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, November 28, 2023  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
Remove/Repair Orders  
RLH RR 23-51  
1
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1726  
FOURTH STREET EAST within fifteen (15) days after the November 8,  
2023, City Council Public Hearing. (Refer to November 28, 2023  
Legislative Hearing)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH January 16, 2024 at 9 am. PO or development partner to submit 1)  
purchase agreement (if applicable), 2) financial documentation, 3) affidavit dedicating  
funds, and 4) schedule, work plan and bids.  
Brice Michka, attorney o/b/o BPH Homes, appeared  
Staff updated by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: both Code Compliance and Performance  
Deposit were done. No problems at the property.  
Moermond: next thing we talk about is financing, plans, moving towards rehab?  
Michka: the owner was going to find a buyer with a purchase agreement, we don’t have  
one yet. We planned to do that once we received the Code Compliance report, which  
we got last Tuesday. So only 2 business days ago. We did have people interested but  
not having the Code Compliance was having issues. My client is hoping for additional  
time to find a potential buyer, if not time to put together the bid, work plan, financing to  
rehab themselves. No purchase agreement and no time in 2 business days to put  
together the necessary items.  
Moermond: and we’re operating on an edge in terms of the code not allowing for the  
marketing of the property so how this comes about is as a business partnership.  
You’re in it until its done, which I know is what is in the addendum but the phasing is  
important. It may be in your interest to find out more about what those bids may look  
like. I’m not sure that has much cost, especially for the size of your client.  
Michka: I’m not aware of the size of their business.  
Moermond: They own about 40 properties. I see a lot of them in this room. Which  
makes me think they have people they work with regularly to do these things. I am  
comfortable giving time but I don’t want them to be set up so one happens after the  
other. I want them moving in parallel so if something falls through you have a backup.  
Michka: that’s my client’s hope as well. They either have a partner or have the items  
together to do the rehab.  
Moermond: right, I wanted the understanding they not be sequential. What is your ask?  
Michka: they’re hoping mid-January. Six weeks from now. Some extra time to pull it  
together.  
Moermond: Mr. Yannarelly, have you reviewed the Code Compliance?  
Yannarelly: not in depth, but it isn’t extensive.  
Moermond: a lot of plumbing. 47 items. Tuesday January 16, and if that point in time  
there will have been a lot of time even with holidays. Come forward with rehab proposal,  
money, schedule, bids and if isn’t you, someone else would be bringing that along with  
the associated contract. Continue to maintain the property.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/16/2024  
2
RLH RR 23-57  
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1971  
NORTONIA AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the December 20,  
2023, City Council Public Hearing.  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Grant 180 days to rehabilitate or remove the property.  
Lenny Frolov, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: we reviewed your plans. Thinks are looking good. Regarding your timeline,  
the third bullet talks about having inspectors out to see what can be undone. The  
trades inspectors may say that that is what the rough in is going to be. It may be you  
have a couple rough ins. It doesn’t change my opinion on the plan, which is very good,  
just wanted to mention that. It shouldn’t be an issue. Bids looked good.  
Yannarelly: it looked good.  
Moermond: we’ll recommend the City Council gives you 180 days. This has its Council  
Public Hearing December 20th. The department will begin issuance of permits  
beginning tomorrow morning. This is a Category 3 so permits must be pulled in person,  
not online. You’re good to go.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 12/20/2023  
RLH RR 23-31  
3
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 455  
ROBERT STREET SOUTH within fifteen (15) days after the August 2,  
2023, City Council Public Hearing. (Public hearing continued to  
September 27, 2023)  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Layover to January 16, 2024 at 9 am for further discussion. Purchaser to submit 1)  
bids and schedule, 2) proof of financing, 3) affidavit, and 4) post a $5,000 PD by COB  
January 12, 2024.  
