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, May 16, 2023  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House  
Special Tax Assessments  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
RLH TA 23-185  
1
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1010  
BUSH AVENUE. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: this is a deletion because orders were issued January 25, likely based on  
snow that fell January 19, 3.5”. However, the crew didn’t go out until February 13. Three  
weeks later, and additional snow fell in the interim. Impossible to tell whether a  
cleanup was done by the owner of the 3.5”.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
2
RLH TA 23-216  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1110  
BUSH AVENUE. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Reduce assessment from $322 to $161.  
Joel Liesener, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order to  
clean up the snow and ice on the public sidewalk. Orders issued January 25,  
compliance is 24 hours after postmark, rechecked January 30 and found in  
noncompliance. Parks did the abatement February 14 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: why are you appealing Mr. Liesener?  
Liesener: no doubt they did the cleanup. I actually got the notice, called the City, I  
don’t have his name. Told him it took a bit to get the notice prior to the cleanup, called  
and said I was going out there. He said not an issue, do you know how far behind we  
are on these. We’ll never get to any of this. I asked why he sent it. Said they had to  
send them. Went out there and cleaned it up. My main concern is if you look at the  
snow between January 25 and Feb 14.  
Moermond: 2.2” between orders issued January 25 and February 14 according to  
NOAH.  
Liesener: we cleaned it up. I believe it snowed again. Then they cleaned up before we  
went out and cleaned again. The streets were so bad, I drive a Prius, I couldn’t even  
get to the property after snowfalls. I had to leave my car at the end of the street to try  
and shovel it out on several occasions. We can’t even keep the streets clear and we’re  
worried about sidewalks we kept relatively clear at this property all winter. That’s the  
issue I’m raising here. How do they account, you get the notice, you clean it up, there  
were two weeks here between the notice and cleanup. How do you know it isn’t a newer  
snowfall?  
Moermond: when I reviewed the tapes, January had 18.3” before the snow fell. I  
reviewed the videos knowing those 18” fell, plus an additional 2.2”. trying to ascertain  
what snow was what. It wasn’t shoveled side to side; it hadn’t been done adequately  
preceding January 25. The 2.2” on top of it wasn’t the crux of the matter here. Maybe a  
good faith effort, but a majority of the problem preceded that extra 2”. I do see also,  
just as a note, there were a couple of orders in the past. One was abated by the owner,  
and a couple others were closed. That weighs more or less in your favor. I’ll  
recommend this is reduced by half. It isn’t everything, but it is something. My review of  
the video was there was sufficient documentation the 18” hadn’t been adequately dealt  
with. You are welcome to dispute this further with the Council, the notice of today’s  
hearing tells you about how to do that.  
Liesener: I’m ok with that. It was a tough winter. The sidebar comment is that it is a  
bummer when the streets can’t even get plowed and you can’t even get to your property  
to clear and you’re damaging your car because the roads are so bad. I had a flat tire in  
the snow. I appreciate your consideration.  
Moermond: $322 to $161.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
3
RLH TA 23-198  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1012  
BUSH AVENUE. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Sawanda Smith, owner, appeared  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: January 25, 2023 a Summary Abatement  
Order for snow and ice on the public sidewalk was issued. Compliance is 24 hours.  
Rechecked January 30, found in noncompliance. Work order issued and parks did the  
abatement for a total proposed assessment of $322.  
Moermond: Ms. Smith, why are you appealing?  
Smith: I am a new homeowner in Saint Paul. I purchased September 2022. I will admit  
I am very surprised when I got the notice. I came from Maplewood and we didn’t have  
these kinds of rules. Second, they take care of their streets so I wouldn’t have had this  
issue anyway. I wasn’t living in the house for a month and half. The people I hired to  
shovel couldn’t get down the block to do so. The people who were working on the  
HVAC, the reason I was out of the home, got stuck trying to get down the street. I  
don’t know why there was still so much ice. In the videos you can see we shoveled.  
The steps are shoveled. We made an effort. See how high the mounds are from the  
scraping from the street. That makes it difficult, especially if I wasn’t there. I have  
receipts to show I wasn’t there. We shoveled to the best of our ability. I haven’t’ been  
happy since I moved here. My taxes have tripled. Yet, they’re charging me for 8 feet of  
the sidewalk. I learned something new. I did the best I could, for a woman, and it got  
piled with the street and alley not being plowed. The people working on my home  
couldn’t get to it. When they did. they got stuck. I have videos for that as well. I am  
asking that this be thrown up since I didn’t need them to do this. Why are they stalking  
the street for this, when I just saw someone get robbed at gunpoint across the street.  
Yet my taxes have tripled. If you’re going to show up with equipment you could have  
knocked on the door, however I wasn’t there at the time. I did send people to shovel. I  
shoveled myself. My daughter shoveled. We did the best we could with this horrible  
winter. I don’t feel like I should be punished.  
Moermond: no question there was a lot of snow this winter. We all have responsibility  
in a neighborhood to keep the sidewalks clear for people with disabilities or people with  
children trying to make it to the bus stop, whatever it is. What I see is someone called  
in a complaint January 25. My guess that had to do with the snow accumulating earlier  
in January—  
Smith: that was solid on the ground, and by the 30th it would have softened and you  
can look at the video—  
Moermond: I did.  
Smith: I’m not telling you to look at it. I’m saying you can tell we shoveled. The  
sidewalk is buckled from the tree. If you are riding a bike you’ll soar to the heavens. It  
isn’t flat anyway. My first winter I did the best I could. I’m 52, I’ve never experienced  
anything like this where I couldn’t get down to the ground.  
Moermond: what I was building up to, when the orders were issued to when the crew  
showed up 2.2” more of snow fell. Reviewing the video I weighed whether the snow was  
the recent 2.2” inches or an accumulation earlier than January 25. I think there was a  
lot more in play than 2.2” in that fell. It hadn’t been cleared side to side. With respect  
to being 52 years old, I’m older than that. I get you shoveled, but it wasn’t shoveled for  
this snow and I would say no.  
Smith: I tried to tell you I wasn’t living in the home.  
Moermond: I’m going to recommend approval based on the circumstances I described.  
You can appeal this further, there is information on how to do that on the letter that told  
you about today’s hearing. You can do it remote, or by phone.  
Smith: you are saying I have to pay this whole thing despite what I told you?  
Moermond: my recommendation is yes; however, it is just that, a recommendation.  
You can speak to them further about it.  
Smith: then I need to be reimbursed for the $150 times two that the people I hired  
couldn’t get there to get down the street. We should have been plowed hours before. I  
lost money for someone trying to get down the alley. Can I be reimbursed for those?  
Moermond: you can file a claim against the City for sure. Alleys are private property  
responsibilities.  
Smith: I don’t know anything about that, do I knock on someone’s door? Is there  
information online?  
Moermond: each neighborhood is different.  
Smith: the plow goes down our alley. My neighbors are my neighbors, I haven’t talked  
to them. If it is appropriate I will knock and ask them.  
Moermond: someone likely pays for that plow to go through. You know my  
recommendation and next steps. I wish you well.  
Smith: where do I look for next steps?  
Moermond: the same letter that told you about today’s hearing.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
RLH TA 23-168  
4
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1783  
DAYTON AVENUE. (File No. J2308B, Assessment No. 238107)  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH June 6, 2023 at 9 am (unable to reach PO).  
Voicemail left at x4307 at 9:33 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council  
calling you about your appealed tax assessment for 1783 Dayton Avenue. We’ll try you  
back in 15 minutes or so.  
Voicemail left at x4307 at 9:52 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council  
calling you again about your appealed tax assessment for a boarding at 1783 Dayton.  
Unable to reach you this morning. We’ll continue this to June 6 between 9 and 10 am.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/6/2023  
5
RLH TA 23-171  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 602  
LAWSON AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2317A, Assessment No. 238517)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: in reviewing materials submitted I’m recommending the Council delete this.  
the owner made a good faith effort to address the issue and the neighbor’s landlord,  
Housing Hub, indicated they were taking care of it, which they didn’t seem to do. We  
will give her credit for trying.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
6
RLH TA 23-218  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 16  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: snow and ice property cleanup. Orders sent  
January 11, rechecked January 12. Work was done by Parks February 11, 2023 for a  
total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: in reviewing the snowfall, between orders and the month later cleanup by  
the Parks crew, another 8.5” of snow fell so we have no way to determine which snow  
we’re looking at.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
7
RLH TA 23-217  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 379  
MARYLAND AVE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 11, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
12, work was done by the Parks crew February 10 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: between orders being issued and Parks going out an additional 8.5” fell.  
