may not have been at

the time of previous inspections. This is specific only to unattended fuel dispensing.

We do hear from many stations that it isn’t advantageous to keep them open after

hours due to these requirements or the fire extinguisher requirements.

Tobasi: I know 99% of the stores do have after hours dispensing. When we did it back

in 2015 or 2016 they told us to have a sign with an emergency shut -off button, which

there is, and a fire extinguisher which I also have at both stores. That was all the

requirement to my knowledge. The MN association is throughout information and they

weren’t able to provide me with any way to provide a company that will do it. I am willing

to do it but I don’t have any way of finding who does it.

Moermond: tell me about the emergency button.

Tobasi: it says in case of emergency press this button. It shuts off all the fuel

equipment on site. Dismantles the entire operation.

Moermond: so not adding fuel TO a fire, but it may already be burning. Is that the

concern Mr. Imbertson?

Imbertson: that’s a separate requirement actually. I’m happy to hear that all exists, but

it isn’t equivalencies or trade offs for the communication requirements.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/14/2025

RLH FCO 25-60

Appeal of Abdalla Tobasi to a Fire Fire Inspection Report at 809 SELBY

AVENUE (806 SELBY AVENUE).