Thomas Radio, attorney representing ownership, appeared  
Jeff Hauge, managing director of Wakota Commercial advisors, appeared  
Bob Craft, o/b/o WSCO, attended but did not speak  
Moermond: Councilmember Noecker was looking for some faster progress. I know  
you’ve had it on the market, which I haven’t checked lately. Tell me what’s going on.  
Radio: we have a signed purchase agreement by a local restaurant owner, not a  
franchise. They own other restaurants in the area. It was signed fully yesterday; we are  
concerned about sharing details because they have a due diligence time period. We  
have other interested parties if things fall through.  
Hauge: I’ve learned in my 32 years in commercial real estate that deals aren’t done  
until walking away from the closing table. This group came and spent an hour in the  
building, they loved it. They are local, they are experienced, and they are an owner  
operator. In this market you get a lot of bottom feeders trying to get property for next to  
nothing. Typically, investors. They’ll dress it up and lease it to an end user. We had a  
lot of that. Also, a lot of legitimate buyers. This group stepped forward and were ready  
to do it. The buyer signed last week, but with the holiday.  
Moermond: what’s the due diligence period?  
Hauge: 45 days. There are certain items we have to deliver, then closing within 20  
days. If something unforeseen comes up during the due diligence period, we’ve given  
the ability to extend for 30 days.  
Radio: at best, 95 days from yesterday to closing, with the extension.  
Moermond: when the due diligence time period has elapsed it is when we could discuss  
rehab plans without fear of disclosure?  
Hauge: I think that is fair.  
Moermond: I was thinking to set it up closer to the 75-day mark, we have our check in  
and if you say the due diligence time period was extended we just move it down the  
line, but if we’re ready to go we don’t want to stop them pulling permits to get  
operational. This is very good news. I think January 16 is the closest hearing date. If  
we’ve been extended we’ll know, and if it hasn’t we’ll have a conversation about what we  
need to see as far as bids, plans, etcetera. I will update Councilmember Noecker’s  
office, that makes more sense than sending it back to Council Public Hearing for  
consideration.  
Radio: I want to extend my client’s appreciation to you and the City Council for giving  
us time to put this marketing in place. I wasn’t expecting this quick of a purchase, but  
Jeff worked his magic. Without the building the land is problematic in its value.  
Wisdom in saying bring it to a safe level and market it. I am pleased it is local with  
established locations already. Good formula for success. You want someone with  
experience, resources, and vision.  
Moermond: and I won’t ask for a purchase agreement with names redacted or anything  
like that. Likely something at the end of the day.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/16/2024  
4
RLH RR 23-44  
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 1213  
WOODBRIDGE STREET within fifteen (15) days after the September 13,  
2023, City Council Public Hearing. (Refer to Legislative Hearing October  
24, 2023)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH January 16, 2024 at 9 am for further discussion. PO to submit 1) letter  
dedicating financing and 2) bids and schedule.  
Michael Sauer, attorney, appeared via phone  
Moermond: looking at your situation, it has been a while since we’ve talked. We have  
an awkward situation. You’re in a Catch 22. You can’t foreclose because if you  
foreclose—  
Sauer: the property went to foreclosure sales. We settled with insurance. Court action  
was filed to reduce redemption period to 5 weeks, I believe it was filed in the last  
couple of days. I settled the mechanic’s lein with Rest Pro last week, they’ll be  
releasing it. We also have a vendor that has told us the estimated repair costs is  
$124,972 and will take 125 days to do the repairs based on that Code Compliance  
report. I gave them the construction estimate and timeline chart I used before. In the  
contractor’s opinion Rest Pro did $35,000 worth of demolition and rehab work, but we  
settled that. $125,000 left to get it into acceptable condition. I’m going to have that  
documentation to show you, that’s what I’m working on now. We’ve made quite a bit of  
progress. Paying Rest Pro was a huge debt, but the court action and redemption  
period.  
Moermond: when do you anticipate you’ll get your 5 weeks?  