No way to tell which snow was cleaned up.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
8
RLH TA 23-199  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 705  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 11, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
17, work was done by the Parks crew February 10 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: again, a situation where Parks was one month behind and between orders  
and them going out it was 8.5” and video doesn’t show what snow was cleaned,  
recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
9
RLH TA 23-204  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 783  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 10 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: the orders issued January 10 were about the 15 inches January 3 and 4.  
Another 8.5 inches fell before crew showed up, impossible to tell new snow from old.  
Recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
10  
11  
12  
RLH TA 23-212  
RLH TA 23-200  
RLH TA 23-221  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 795  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 10 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: same situation as others today. A month before the crew showed up and  
an additional 8.5” of snow fell. No way of telling what snow they cleaned up.  
Recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1006  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 8 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: it took a month for the crew to show up. In that period an additional 8.5”  
fell. We cannot tell if the snow removed was the original snow or not. Recommend  
deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1602  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 8 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: again, the orders January 10 were written about the 15” the week before.  
Between then and when the crew showed up an additional 7.3” of snow fell. Couldn’t tell  
what snow was removed, recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
13  
RLH TA 23-219  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1147  
MARYLAND AVE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
12, work was done by the Parks crew February 9 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: again, there was 15” of snow before orders were written, but a month  
passed an additional 8.5” of snow fell. Can’t tell which snow was removed, recommend  
deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
14  
RLH TA 23-210  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1191  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 9 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: the orders sent January 10 were about the 15” the week before. However, it  
took a month for the crew to show up and an additional 7.2” of snow fell. Can’t tell what  
snow was what, delete the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
15  
RLH TA 23-220  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 910  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 4 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: 15” of snow fell the week before orders were issued. Between January 10  
and February 4 an additional 7.2 “ of snow fell so we can’t tell whether they addressed  
the original orders, must recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
16  
RLH TA 23-223  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1155  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 10, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
13, work was done by the Parks crew February 5 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: the orders January 10 were written about the 15” prior, however another 7”  
fell in the 3 weeks before the Parks crew went out. Must recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
17  
RLH TA 23-191  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1664  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 11, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
17, work was done by the Parks crew February 4 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: orders issued January 11 for the 15” from the week before, however 3  
weeks passed and an additional 7.2 inches fell. Impossible to tell whether the snow in  
original orders were abated. Delete the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
18  
RLH TA 23-224  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1989  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is a Summary Abatement Order for  
snow and ice sent January 9, 2023, compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked on January  
12, work was done by the Parks crew February 4 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: orders January 9 were likely about the 15” of snow the previous week.  
Between orders and February 4 an additional 7” fell. Impossible to tell if they complied.  
Must recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
19  
RLH TA 23-190  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2211  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order to remove snow  
and ice from the public sidewalk sent January 10, 2023. 24 hours for compliance.  
Rechecked January 17, and the Parks crew did the abatement February 4, 2023 for a  
total proposed assessment of $322.  
Moermond: orders January 10 was about the 15” of snow the week before, however  
between then and when crew showed up Feb 4 an additional 7.2” of snow fell.  
Impossible to tell whether original snow was addressed, must recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
20  
RLH TA 23-170  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 381  
RAMSEY STREET (0 RAMSEY STREET). (File No. J2319A,  
Assessment No. 238519)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Refer back to LH June 20, 2023 for further discussion.  
Robert Rulon-Miller, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: September 28, 2022 a Summary Abatement  
Order was issued to clean up tarps, trash, and tents from the southeast corner of the  
property. Compliance date of October 5, found in noncompliance. A work order was  
issued to remove the encampment and it was done October 24 for a total assessment  
of $436.  
Moermond: you’re appealing, why?  
Rulon-Miller: on two occasions, maybe even a third, I made phone calls to the St. Paul  
Police Department in the early morning hours complaining about these people and  
asking them to come and get them out. They were banging on a drum; this is 40 yards  
from my window. I’d wake up at 5 am to someone banging on a drum. I’m 71 years old,  
I’m not going to go shoo them away. I for sure did call twice, I think it may even be 3  
times. Nothing ever happened. The tents stayed. I spoke on the phone with someone  
at the City, don’t remember his name, we had several calls back and forth and he was  
very helpful. I gave him permission to take it away. I sort of feel the City has some  
responsibility here, I asked for help and none came. My proposal would be let’s split it  
50/50. I do realize it is my property, but I also asked for help that never arrived.  
Moermond: to do due diligence I need to get the police call log and attach that to the  
record, as well as the inspector’s record. Let’s tentatively talk June 20th.  
Yannarelly: 400 summit sets back from Summit a bit, and behind that is the plot  
noted as 381 Ramsey, also known as 0 Ramsey. It is behind Irvine and Ramsey.  
Moermond: if I lived at 400 Ramsey, I’d call it the parcel behind my house to the south,  
at the intersection of Ramsey and Irvine.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
21  
RLH TA 23-189  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2084  
REANEY AVENUE. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order sent January 9,  
2023 to remove snow and ice from the public sidewalk. 24 hours compliance.  
Rechecked January 12, and Parks did the abatement February 1, 2023 for a total  
assessment of $322.  
Moermond: orders January 9 related to the 15” the week before, however before the  
crew showed up 3 weeks later an additional 7.2” fell. Impossible to tell whether the  
original snow was address, must recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
22  
RLH TA 23-202  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1022  
SAINT PAUL AVENUE. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Tolbert  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Nick Ender, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: a Summary Abatement Order was issued to  
remove snow and ice from the public sidewalk on January 17, 2023. Compliance of 24  
hours. Rechecked January 23 and found in noncompliance. Parks did the abatement  
February 2 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: why are you appealing, Mr. Ender?  
Ender: as a homeowner with a push snowblower, I had it as reasonably clear as I  
possibly could get it. My neighbor loaded a front-end loader to clear his sidewalk. I  
don’t think that’s a reasonable expectation for a homeowner to do. I spent an hour and  
a half snowplowing and I cleared a path so people could walk down it. Did I clear it 5  
feet wide? No, I didn’t. I assume my neighbor who I was helping clear off got one as  
well. I can’t clear off 8 feet of snow. I imagine you got half of St. Paul Avenue on this, I  
cleared a path after a ridiculous amount of snow. I think I did as reasonable as you  
can expect from the homeowner.  
Moermond: the letter just says the width of the sidewalk. I’m a homeowner in Saint  
Paul too, with a battery snow blower and a shovel, and my sidewalk was full width all  
winter. I’m looking at one snowblower width, I’m struggling with that. It isn’t even two,  
which most people do. You get the letter, it says width of sidewalk, and this isn’t even  
really close.  
Ender: could people walk up and down it?  
Moermond: Mr. Yannarelly, what does the Department look at?  
Yannarelly: full width of sidewalk. Someone in a wheelchair couldn’t get down it.  
Moermond: two people couldn’t pass each other. I have to say it’s the narrowest  
shoveling I’ve seen in the 40 cases I am looking at today. One is so narrow. It is a little  
tunnel. It could have been better. I personally did better. I spent an inordinate of time  
out there this winter doing it. Is it not how I’d prefer to spend my time? True. You can  
hear I’m inclined to recommend approval of this. You can speak to the Council further  
about this, and they may see it differently as a good faith effort. That’s your next stop.  
Ender: ok. Thanks.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
23  
RLH TA 23-196  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2024  
THIRD STREET EAST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
Bryan Henke, o/b/o Giving Group, appeared via phone  
Moermond: I was just reviewing the file before calling you and noticed that the order to  
remove the snow went to the previous owner, not to you. I don’t think you got proper  
legal notification so I’ll recommend the Council delete this assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
RLH TA 23-222  
24  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 664/666  
SEVENTH STREET WEST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH June 20, 2023 at 9 am for review of PO's photos and final  
recommendation.  
Felix Aleynikov  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order was issued  
January 31 to remove snow and ice full width. 24-hour compliance. Feb 3 it was  
rechecked. Inspector notes say Found packed snow and ice on the sidewalk on all  
three sides of the property including the ramps. No salt or sand present. Parks did the  
work February 12, 2023 for a total of $322.  
Moermond: why are you appealing?  
Aleynikov: I’m not arguing about what happened. I spoke to one of the inspectors on  
the issue because I received the letter and wanted to confirm my area of responsibility.  