Sauer: they’re typically 15 to 20 days from date of filing. I think it will be about 15 days  
to the hearing, so barring any legitimate objection, which I don’t foresee, it would be 5  
weeks from date of that Court Order.  
Moermond: any steps you would need to follow after that before your folks are ready to  
pull permits?  
Sauer: the settlement we reached with Rest Pro involves Ms. Roark. I’m not speaking  
with her. Once they go away, one priority is to clearly establish my client can pull  
permits whether that’s consent from Ms. Roark, or another way. In my opinion from  
loan documents, we have that right. She is agreeing to settlement, and I do have faith  
she will work with us if we need too. 5 weeks isn’t that long to get everything ready. But  
we can have it ready to go.  
Moermond: your general contractor has gone through? That’s someone who is  
managing their own subs?  
Sauer: yes.  
Moermond: if we talk January 16, that is more than 50 days from now, which should  
take into account the 15 plus the 35. You’ll be down to getting schedule, plan,  
Yannarelly: I was just out there and someone jacked open the garage door and the  
back side. It is open to entry, if it isn’t secured within a week the City will do it. It is full  
of junk. Minivan. Mattress. Tires.  
Moermond: a whole week? Ok.  
Sauer: we did hear about that two different ways. The vendor told us after he was out  
there, they will be securing it. A local property investor called me and indicated he was  
contacted by someone at the City to reach out to me to try and acquire our sheriff’s  
certificate after the sale. He’d walked through the property too, so he could make an  
offer on it. I think you guys work with him quite a bit. I’ve worked with him too--  
Moermond: and for the record we have never referred any investor EVER to somebody  
like that. No.  
Yannarelly: he sifts over records.  
Moermond: we do have a couple of people who read over our records carefully as they  
shop for real estate, which is different than us saying “hey, would you go look at this.”  
Sauer: I questioned him and he kind of gave me some detail that was surprising, but it  
doesn’t matter. We don’t care, but I know him. I questioned why he was calling and  
how he got turned onto it. His name is Dave Zins.  
Moermond: we are in a good place and will continue this to January. You know the  
garage is open. I have seen not one but two garage fires in the last couple of months. I  
say that pointedly because it is a big concern, especially this time of year.  
Sauer: I understand the problem with alternative heat sources. One week to finish  
securing.  
Moermond: and I would have made that quicker, but the Department did the orders.  
Referred to the Legislative Hearings due back on 1/16/2024  
RLH RR 23-61  
5
Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at 975  
REANEY AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the January 17, 2024,  
City Council Public Hearing.  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH December 12, 2023 at 9 am for further discussion. PO to submit 1)  
proof of financing, 2) affidavit dedicating funds to the project, 3) work plan, new bids  
and schedule by COB December 8, 2023.  
Olympia Haidos, owner, appeared  
Moermond: this is a new file, so different than the first two conversations. I’m going to  
start by asking are you Olympia Haidos ?  
Haidos: yes. Stavros is my husband.  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Haidos: and I would like you to help me as well because we’ve already been frustrated  
with City inspectors.  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: The building is a two story, wood frame,  
four-unit dwelling on a lot of 6,350 square feet. The Fire Certificate of Occupancy was  
revoked on December 9, 2015; the property was referred to Vacant Buildings with files  
opened on February 11, 2016. The current property owner is Stavros Haidos/Olympia  
Haidos, per Amanda and Ramsey County Property records.  
On August 30, 2023, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies  
which constitute a nuisance condition was developed and photographs were taken. An  
Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was posted on September 11, 2023, with a  
compliance date of October 11, 2023. As of this date, the property remains in a  
condition which comprises a nuisance as defined by the legislative code. Taxation has  
placed an estimated market value of $80,000 on the land and $302,000 on the  
building. Real estate taxes are current.  
The vacant building registration fees were paid by assessment on March 2, 2023. A  
Team Inspection was done February 15, 2019 and has since expired. A new Team  
Inspection application was received on October 12, 2023. The $5,000 performance  
deposit was posted on October 12, 2023. There have been nineteen Summary  
Abatement Notices since 2016. There have been five work orders issued for:  
garbage/rubbish, boarding/securing and tall grass/weeds. Code Enforcement Officers  
estimate the cost to repair this structure exceeds $80,000. The estimated cost to  
demolish exceeds $35,000.  
Moermond: I have a two-page Fire report but I don’t have anything about the estimated  
damage from the fire. That was what led to the revocation of the Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy. It says they arrived and found two floors of house with heavy content.  
Occupant heard a smoke detector’s sound and saw flames from the hutch on the east  
wall of kitchen. The area of origin was east wall of kitchen, electrical in nature. Heavy  
contents which not so coded language for perhaps a hoarded place.  
Haidos: that’s all been repaired though.  
Moermond: I’m trying to create a record of how we got here. We need to document that  
and then take things step by step. I needed to know what caused its Certificate of  
Occupancy to be revoked. Is this a four-plex?  
Haidos: yes.  
Moermond: not a small place. It has been this way for a few years. I imagine you had  
insurance issues and that can often be more difficult than anything. You want to fix it,  
Mr. Yannarelly said we have a new Code Compliance application as of October 12th.  
Mr. Yannarelly, no report yet? That’s unusual. You should have had it already.  
Haidos: last time we got it very quickly. We already had the list Mr. Yannarelly gave us,  
and 80% is done. We pulled all our permits. Our electrical we asked to pull it again in  
July and were denied again and unable to do our final. Plumbing is finaled. Mechanical  
is done, with permits. We’ve been dealing with Robert Humphrey.  
Yannarelly: it comes to the point of work must have just lapsed and that’s where the  
Code Compliance issue comes up.  
Moermond: can we talk about permits and where we are at.  
Yannarelly: the plumbing permit has been finaled, as well as warm air. There is an  
open mechanical. Open electrical. Then of course the building permit.  
Moermond: when were the open permits?  
Yannarelly: September 2020 they were pulled.  
Moermond: so probably need to be reissued. And the Code Compliance report hasn’t  
been generated at all?  
Vang: no.  
Moermond: you’ve had people doing work, you are well on your way. In my experience  
when permits get to be that old, they’ll ask they be repulled and you can continue.  
Haidos: 2020 we hit Covid and things stopped. That’s one of the major reasons. Then  
we came back and I couldn’t’ find the plumber I had paid. Robert Humphrey was more  
than willing last summer to allow my new plumber to complete the work. I wasn’t told  
this situation would happen where I couldn’t bring in the next person to finish the job.  
Nothing was told that this was going to happen to us. July of 2023 I had my electrical  
contractor, the permit was expired due to Covid, and then never heard from anyone  
after he applied. There was never any follow up why it couldn’t be issued. The  
inspector, Randy, said—  
Yannarelly: the electrical permit goes to August of 2019.  
Haidos: and Randy was fine to do the final since everything was done, and he applied  
for a new permit, never heard anything and then mid-August all this stuff started  
happening. We’ve been trying but we always get sidetracked with them I guess. We  
had our final inspection in June of this summer. Why we would do things in June and  
then not in July. We had to pay $745. Put down our $5,000 Performance Deposit. I  
know all the trades came in and said everything is basically done.  
Moermond: I get you want to pick a fight here with the City. I don’t know the history with  
Department of Safety & Inspections and the back and forth. I see a file opened with a  
fire many years ago. They have the file open for a number of years. Obviously Covid  
comes. You had a team inspection. Those do expire after a year. They have to happen  
again to pull permits. If grace was granted on permits that is nice, it doesn’t mean it  
automatically happens. Do I understand inspectors wanting to work with you? I love  
that there is good communication. I hear the Vacant Building team; it isn’t an accident  
they’re saying we have to call the question to get it done. I’d like to figure out how to do  
this because I can’t un-ring the bell that this got named as a nuisance building.  