The problem was not the snow removal itself; it was the ice buildup. The snow from the  
road goes on the sidewalk. It wasn’t regular snow; it was buildup from the plows. After I  
spoke with the person from the City, I couldn’t find his name, I went out myself and  
threw a bunch of salt all over the sidewalk. We had that treacherous winter and it  
wasn’t just snow, it was like six layers of ice built up. I tried to melt it, and it was really  
cold. I did my best; I went out several times. I have pictures of my progress. I’m not  
arguing about it, I knew the City did it, I just wanted to explain my side of the story. I  
didn’t hire anyone, I tried to do this myself.  
Moermond: you want it known it was cold and the salt wasn’t working adequately.  
Looking at the weather records, it looks like some of the days were cold beginning  
February, but we had temps for 10 days running above freezing that would have  
assisted with that. You wanted more clarity on your areas of responsibility?  
Yannarelly: the sidewalk should be shoveled full width, including access to the bus  
stop.  
Moermond: the entire sidewalk to the curb because it goes to the curb, but not the  
street. Nothing beyond the curb or the corner?  
Yannarelly: yes.  
Moermond: does that help clarify?  
Aleynikov: I think I spoke with Joe if I am no mistaken.  
Moermond: probably not. He’s a supervisor, I’m guessing it would have been someone  
in one of the teams.  
Yannarelly: I’d guess Richard Kedrowski.  
Aleynikov: Richard, yes. I can send pictures if necessary. There was a huge pile of  
snow on the corner. I’m not arguing about the weather. The problem was the ice from  
snow melting and freezing repeatedly. I was dropping buckets of ice melt.  
Moermond: that does make things hard, the melting and freezing cycle. Any other  
questions?  
Aleynikov: just please take it into consideration. I tried to do it, but I couldn’t figure out  
my area of responsibility. I wasn’t sure if I spoke with Richard, but whoever it was told  
me it was the sidewalk. I was there several days that week trying to melt the snow. I do  
have photos of the progress.  
Moermond: if you want to share them, that would be fine. Your Council Public Hearing  
isn’t until June 28, so I can review those materials June 20th. Reply to the email you  
got from Joanna Zimny, send those items to her if you wanted.  
Aleynikov: what are the next steps?  
Moermond: I’ll review those and see if I will recommend any sort of reduction based on  
those. We will talk to you briefly on June 20th.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/20/2023  
25  
RLH TA 23-203  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 693  
WESTERN AVENUE NORTH. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order sent January  
26, 2023 for snow and ice on the public sidewalk. Compliance of 24 hours. Rechecked  
January 31, Parks did the abatement February 18, 2023 for a total assessment of  
$322.  
Moermond: orders issued January 26, an immense amount of snow in January,  
however additional snow fell before February 18 and it is impossible to tell which snow  
was cleared and what wasn’t, recommend deletion  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
26  
RLH TA 23-187  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1330  
WHITE BEAR AVENUE NORTH. (File No. J2302A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
Larry Morrisette, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Moermond: when we review the video we think is this the result of not having touched it  
all winter, or 7” of snow. We think it was likely not the result of the orders written  
about. I know it is tricky to maintain the sidewalk on White Bear there. I’m going to  
recommend deletion of the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
27  
RLH TA 23-211  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1066  
WOODBRIDGE STREET. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
Lindi Barrett, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is snow and ice Summary Abatement  
Order issued January 24, 24 hours compliance, rechecked January 31 and Parks did  
the abatement February 18 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: why are you appealing?  
Barrett: got the notice, I remember getting it, and clearing it. Saw the video and saw it  
was mostly ice, which I know isn’t still legal. I spent a long time chipping at it. My main  
reason for appealing is the fact is the City didn’t actually clean it up. I saw tire tracks in  
the snow, I wondered why someone drove on the sidewalk. Someone probably tried to  
clear it, I finally figured it out after seeing the videos. Nothing changed in sidewalk  
height, it was just the tire tracks.  
Moermond: scraping the ice, not even touching it. Reviewing the video, we recommend  
deletion of the assessment.  
Barrett: I appreciate it. It was a good wakeup call. I totally get it; we’ll stay on top of the  
ice. I hope next year isn’t as hard.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
RLH TA 23-139  
28  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 929  
YORK AVENUE. (File No. VB2307, Assessment No. 238806)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Michael Meyer, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: following up on your appealed assessment for the Vacant Building fee at  
929 York. We were going to talk today and see if you had made progress to the point  
of getting your Code Compliance certificate or continued to be a Vacant Building. No  
permits have been pulled; did I see that right?  
Meyer: correct, we’ll be pulling them next week.  
Moermond: we are six months in on this Vacant Building fee, it was opened November  
7. When this hits Council tomorrow, I’ll have to recommend approval since we’re this  
far in.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/17/2023  
29  
RLH TA 23-201  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 402  
UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No.  
238523)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
10:00 a.m. Hearings  
RLH TA 23-209  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 101  
30  
COMO AVENUE (583 PARK STREET). (File No. J2321A, Assessment  
No. 238524)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: a good faith effort was made, recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
31  
RLH TA 23-194  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 918  
GOODRICH AVENUE UNIT A. (File No. J2321A, Assessment No.  
238524)  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: here we have orders going out March 2, compliance date of March 6. Code  
has noted no photos or videos document this. Recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
32  
RLH TA 23-213  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 386  
KENNARD STREET. (File No. J2318A, Assessment No. 238518)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Steven Xiong, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 9, 2023 a notice to remove snow and  
ice from the sidewalk was sent. 24 hours for compliance. Rechecked January 11 and  
nothing was done. Work was done by parks January 31 for a total assessment of  
$322.  
Moermond: why are you appealing Mr. Xiong?  
Xiong: I believe I got the letter around the 12th. I got someone out there a day or 2  
later and what I believe is that the service on the property was done January 31. What  
happened was I did the service, and then more snow fell, so when the inspector came  
to do the service, I felt like I had done it after I got the notice. We got another  
snowfall. Then the City came to complete it, but there was already snow from a  
different time.  
Moermond: in reviewing the video and photos and snowfall charts. When the letter went  
out January 9, it was likely because there was 15” the week before that hadn’t been  
cleared. After January 9 an additional 7” of snow fell. My job in reviewing this is whether  
this is the result of 22” or 7” not having been dealt with. Honestly, if your guy went out  
there he did a bad job. It looked like nothing had been touched the entire winter. I  
don’t know if you have photos or a check on the quality. It looks like it wasn’t touched  
at all until the parks crew showed up. It was pretty bad. If you have more information,  
I’m happy to look at it.  
Xiong: I don’t have photos or videos that I hired a snow guy to come, but from my  
knowledge he did go out and clean. When the crew got out there I feel like maybe the  
snow was from the last snow fall, not the snow I received the notice for.  
Moermond: I understand what you are saying, I just disagree. The Council may look at  
it differently, but my assessment is nothing happened all winter. There aren’t even  
snowbanks on the side of the sidewalk. Some differentiation between sidewalk and  
yard. I just saw people having walked and no change in elevation of snow like if had  
been cleared. It wasn’t higher on the edges at all.  
Xiong: yeah, but when you receive so much snow, there’s a fresh pile no matter what.  
Martin: looking at the photos, there is a stop sign in the second photo, and if you look  
past this sidewalk you can see clearly the neighbor have it shoveled down to pavement  
full width. There is no reason this sidewalk shouldn’t look the same way, with access  
to the street for those that are handicapped.  
Moermond: between January 9 and January 31 there was .7 inches on the 16th, 3.5” on  
the 19th, 0.7 on the 25th and 2.2 on the 27th. Little snowfalls totaling 7”. I don’t see  
evidence it was addressed in the month of January at all. Again, the Council could look  
at this differently than I do. You are more than welcome to submit additional  
information or testify. My recommendation is approval, but they could reduce or delete.  
Xiong: even a reduction because he did go out? It may not have been to City  
standards, but he did go out.  
Moermond: I understand. I’ll leave it to you about the best course of action about  
talking to Council about it.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
RLH TA 23-205  
33  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 817  
MARSHALL AVENUE. (File No. J2307E, Assessment No. 238306) (To  
refer back to June 6, 2023 Legislative Hearing; Public Hearing continued  
to June 14, 2023)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Refer back to LH June 6, 2023 (CPH June 14 with J2308E). Recommendation  
forthcoming.  
Channa Pittman, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: we have a Vehicle Abatement Order issued  
October 31, 2022 for a red car with expired tabs, inoperable. Photos show flat tires.  
Compliance date of November 10th. We did two reinspections, total assessment of  
$159. We came back 2 weeks later, November 29th, which gave us the second  
Excessive Consumption fees of $159. There’s four Excessive Consumption’s total, but  
only two before us today.  
Moermond: Ms. Pittman, why are you appealing?  
Pittman: this isn’t the first run in I’ve had with the City. It is disheartening to see me  
and my husband continue to have odd calls. The first one we received because the  
neighbor didn’t like my son had parked and blocked her sidewalk. An officer came by  
and saw a toilet next to our house, I told them we were redoing our bathroom. The City  
stole the thing that went to my pool and charged us $500. The neighborhood is  
changing, my husband and I have been subject to a lot of misbehavior by the new  
culture moving in. They throw dead squirrels in our yard. Steal flowers from our yard.  
Take dog poop out of the can and smear it on the can. This gentleman has 2 vans and  
when I call parking enforcement and they call him and ask him to move. I keep calling  
and asking why it is still there. Then all of a sudden the City comes again. The car has  
been there since 2019. Now we’re disrupting the neighborhood? They’re taking photos  
when we’re cleaning things out before fall and saying the yard is messy. My yard is  
never messy. My husband tried calling the gentleman on the letter several times, and  
they said to cover it with a tarp, put air in tires and bring it up to date and I’ll wash all  
the assessments away. This was just verbal. I’m tired of harassment. I’ve lived here for  
22 years and the first 5 years the St. Paul Police Department gave me a ticket for  
being too close to the sidewalk. I called his sergeant and then it finally stopped. He  
parks two vans and a trailer and never received a ticket. They always get calls to move  
it. Every time I call on something they don’t do for anyone else who doesn’t look like  
me. I want to know why they’re picking on my yard when you can barely turn the corner,  
they have junk and vehicles in their yard, but you always harass me on the corner.  
Moermond: and let me be clear, I don’t know what is going on with their property, nor  
with parking enforcement. I will start with that, but I need you to focus on the vehicles  
in the driveway. The orders issued outline the concerns and how it violates City code.  
Have you dealt with that yet? It says it lacks current tabs, inoperable. Have you taken  
care of that now? Current tabs and full tires?  
Pittman: my husband did all that. How does that bother the City?  
Moermond: it violates City code to have a vehicle in that condition. The venue for  
dealing with that originally would have been appealing those orders. I’m looking here if  
is taken care of to look at possible reductions. Ms. Martin, what is the Code’s  
perspective?  
Pittman: I want to talk about abuse of power and being harassed. There is no reason  
the City needs to come by. These people don’t like that I call the city on them—  
Moermond: I hear you think its retribution--  
Pittman: it is! It is abuse of power. His car is in the driveway minding his own  
business. Everything else in the neighborhood flies. You may not know about it  
personally, I’ve talked to the NAACP, attorneys. I want to know why my husband’s car  
is being picked on and no one else does anything that gets tickets.  
Martin: this isn’t an abuse of power; we haven’t really been out there. 2013 was the last  
time a cleanup was done at this property—  
Pittman: you stole my---  
Martin: as I was stating, the vehicle is a code violation to have a vehicle---there was  
garbage--  
[Ms. Pittman keeps talking over Ms. Martin, impossible to decipher]  
Moermond: please let one person speak at a time Ms. Pittman. Ms. Martin, please  
finish.  
Martin: we have had five Excessive Consumptions that have done out, the last April 13,  
2023. This still hasn’t been compliance. You will continue to get those fines until it is  
resolved. Current tabs and air in tires. As far as parking enforcement, due to the  
flooding and tow lots being closed, they aren’t currently towing vehicles. You can talk  
to the St. Paul Police Department about parking enforcement, we don’t get records of  
being tagged. We do have a note May 15 vehicle wasn’t removed as discussed with  
property owner. Excessive Consumption was sent out, he granted a few more days and  
if it is in compliance on May 19 he will remove that last Excessive Consumption fee.  
But there are still several others.  
Moermond: we have one as recent as April 13. Ms. Pittman, I know you don’t think it is  
legitimate orders were written on the vehicle but we do have City code saying vehicles  
need current tabs and appear operational. Where are you at with getting the vehicle  
that way so it doesn’t get towed? That will help me out too.  
Pittman: my husband has been talking to this man since the first letter. He wouldn’t  
return calls. He finally got in touch with him after I appealed. Probably since he saw I  
appealed. He finally had a conversation, he put air in the tires and finally updated the  
tabs. Someone is abusing the power and I know it is because I am calling on these  
people, and I’ll continue to do so.  
Moermond: how recently did he get that done?  
Pittman: I don’t know. He said they were up; air has been in for about a week.  
Moermond: I have two assessments in front of me today, it sounds like there are 3  
more coming down the line. The first has a Council Public Hearing for tomorrow. I’m  
going to try and group these together if that is useful to deal with. Is that helpful for  
you?  
Pittman: I thought that’s what she was doing with this.  
Moermond: that totally happened, but I heard from Ms. Martin another 3 are coming.  
We could deal with the 2 now and then cluster the next 3 together too, is that helpful?  
Pittman: that’s fine.  
Moermond: Ms. Martin, can you send an inspector by to make sure it was addressed?  
Martin: it says he was there yesterday and granted a few more days to May 19. It still  
isn’t in compliance.  
Pittman: why not? The tires have been filled last week, same with the tabs. I was in  
my yard all day yesterday; I didn’t see anyone. And the tires aren’t true. It is a lie. It  
has been in compliance since last week.  
Moermond: we’ll send someone by. You’ll send in information. An email went out to you  
May 8th from Mai Vang, you can just reply to that with whatever attachments you want.  
We’ll get current information from the inspector and we will put both of these on June  
14th.  
Mr. Pittman: Otis is the guy sending the letters. He told me he was going to cancel this  
as long as it was up to code, a couple weeks ago. If someone came out yesterday  
they aren’t telling the truth.  
Moermond: We will touch base with you June 6th.  
Mr. Pittman: why are we being regulated for something in our driveway?  
Pittman: he only called back after I appealed. The people you’re sending by are telling  
lies. The City was out a year ago cutting down trees. The same vehicle was sitting  
there. No one did anything about it. But because I call on a white man with 2 vehicles  
or the van? Anytime I say anything to a Caucasian in the neighborhood they call their  
friends in the City.  
Mr. Pittman: if he came yesterday it is a lie. I have insurance and current tabs. It isn’t  
working but I have it for vandalism. I was told by Otis that we were just trying to get  
your attention but we will remove them if it is up to date. You can’t even see the car  
from the street, there is a fence all around it.  
Pittman: this is harassment.  
Moermond: I understand. I need to wrap this up for today. Ms. Martin will check in with  
Otis Warner.  
Mr. Pittman: I am going to call people about this as well. I know people too.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/17/2023  
RLH TA 23-206  
34  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 817  
MARSHALL AVENUE. (File No. J2308E, Assessment No. 238307)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH June 6, 2023. (CPH June 14) Recommendation forthcoming.  
Channa Pittman, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: we have a Vehicle Abatement Order issued  
October 31, 2022 for a red car with expired tabs, inoperable. Photos show flat tires.  
Compliance date of November 10th. We did two reinspections, total assessment of  
$159. We came back 2 weeks later, November 29th, which gave us the second  
Excessive Consumption fees of $159. There’s four Excessive Consumption’s total, but  
only two before us today.  
Moermond: Ms. Pittman, why are you appealing?  
Pittman: this isn’t the first run in I’ve had with the City. It is disheartening to see me  
and my husband continue to have odd calls. The first one we received because the  
neighbor didn’t like my son had parked and blocked her sidewalk. An officer came by  
and saw a toilet next to our house, I told them we were redoing our bathroom. The City  
stole the thing that went to my pool and charged us $500. The neighborhood is  
changing, my husband and I have been subject to a lot of misbehavior by the new  
culture moving in. They throw dead squirrels in our yard. Steal flowers from our yard.  
Take dog poop out of the can and smear it on the can. This gentleman has 2 vans and  
when I call parking enforcement and they call him and ask him to move. I keep calling  
and asking why it is still there. Then all of a sudden the City comes again. The car has  
been there since 2019. Now we’re disrupting the neighborhood? They’re taking photos  
when we’re cleaning things out before fall and saying the yard is messy. My yard is  
never messy. My husband tried calling the gentleman on the letter several times, and  
they said to cover it with a tarp, put air in tires and bring it up to date and I’ll wash all  
the assessments away. This was just verbal. I’m tired of harassment. I’ve lived here for  
22 years and the first 5 years the St. Paul Police Department gave me a ticket for  
being too close to the sidewalk. I called his sergeant and then it finally stopped. He  
parks two vans and a trailer and never received a ticket. They always get calls to move  
it. Every time I call on something they don’t do for anyone else who doesn’t look like  
me. I want to know why they’re picking on my yard when you can barely turn the corner,  
they have junk and vehicles in their yard, but you always harass me on the corner.  