Regardless of label it is the same steps to get it out, with the Performance Deposit,  
and you are proving to the Council you can do it, not Mr. Humphrey. The rest are the  
same steps. Different level of scrutiny. I can lean on the department and get that list  
kicked out quickly. I don’t think it is ok you had to wait for it. Once you have that it  
sounds like you have contractors you were working with?  
Haidos: we have all our old bids and contractor. They’re just waiting to final so they can  
be paid.  
Moermond: of course. Without seeing the Code Compliance list, it could be that  
something is different now. Sometimes roofs leak. Change in environment leading to  
change in list. I don’t hear that’s the situation here but I am putting it out there. If it  
hasn’t been signed off yet, it may still be on the list. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t done, it  
just wasn’t finaled. When you get it, don’t panic. We just need to work through permits.  
You have electric, building and mechanical ready to go?  
Haidos: mechanical was finalized, they just wanted the vents clean after their last  
inspection.  
Moermond: we’ll get the list and get you squared away. This goes to City Council  
January 17th. If we conclude before then with all the pieces in place, we can greenlight  
permits prior to January 17th. I want to make sure you have that since you are teed up  
and have been spinning your wheels. You’ll probably need an updated bid with the  
remaining items. 2 items your contractor has done, no final on the old permit, but the  
other 16 items are done, here’s what is left to pay on the bill. Basically, a summary.  
That’s all I need. That’s usually the problem we run into with bids. It needs to address  
the items on the Code Compliance list.  
Haidos: I have invoices I have to pay. I feel terrible I’m not able to do it because it isn’t  
finalized.  
Moermond: it has been maintained?  
Yannarelly: yes. The anniversary date is February, I would suggest not paying it.  
Haidos: we’ve always paid it.  
Yannarelly: they’ve raised the fee.  
Haidos: if that can be waived—  
Moermond: we aren’t having this conversation now.  
Haidos: it has taken so long to get a list, that’s another issue. If I haven’t paid I can’t  
pull permits.  
Moermond: I know how it works. I get it. I’m working with you. We’ll get that list out and  
in the meantime you have a good idea of what I need. Updated bids. Schedule. No  
matter what once the package is together I’ll ask for the standard six months. If you’re  
done faster, great. The sooner out, the less the fee. I want you to have the opportunity  
to do that. I’d like to talk in a couple of weeks so we can get you greenlighted sooner  
than later if we can so you can get permits rolling and people finishing before holidays.  
The next time I do this is December 12th. If we can get you that list within a couple  
days you can talk to your contractors and pull it together and finish our conversation on  
the 12th.  
Haidos: as soon as we have the list we can apply for permits?  
Moermond: no, approval through this process first. That is what being a Category 3  
means. The level of scrutiny is the package has to be approved by Council, not Bob  
Humphrey. I really do want you to be able to get this done.  
Haidos: when does the clock start ticking?  
Moermond: the council votes January 17, giving 180 days. That day starts January 18,  
or the date the mayor signs. Not the date the permit is pulled. I think a couple of  
weeks sounds doable and get you on your way.  
Yannarelly: that means permits could be issued on the 13th .  
Moermond: that is what I am leaning toward. [discussion of City Council voting  
process]  
Haidos: am I able to attend remotely?  
Moermond: as a general rule no, not for these types of cases. [examples discussed]  
This is significantly complex that I’m not comfortable doing this remotely so we’re all in  
the same place.  
Haidos: my father is having surgery and I’m not sure what the date will be. I’m worried  
that may conflict with this.  
Moermond: when Ms. Zimny sends the letter, if you have materials together ahead of  
time, by email, and we can review those are things we can check off the list and we  
may be able to do it before we sit down if it is reviewed by then. That is probably the  
best alternative now. Take it as it comes for you.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/12/2023  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Correction Orders  
RLH CO 23-12  
6
Appeal of Peyton Hurst to a Correction Notice at 823 ENGLEWOOD  
AVENUE.  