Moermond: and let me be clear, I don’t know what is going on with their property, nor  
with parking enforcement. I will start with that, but I need you to focus on the vehicles  
in the driveway. The orders issued outline the concerns and how it violates City code.  
Have you dealt with that yet? It says it lacks current tabs, inoperable. Have you taken  
care of that now? Current tabs and full tires?  
Pittman: my husband did all that. How does that bother the City?  
Moermond: it violates City code to have a vehicle in that condition. The venue for  
dealing with that originally would have been appealing those orders. I’m looking here if  
is taken care of to look at possible reductions. Ms. Martin, what is the Code’s  
perspective?  
Pittman: I want to talk about abuse of power and being harassed. There is no reason  
the City needs to come by. These people don’t like that I call the city on them—  
Moermond: I hear you think its retribution--  
Pittman: it is! It is abuse of power. His car is in the driveway minding his own  
business. Everything else in the neighborhood flies. You may not know about it  
personally, I’ve talked to the NAACP, attorneys. I want to know why my husband’s car  
is being picked on and no one else does anything that gets tickets.  
Martin: this isn’t an abuse of power; we haven’t really been out there. 2013 was the last  
time a cleanup was done at this property—  
Pittman: you stole my---  
Martin: as I was stating, the vehicle is a code violation to have a vehicle---there was  
garbage--  
[Ms. Pittman keeps talking over Ms. Martin, impossible to decipher]  
Moermond: please let one person speak at a time Ms. Pittman. Ms. Martin, please  
finish.  
Martin: we have had five Excessive Consumptions that have done out, the last April 13,  
2023. This still hasn’t been compliance. You will continue to get those fines until it is  
resolved. Current tabs and air in tires. As far as parking enforcement, due to the  
flooding and tow lots being closed, they aren’t currently towing vehicles. You can talk  
to the St. Paul Police Department about parking enforcement, we don’t get records of  
being tagged. We do have a note May 15 vehicle wasn’t removed as discussed with  
property owner. Excessive Consumption was sent out, he granted a few more days and  
if it is in compliance on May 19 he will remove that last Excessive Consumption fee.  
But there are still several others.  
Moermond: we have one as recent as April 13. Ms. Pittman, I know you don’t think it is  
legitimate orders were written on the vehicle but we do have City code saying vehicles  
need current tabs and appear operational. Where are you at with getting the vehicle  
that way so it doesn’t get towed? That will help me out too.  
Pittman: my husband has been talking to this man since the first letter. He wouldn’t  
return calls. He finally got in touch with him after I appealed. Probably since he saw I  
appealed. He finally had a conversation, he put air in the tires and finally updated the  
tabs. Someone is abusing the power and I know it is because I am calling on these  
people, and I’ll continue to do so.  
Moermond: how recently did he get that done?  
Pittman: I don’t know. He said they were up; air has been in for about a week.  
Moermond: I have two assessments in front of me today, it sounds like there are 3  
more coming down the line. The first has a Council Public Hearing for tomorrow. I’m  
going to try and group these together if that is useful to deal with. Is that helpful for  
you?  
Pittman: I thought that’s what she was doing with this.  
Moermond: that totally happened, but I heard from Ms. Martin another 3 are coming.  
We could deal with the 2 now and then cluster the next 3 together too, is that helpful?  
Pittman: that’s fine.  
Moermond: Ms. Martin, can you send an inspector by to make sure it was addressed?  
Martin: it says he was there yesterday and granted a few more days to May 19. It still  
isn’t in compliance.  
Pittman: why not? The tires have been filled last week, same with the tabs. I was in  
my yard all day yesterday; I didn’t see anyone. And the tires aren’t true. It is a lie. It  
has been in compliance since last week.  
Moermond: we’ll send someone by. You’ll send in information. An email went out to you  
May 8th from Mai Vang, you can just reply to that with whatever attachments you want.  
We’ll get current information from the inspector and we will put both of these on June  
14th.  
Mr. Pittman: Otis is the guy sending the letters. He told me he was going to cancel this  
as long as it was up to code, a couple weeks ago. If someone came out yesterday  
they aren’t telling the truth.  
Moermond: We will touch base with you June 6th.  
Mr. Pittman: why are we being regulated for something in our driveway?  
Pittman: he only called back after I appealed. The people you’re sending by are telling  
lies. The City was out a year ago cutting down trees. The same vehicle was sitting  
there. No one did anything about it. But because I call on a white man with 2 vehicles  
or the van? Anytime I say anything to a Caucasian in the neighborhood they call their  
friends in the City.  
Mr. Pittman: if he came yesterday it is a lie. I have insurance and current tabs. It isn’t  
working but I have it for vandalism. I was told by Otis that we were just trying to get  
your attention but we will remove them if it is up to date. You can’t even see the car  
from the street, there is a fence all around it.  
Pittman: this is harassment.  
Moermond: I understand. I need to wrap this up for today. Ms. Martin will check in with  
Otis Warner.  
Mr. Pittman: I am going to call people about this as well. I know people too.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/6/2023  
35  
RLH TA 23-225  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1891  
SEVENTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2321A, Assessment No. 238524)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Ashray Gupta, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: this was a Summary Abatement Order sent  
February 16, 2023 to remove a table, cardboard, and trash bags from the rear of the  
property. Compliance date of February 23, rechecked February 28 and found in  
noncompliance. Work was done by the Parks crew March 8 for a total assessment of  
$562.  
Moermond: Mr. Gupta, why are you appealing?  
Gupta: in this instance I’d like this dismissed because we weren’t the owners at the  
time. I know it goes with the property; it was completely out of our control to go clean  
up someone else’s property. In the future we will take full responsibility. We didn’t own  
it at the time and couldn’t be aware of it.  
Moermond: when did you acquire the property?  
Gupta: March 31. Closing was March 31, recorded at midnight.  
Moermond: it isn’t recorded with Ramsey County yet, sometimes they are that far  
behind. It doesn’t affect this really. When you closed this would have shown as  
pending assessment for your title company. It was pending as of March 18, 2023. They  
would have seen that. I’m not sure how they dealt with that at the time of the closing.  
Legal responsibility is that the debt of the property is acquired with the property. The  
responsibility lying with the previous owner is a private argument between you and the  
seller. I’m not sure what your title company was doing. I would have thought it would  
have been a conversation. I’d follow up with your title company as well. I do  
recommend approval of the assessment. I know you couldn’t fix it, but the previous  
owners did and it travels with the title. The seller should really give you money to cover  
this assessment. I’m not sure what happened there since the City wasn’t party to that.  
Gupta: sure.  
Moermond: the orders and videos were sent yesterday. Talk to your title company  
about it. I am sorry we couldn’t be more helpful today.  
Gupta: I appreciate the information.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
36  
RLH TA 23-180  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 915  
SHERBURNE AVE. (File No. J2318A, Assessment No. 238518)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Reduce assessment from $322 to $100.  
Eden Abbai, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 10, 2023 a notice to remove snow and  
ice from the sidewalk went to occupant and owner. You have 24 hours after every  
snowfall to shovel. We rechecked January 13, it wasn’t done. The work was done  
January 30 for a total proposed assessment of $322. No mail returned. Some garbage  
issues in April of 2023. The photos submitted with the case, all the neighbors are  
down to pavement and full width. Looks like there was an attempt, but not full width  
and no salt or sand.  
Moermond: Ms. Abbai, why are you appealing?  
Abbai: my neighbors don’t shovel. Before I got to work it is all shoveled. I am at work  
at that time.  
Moermond: it looks like you shoveled, but not the full width. Maybe 18” compared to  
your neighbors with 2.5 to 3 feet.  
Abbai: I don’t know. They charged me $300 for 3 feet?  
Moermond: the City had to send a crew out. Will you commit to me you will take care  
of your yard, mow the lawn, pick up the yard, and next year when you shovel you shovel  
the entire width of the sidewalk?  
Abbai: ok.  
Moermond: does that mean you will?  
Abbai: yes I will.  
Moermond: I will reduce this assessment based on that verbal commitment. If I see  
another assessment for work done I will not be sympathetic since we had this  
conversation. I will reduce this down to $100. You take care of your yard and we won’t  
have to worry about this type of thing again, right?  
Abbai: ok.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
37  
RLH TA 23-214  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 902  
THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. J2321A, Assessment No. 2385254)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: reviewed on May 10th and am recommending deletion as items removed  
were not same as items in order, inspector didn't cancel work order. Delete the  
assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
38  
RLH TA 23-215  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 938  
UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2318A, Assessment No.  
238518)  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
David Iselewa, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 9, 2023 a notice went out to remove  
snow and ice from public sidewalk. Photos show very thick snow. We rechecked  
January 12. Crew went out January 18 for a total assessment of $322.  
Moermond: why are you appealing, Mr. Iselewa?  
Iselewa: I have somebody doing the snow. I was being told the snow was being  
cleared. I don’t know why the middle was singled out, that I didn’t do it.  
Moermond: I get you want others to have received orders, and Ms. Martin can talk  
about large commercial avenues. You said you have someone who takes care of it. I  
reviewed the videos and it had 5 or 6 inches of compacted snow and ice for a  
significant length. It made walking treacherous. Whoever did the work didn’t do it well.  
The City had to go clear it still. Why shouldn’t you be responsible for that work done?  
Iselewa: the property on the corner after mine is the same way.  
Moermond: when they go down University they check every address.  
Martin: this winter was busy. We had 800 work orders sent. University being one of the  
main streets. We have so many disabled taking the bus and train there. We have to  
make sure it is cleared down to pavement 24 hours after every snowfall.  
Moermond: do you review all the properties? If you’re out at one, do you look east and  
west?  
Martin: absolutely. We had many owners down to pavement, full width. Some people  
have a truck go by, but it isn’t clear to pavement. Someone in a wheelchair couldn’t get  
through safety.  
Moermond: between when the orders were issued January 9 and January 18 when the  
crew went out there was only three-fourths of an inch that fell. Everything the crew did  
was based on snowfall the 3 through 5 of January. So, no adequate cleaning of  
sidewalk for 2 weeks by the time the crew went out. That was a long time for your  
contractor to do it correctly. I’m recommending approval to the City Council. You’re  
welcome to testify further, and they may look at it differently.  
Lady in background: the property to the left and right is done by the same crew. Why  
are we being singled out?  
Moermond: and you are welcome to share that with Council. I’m not looking at your  
neighbor’s cases.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
Assessments Rolls  
RLH AR 23-48  
39  
40  
Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean Up services during January  
18 to February 18, 2023. (File No. J2320A, Assessment No. 238523)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
RLH AR 23-49  
Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean Up services during March 1  
to 8, 2023. (File No. J2321A, Assessment No. 238524)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/28/2023  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders  
RLH SAO 23-20  
41  
Appeal of Hope D. Glaser to a Summary Abatement Order at 711  
BEDFORD STREET.  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH May 22, 2023 (unable to conduct hearing due to length of am hearings).  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/22/2023  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
42  
RLH VBR  
23-20  
Appeal of Doug Grimm, Northern Value Group LLC, to a Vacant Building  
Registration Renewal Notice at 1501 CLARENCE STREET.  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Waive the VB fee for 90 days (to August 4, 2023).  
Doug Grimm o/b/o Northern Value Group and owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: was opened as a Category 2 Vacant Building  
May 2020, it was upgraded to a Category 3 Vacant Building in August 2022. Currently  
the Council has granted 180 days to rehab on January 20, 2023. All permits are on file.  
Rehab appears to be ongoing, and the site has been maintained. We’re here to  
discuss the 4,918 Vacant Building fee now past due as of May 4.  
Moermond: why are you appealing Mr. Grimm?  
Grimm: can we find a way to balance the two interests. I’m aware of the work, time and  
resources used to manage these buildings, and I understand the basis for the fees.  
I’m also biased towards my position of trying to manage costs. I know that having  
permitted work underway doesn’t make previous staff costs to go away, but I’m hoping  
we could abate this fee, or a portion of it, given we’ve been working hard to put it back  
together since we took title.  
Moermond: January 18 the Council granted 180 days to rehab or remove. Are you  
going to be done in the 180 days granted?  
Grimm: yes, we’re nearly done.  
Moermond: this is a legitimate registered Vacant Building, no question about that. It  
was one before you took title. I’m balancing that 180 days concludes July 18, 2023. If  
were to give you a 90-day waiver that takes us to August 4. We will put that waiver in  
the file, and if you have your Code Compliance certificate by then no fee will be  
forthcoming. If you don’t, the Vacant Building fee will go through as an assessment,  
and it is our practice to reduce it proportionally for your time in the program. So cut in  
half if you’re done in six months, should it take longer than what you expect. Right now,  
you have a fee waiver which carries you beyond your 180-day deadline. Does that  
work?  
Grimm: I appreciate that.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
43  
RLH VBR  
23-18  
Appeal of Tyler Olsen, Executive Director, on behalf of Victoria Theater  
Arts Center, to a Vacant Building Registration Fee at 825 UNIVERSITY  
AVENUE WEST.  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Deny the appeal, noting permits can still be pulled.  
Tyler Olsen, Victoria Theater Arts Center, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor by Matt Dornfeld: this has been in the Vacant Building  
program since 2009, vacant secure and maintained the entire time. Vacant Building  
fee is past due as of 4/20/23 of $4,918.  
Moermond: it went into the program April 20?  
Dornfeld: yes.  
Moermond: my understanding is you have a significant rehab you’ll be doing, north of 4  
million dollars?  
Olsen: yes.  
Moermond: and you have a building permit application in, and plan review has sent it  
on to the HPC?  
Olsen: yes.  
Moermond: they’ve asked for more information. When I look at a Vacant Building fee  
I’m trying to figure if I did waiver for a certain period of time, are you likely to have the  
work done then. Is it even useful? Standard wavier is 90 days, which is July 20. If the  
building permit isn’t even approved and it’s a 4-million-dollar job you are likely not done  
by July 20?  
Olsen: right, it will be a yearlong project.  
Moermond: I talked to Claudia Klinkhammer yesterday, if the City takes possession,  
or HRA rather, if the assessment is ratified during HRA ownership it would be ratified  
on a tax-exempt property so it wouldn’t be forthcoming. If it ratified while under  
ownership of VTAC it would be a lien on the property during the transaction that would  
have to be dealt with. I talked with her about it and the difficulty of a waiver on it.  
Olsen: ok.  
Moermond: you’re not a great candidate for a waiver. I’ll ask Mr. Dornfeld to flag the file  
and have it say there should be no impediment to pulling permits or plan review as it  
relates to nonpayment of the Vacant Building fee. I would suggest you let it ride, deal  
with it in the real estate transaction. That would be my best advice. We will  
recommend the appeal be denied, but it shouldn’t affect you anyway and won’t impede  
permits.  
The other thing is I understand you were told you needed a Code Compliance  
Inspection and I don’t think that was accurate. Your General Contractor submitted  
plans with a significant change in use, from storage to a theater. Assembly use with  
different requirements and they’ll have to review a plan accordingly. Doing a Code  
Compliance Inspection isn’t applicable really. You have all the other things going on.  
Olsen: right. DSI was over there this morning. There’s not much to be done because  
they have been there already.  
Moermond: I wish you well. If you have any questions Claudia and I have been talking,  
reach out to us to get it sorted out.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
1:30 p.m. Hearings  
Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy  
44  
RLH VO 23-20  
Appeal of John S. Jagiela to a Re-Inspection Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy With Deficiencies (which includes vacating 2 areas) at 134  
MONTROSE PLACE.  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Grant to July 1, 2023 for compliance with items related to plumbing, temporary roof  
repairs (item 7), and hardwired smoke alarms (item 5), and refer back to LH July 11,  
2023 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss deadline for balance of orders.  
John Jagiela, owner, appeared  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: residential triplex in the Certificate of  
Occupancy program. The current series of letters and inspections started November  
2022 with Inspector Jacobse. At that time there were orders sent and notable was the  
basement and third floor were unoccupied and uncertified and needed approval prior to  
reoccupancy. In the time since we’ve had a number of reschedules and extension  
request. I’ve been told there were plans, but not sure we had plans to formally approve.  
But I see there is a plan submitted here which I am seeing for the first time. We were  
comfortable with some extensions but since it had been going on quite some time and  
there are concerns that even if the third floor and basement remain unoccupied the  
issues may affect the rest of the building. That would be the moisture and water  
damage  
Moermond: it has infiltrated the main floor unit. I see 2018 and 2019 there were some  
inspections but it was incomplete.  
Imbertson: that is correct, it looks like what happened was the last time this was  
approved was in 2016. A renewal process started in 2018 and at the time that inspector  
left DSI the file was unassigned in our system and didn’t come back up until recently.  