Balenger  
Sponsors:  
Grant the appeal as property has been functionally deconverted to a single-family  
home use, noting zoning is correct for duplex use pending code corrections for  
compliance with building code.  
Peyton Hurst, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: I think our goal today is to wrap this up. We’ve talked before and you were  
going to follow up with Melissa Doody in plan review because we have zoning for a  
duplex. We had work done without permits. Now it is unringing that bell and making  
sure things are in alignment to continue using it as a duplex. I saw there was a permit  
pulled, where are you at.  
Hurst: I provided measurements ot Melissa and Nathan confirming ceiling heights, roof  
meeting wall at highest point. Things like that. Bathroom dimensions. All that stuff. It  
sounds like things are in good working order. The one piece is having a code  
compliant staircase. The one I have is an inch or two narrow to meet code. The only  
answer Nathan has is everything looks good but I’d need an exterior code compliant  
staircase to the second floor so they have a code compliant means of egress.  
Moermond: could you describe what the flaw is, is it 2” in the width of the stairwell?  
Hurst: I don’t know what the stairwell issue is. I know the door swing itself is an inch  
too small. The standard 32” door but with the door open you only get 31”. I know that  
isn’t what it needs to be. As far as width of staircase itself, I don’t know if it qualified or  
not. I would have to check. I do know the swing itself isn’t acceptable.  
Moermond: we’re going to send you a building code appeal form. If you are talking  
about 1” it is a reasonable conversation to engage to see if you can get a variance  
from the Building Official.  
Hurst: I’d love to at least try. I haven’t received a formal quote but I’m guessing  
minimum $10,000 to $15,000. I’d love to try. I had the tenants move out at the end of  
November. I can’t guarantee I will do the stairs and move forward as a single-family  
home. If its $20,000 I can’t do it now. I can’t put them in a position where they have to  
find housing in January. There’s no one up there anymore, at least until this is sorted  
out. If I know I’m doing the stairs it will be different, but until I get that quote that is  
where I am at.  
Moermond: I’ll recommend the Council grant your appeal based on the fact you have  
functionally deconverted this to a single-family home use and note zoning is correct for  
duplex use pending code corrections for compliance with building code.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 12/13/2023  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
7
RLH VBR  
23-71  
Appeal of George Mathews to a Vacant Building Registration  
Requirement at 189 MAPLE STREET NORTH.  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Waive the Vacant Building fee for 90 days (to February 15, 2024) to have permits  
finaled and Fire Certificate of Occupancy reinstated.  
George Mathews, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: this is a 2-unit residential building in our  
Fire Certificate of Occupancy program. We had a renewal process started in April  
2023. Inspector had issues getting in at first, after being notified by the manager he  
was no longer managing, he spoke to someone in July. In July we determined it was  
unoccupied and would be undergoing renovations before reoccupancy. We revoked the  
Certificate of Occupancy and sent a notice it needed to be recertified prior to being  
reoccupied. We monitored it for a few months and in November it was referred to the  
Vacant Building program as it was still unoccupied Current electrical and plumbing  
permits that are open.  
Moermond: you had staff who determined it was unoccupied July, were there previous  
appointment letters that went out prior to that?  
Imbertson: there were. The first appointment letter was sent March 17, then again April  
and May and June. The inspector’s notes indicate he was notified in June the  
Responsible Party was no longer involved so we changed the mailing address to the  
owner.  
Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 1 Vacant Building on  
November 14, 2023 per that referral. At the time inspector Hoffman noted it was vacant  
and secure and maintained.  
Moermond: with a Category 1, what does it mean in terms of getting out of the Vacant  
Building program?  
Dornfeld: if the trades permits are finaled and Certificate of Occupancy reinstated we  
would close the file without having to do a Code Compliance Inspection.  