In those years between 2018 and 2022 there was nothing specific the owner was being  
asked to do or follow thorugh on, but there was a small amount of crossover with some  
items being noted back in the 2018 inspection.  
Moermond: Certificate of Occupancy 2016, inspector leaves in 2018, file goes south  
with lack of staffing, 2023 it resurfaces. It has been six years, which it would have  
been six years same as if it had been a Class A building, which it isn’t.  
Jagiela: there are a number of deficiencies that can be corrected, but they have to be  
done in sequence. We had hail damage last May to the roof, it’s a tile roof, so it was  
hard to find a contractor. I called the couple contractors I knew, who said they were  
booked but we could revisit in the sprint. Before I got them out there, I had to get it  
settled with insurance, the adjuster supposedly was out there last week. I haven’t heard  
from him yet. The problem is the water is coming through the roof, which is causing  
plaster damage in the house. Have to fix the roof, then we can repair the plaster. There  
are some easy electrical things. I need an electrician out there to do that, but I have  
the hardwired alarms. There is a plumbing leak, I’ll get Ryan plumbing out. Then I’ll get  
the plaster guy out. I haven’t figured out how to deal with the exterior of the building,  
the previous owner painted it, which you shouldn’t do. I could have the paint removed  
so the white stucco shows, or I can have it re-stuccoed, which I’m going to look into.  
Or I can have it repainted, which isn’t my first choice. I had a painting contractor out  
and they said there’s a new breathable paint that would last 10 or 15 years. I assume  
that’s cheaper than stucco, but I don’t know. This is a rental property so you hate to  
put a ton of money into it because you won’t get it back out. Rent doesn’t cover  
extraordinary expenses. It’s a matter of timing, I’ll get bids on the roof and get that  
repaired and then I can work on the stucco and exterior. We can’t fix the exterior until  
we do the roof because some shingles are broken near the edge of the roof so water  
runs down the exterior of the house, not caught by the gutters.  
Moermond: what kind of timing are you looking at?  
Jagiela: I can’t tell you that because they won’t give dates unless you sign a contract,  
and even if you do they change it if there’s bad weather.  
Moermond: on number one in your document you say the hail was May 19, 2023, did  
you mean 2022?  
Jagiela: yes, that is a typo.  
Moermond: I have to throw a rope around this to allow the middle to continue to be  
occupied. I can’t have an indefinite situation which is where we are at now. Insurance  
has taken a look at this. People who you want to work with but no specific bids and  
timing?  
Jagiela: I could get electrical and Ryan plumbing work done now. I assume the next 60  
days they could be out. The roof is going to hold up some of the other stuff. I saw  
Garlic French out doing the house across the street. Hopefully they could come out  
soon. Can I report back? I’ll do plumbing and electric and then have a contract with  
roofer on timing, and give a status report? The fire inspector told me the consequence  
of not having it done is making the people live there move out. They’ve lived there 15  
years or so. That makes it tricky.  
Imbertson: we would classify it as a Vacant Building, with no timetable for repairs.  
When it is even partially occupied you are expected to maintain a Certificate of  
Occupancy.  
Moermond: and we hate to hear that is what needs to happen. Balancing health and  
safety concerns for who is living there with some reasonableness for getting it done.  
Having consequences for failure to address the health and safety issues, and the  
consequence is vacating the building. Other consequences are criminal citations.  
Charing more for reinspections. These things aren’t particularly effective at getting the  
job done which is getting it safe and habitable and keeping people there. We’re all  
working towards the same end, but all they have is a hammer.  
Jagiela: it is a real nice house. Enforcement is uneven throughout the City. You can  
see some houses and you’re surprised anyone is living there. I can make progress on  
this and as soon as the roof is fixed, that stops the water infiltration. The exterior and  
the paint, that’s not a safety hazards, but it does have to be addressed.  
Moermond: are you intending to have the second level and basement fixed to be rented  
again? If you got more rental income it would support future maintenance.  
Jagiela: I get it. I am going to fix it up. The lower floor unit needs a total renovation  
basically.  
Moermond: right now, the main concern is maintaining habitably for the main unit, and  
I’m hearing the water leaking is diminishing that.  
Imbertson: last summer it wasn’t an uncommon situation to hear contractors were far  
behind. Typically, they are familiar with concerns if water is continued to be allowed to  
into the property. So permanent fix was delayed, but there was a temporary repair to  
stop further damage and allow you to make additional repairs inside without waiting. I’m  
not claiming to know the challenges with your situation, but it is pretty common to take  
steps to control water on a roof repair that may take a few months.  
Jagiela: that’s a good suggestion.  
Imbertson: and a complete remodel on the basement unit sounds like we’d do approval  
with corrections, leave the basement uncertified for cosmetic repairs that didn’t affect  
the rest of the building. Mold and moisture issues, separation issues that affect the  
occupied areas. If we get a property that has a unit with a cosmetic overhaul that  
doesn’t affect occupancy of the main floor, we have some options.  
Moermond: we’re all about keeping the main level habitable. Tarping to stop the water  
infiltration would be a big deal. A mitigation measure in place before formal repair is  
undertaken.  
Imbertson: whatever repairs the roofing contractor may recommend.  
Moermond: with respect to the basement level and second level, that aren’t rented,  
there isn’t much in the orders saying what the violations are, it just says it is uncertified  
and has to be certified before occupancy. So it is in a condition that you would expect  
needs a number of repairs?  
Imbertson: that is correct. I believe the primary issues were plaster damage in walls  
and ceiling related to moisture issues. Sometimes when the unit is already empty it is  
noted like that so we aren’t giving out a confusing list of specific items that are  
irrelevant if you’re doing an overhaul on the unit regardless.  
Moermond: we need some more specifics. I’d like to see bids and a schedule on  
organizing this work. Up front getting the contractor in to do the tarping or temporary  
repair. I would also say I’d put more forward on the list the plumbing contractor. If we  
have water issues related to the leaking pipe, let’s get all the water things addressed  
so the things causing the greatest problem is addressed. Then figure out a schedule  
for the rest. Also doing the hardwired smoke alarms should be at the front of the line.  
Jagiela: I think I can get a lot of this lined up in the next 30 days. At least have some  
dates.  
Moermond: I’m going to send this to Council on a deadline for the temporary roof  
repair, plumbing and hardwired smoke detectors, let’s say July 1. I’ll have them refer it  
back to hearing and we can figure out deadlines for the balance of the orders. Then  
you can work more deeply with the insurance, roofer, and stucco.  
Jagiela: I think that’s fair.  
Moermond: I’ll send this to Council with that recommendation June 7. I’ll ask them to  
send it back to hearing for us to talk July 11.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
45  
RLH VO 23-21  
Appeal of Wesley Gakuo to a Notice of Condemnation as Unfit for  
Human Habitation and Order to Vacate at 0 BUSH AVENUE, vacant lot  
(Parcel 27-29-22-43-0149).  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Grant to June 16, 2023 to vacate the property. Grant to July 1, 2023 for compliance  
with items 2 and 3 of orders as it relates to loose material (including but not limited to  
tires, tarps, scrap metal, wood, vehicle parts, etc) and grant to September 1, 2023 for  
compliance with balance of the April 28, 2023 orders (item 4 including removing all  
vehicles/equipment).  
Wesley Gakuo, owner, appeared  
Nicole Paradise, Ramsey County House Calls, appeared  
Moermond: we have three layers of issues with this particular situation. The first layer  
has to do with the order to vacate the trailer and property for living purposes because it  
lacks basic facilities. The second is the cleanup of the property, and the third layer of  
what is involved in building a house. I was trying to focus on that top layer of getting  
housing addressed. I was looking at putting a deadline in place for you to have  
vacated, and also one for getting the property cleaned up. You’ve met with Ms.  
Paradise, wondering what things are looking like for you. I spoke with Ms. Paradise  
briefly, what has your luck been in finding out more about those things?  
Gakuo: she did tell me to look for apartments and help for first month rent. I did see  
one that would fit within our needs. My wife just started a new job, and there’s a huge  
building nearby that participates in low-income housing. I did apply there and they said  
there was one 2 bedroom left and it was being held by someone who didn’t show up, so  
they told us if we could come up with the money for a down payment we could hold it.  
We did do that and were told after checking credit we don’t need down payment, and  
they’ll put it to first month rent. He did tell me about income amount since my income  
isn’t regular. I’ll go there at 4 today. He said two weeks, 3 weeks max to move in.  
Beginning of next month.  
Moermond: this sounds positive.  
Gakuo: I had to take out a loan to do this. We still need furniture; nothing is  
transferable from camper to apartment. She did tell me about places with furniture.  
Moermond: absolutely. Find out things with you can get free or cheaply, then worry  
about the rest.  
Paradise: Bridging. I can help with that, there are a few other places. We talked about  
getting the emergency assistance application in but doing this just in case. They would  
cover damage deposit and first month’s rent. We talked about a loan being an  
emergency since it can get people in financial trouble.  
Gakuo: I was just worried you would say I had to be out tomorrow.  
Moermond: no, I wanted to give you time to address things. I’m grateful that I don’t  
have to push you. I’m thinking a realistic deadline is to be off the land June 16th. That  
would be the deadline for vacating.  
Martin: this is wonderful, I’m glad they found some housing and they do have a lot of  
items at the property too.  
Moermond: what would you consider a priority for removing to start with. It seems to me  
that the equipment and water containers and POD and trailer may be later, and the  
tires, tarps, scrap metal and things strewn about would be a first priority and make  
things look better sooner.  
Martin: absolutely.  
Moermond: given the remote nature of this property I’m going to give more time than we  
normally would. We’ll say the loose items that aren’t equipment, the POD or trailer  
should be removed by July 1. The other items, equipment, pods, water containers and  
so on, I’ll say September 1 so you have a good length of time to figure out how you  
want to handle the equipment and so on.  
Gakuo: I think I can meet those deadlines.  
Moermond: if you can’t, we’ll have follow up meetings to see if you are done. If you  
haven’t, we can talk that through then. We call those making-finding hearings. Making  
a finding of whether the nuisance was addressed. If it hasn’t, then we can figure out a  
plan to get it taken care of. Update from you on issues you had. Regroup for there.  
Gakuo: because of a medical issue, I may not meet some of the dates. They look  
reasonable enough now. I just wanted to mention that.  
Moermond: getting you rehoused was top of the list. The rest we can figure out along  
the way. I wish you all the best.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 6/7/2023  
2:00 p.m. Hearings  
Fire Certificates of Occupancy  
RLH FCO 23-26  
46  
Appeal of Christopher Petersen, Power-of-Attorney for Tony E. Petersen  
(father), to a Fire Inspection Correction Notice at 540 CHARLES  
AVENUE.  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH June 13, 2023 at 2 pm for further discussion. Current recommendation  
is October 1, 2023 compliance for orders related to driveway and rear sidewalk.  
Roger Anderson, attorney, appeared via phone  
Chris Petersen, Power of Attorney for Tony E. Petersen, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Anderson: did you say this is in Minneapolis?  
Moermond: no, St Paul City Council.  
Anderson: and your recommendation goes to the City Council  
Moermond: correct.  
Anderson: please proceed.  
Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: duplex in our Certificate of Occupancy  
program. Prior to this inspection cycle it was last inspected in 2017 and received an A  
rating, which is a 6-year cycle. The initial inspection was made April 5, 2023 with  
Hector Caballero. Five items on the report, all fairly typical, and primarily are  
maintenance related. Four of those were exterior maintenance. We have some photos  
on file, and nothing stands out as out of the ordinary here.  
Moermond: I have your appeal form and letter Mr. Petersen. I also have an email that  
was sent at 1:22 today from Broker’s Realty. Walk me through what you’re looking for  
today.  
Petersen: our home was built in 1880, which is a few years prior to the city even having  
streets or sidewalks. The retaining wall appears it has to be owned by the City, and  
requesting it is repaired but we believe it is owned by the City.  
Moermond: what else?  
Petersen: I put some case law in there too. The rear patio and sidewalk, we have  
contacted many people as you can see and received few bids back, and both are  
astronomical in cost. The timeline given was 30 days from the previous inspection and  
he said I’d have until June 1 when I spoke to the inspector. So that was concerning.  
The weather has been wishy-washy this year and we’ve been trying to get estimates  
constantly. It is a lot of leg work. It is a heavy burden if we are somehow found  
responsible for the retaining wall, it is expensive. I understand the safety factor, but it  
will take time because we haven’t had a lot of luck to find someone to do the work.  
The cost is astronomical for the repairs.  
Anderson: I concur with Mr. Petersen, the basis for the appeal stems from the two  
aspects that the retaining wall protects the City’s items of sidewalk and road. It is a  
hardship and impossibility for the property owner to comply with.  
Moermond: I have to say looking at the photo in April from the rear of the property, it is  
hard to tell what the most recent surfacing is of the driveway. It could have been  
asphalt. It is hard to say since its compromised over time. The hard surface has  
crumbled and given way. What was it, and what are you thinking about where you go to  
address it?  
Petersen: are you referring to the driveway that we aren’t appealing?  
Moermond: I’m asking because I assumed it was included in your request for a longer  
deadline.  
Petersen: the current driveway is gravel; we would like to replace that. If not, we’d  
remove and fill. We tried to do it but all the class 5 was frozen. That is being worked  
on now, we need gravel no matter what. Are we allowed to do gravel?  
Moermond: I can’t make a decision here about continued use of class 5. It wouldn’t be  
a repair at this point, it is too degraded. You would be referred to zoning and site plan  
review. I can tell you my understanding of class 5 is that is essentially impervious as  
well, it doesn’t soak in water really.  
Imbertson: I would agree it isn’t minor maintenance at this point, so we would defer to  
zoning on whether it could be a new class 5 surface.  
Moermond: for today’s purposes it is important to decide on some time to sort that out.  
Are you dealing with the back sidewalk at that time? It looks to be cement. The  
retaining wall is cement and you are contesting your responsibility for that. My thoughts  
on the retaining wall is that your first contention is this is in the City’s right-of-way. I’m  
not sure there’s a survey confirming that. I did put a request into Public Works to  
check on that. They’ll be looking at that. The bridge engineer asked specifically  
whether the front yard was flat and held up by the retaining wall, or what the  
arrangement was. A flat front yard indicates the installation of the retaining wall is to  
hold the soils on the property. That is part of building code as well. You could regrade  
the property in the front, I see further down someone has done that. It also appears the  
retaining wall turns into your property at the stairway and the style with the stairs into  
the property is the same as the wall itself. That lends to the thinking that the retaining  
wall it connected to the ownership of the property. But again, I’d like to learn more from  
Public Works on their records. Your options when you talk to contractors wouldn’t be  
just for rebuilding, but perhaps regrading. I don’t’ see a large public safety problem  
here. I think we have time to sort this out.  
Petersen: we’re 5 feet from the edge of the retaining wall. Our property was built well  
before the streets. The purpose of the wall was to benefit the public and City. There is  
no way we can grade 5’ down to 4’. Those stairs were replaced six years ago. As far as  
them being part of the wall--  
Moermond: and I didn’t mean to imply the stairs, I meant the wall that turns a corner at  
the stairs. I don’t want to land the plane today but I don’t agree with the position you  
are taking and a lot of this is assumptions about what the grade was historically and  
what actions were taken. You’re explaining it’s the public interest to put in a street, but  
if the original owner built on a hill, that’s an interest too.  
Imbertson: we weren’t saying the stairs would have been part of the wall, you  
mentioned portion of the wall facing the stairs matches the style facing the streets,  
indicating it was put in by the property owner versus Public works. We can ask HPC  
for photos. Certainly, a survey. We have metal detectors for locating pins.  
Petersen: we’ll receive copies of this information?  
Moermond: everything I do is of record and you will get copies, absolutely.  
Anderson: how long would it take to get those records?  
Moermond: I just spoke to him this morning and been in hearings all day. The interior  
issue we can tackle---  
Petersen: that was closed on the 8th.  
Moermond: perfect. So that leaves the exterior work. We can go to October 1 to figure  
out what you’ll do with the driveway, work with plan review, same deadline for the  
sidewalk adjacent to the driveway. That leaves us with the retaining wall. I will send this  
to June 13 for us to talk again.  
Imbertson: the retaining wall doesn’t appear to be 4 feet high. The cap extends above  
ground level, I don’t think it is out of the question you could make the slope work  
without a retaining wall. You’d need to see what you can do around the porch  
foundation and we aren’t sure how that was constructed.  
Petersen: all the garage repairs were done. I was out a couple times when it was too  
windy to paint, but this week and next week the garage will be complete. I have some  
boards to replace before I paint the porch. That’s why I said July 31 in my original  
letter.  
Moermond: I think August 31 is a reasonable extension on those items and I’m happy  
to make that recommendation. We’ve got that locked in and we’re down to retaining  
wall. We will talk again June 13th and trade information between now and then.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/13/2023