Moermond: Mr. Mathews, the letters are addressed to Gemini Ownership Team, LLC.  
Is that you?  
Mathews: that is me, though the title was changed to Stonewood Assets LLC during  
Covid.  
Moermond: you probably want to change that with the County. This was pulled from  
Ramsey County taxation. 651-266-2000. Where are you at with your rehab? Permits are  
pulled. $10,000 in permits pulled. Tell me more.  
Mathews: the plumbing I put in new sewer from house to main line. The plumbing  
stack is all new PVC. New freshwater lines, ability to separate utilities. Electric  
baseboard in basement and second floor unit to separate utilities. We’re upgrading a  
lot of electrical to code. I had to open up the wall when doing the first-floor bathroom,  
so figured I’d update the electrician. He’s licensed, but also a friend, so I’m at his  
mercy as far as timing. A couple of walls are open I’m waiting for rough ins for. Second  
floor the electrical inspector came and gave me the ok to close the walls up there.  
That will need a final. Then I’ll move on to the first floor before Christmas and close  
those up and get plumbing finalized. I am doing new fixtures in bathroom and kitchen  
on the first floor.  
Moermond: electric is mostly done on first floor and plumbing is installation of fixtures.  
Timeline you were hoping to get things done by the holidays. The plumber on the same  
timeline?  
Mathews: hopefully. Electrician wants to be done before the plumber comes in.  
Moermond: sounds reasonable. You say holidays. That puts us out a month.  
Realistically it seems it may take longer considering corrections.  
Mathews: that’s likely. It depends on how some gets done. It isn’t a ton of counter  
space so I don’t think I need as many outlets as inspector thoughts. So, some  
adjustments. Once I get those done I have two walls to drywall and then cabinets.  
Once the permits are done it isn’t a ton of work. Should be a couple weeks for that.  
Moermond: I will ask the Council to give you a 90-day waiver on the Vacant Building  
fee. It isn’t out of the program. Its vacant and has major work going on, but easier for  
you to move on without that bill and you can spend that money elsewhere. That takes  
us to February 15, 2024 which seems about double what you are estimating. That also  
includes having your Fire Certificate of Occupancy reinstated as well. Reach out to the  
inspector and do that walkthrough.  
[discussion of pending assessments and appealing those]  
Moermond: that also gives you a point of conversation for the folks you are working  
with, it speaks to everyone if there’s a bill hanging on it for you.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 12/13/2023  
1:30 p.m. Hearings  
Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy  
8
RLH VO 23-37  
Appeal of Ronald Staeheli to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 358 ARBOR STREET.  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Recommendation forthcoming.  
Ronald Staeheli, owner, appeared  
Vicki Christensen, describing herself as tenant, appeared  
Moermond: you’ve been through this before. It is the same process as before.  
Staeheli: it just seems like this is the only government entity that doesn’t believe she  
lives there. Her license is there.  
Staff report by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: residential duplex in the Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy program per a previous appeal. Inspection report from May that was also  
appealed. Process was on hold during that appeal. After that was concluded saying it  
needed to remain in the Fire Certificate of Occupancy program, we resumed  
rescheduling a reinspection of the property. That was rescheduled a couple of times  
and then was partially reinspected October 13. At that time, we had no work done that  
I could observe. Wasn’t met for the inspection. Lower unit tenant allowed access when  
I explained why I was there. Next appointment was set for October 27. Also not met for  
that appointment. No access to garage or upper unit. Inspected the lower unit and  
nothing was done that I observed. Same tenant living there. They stated they weren’t  
aware of any change in tenants or occupancy of the property nor any work having been  
done since the inspection process started.  
After reviewing information from the previous appeal, we decided to move forward with  
the revocation for noncompliance. Notice was issued to comply or vacate by January 2  
at 1 pm. A notice was also posted at the property on both units and garage on October  
31, as well as given to all the tenants.  
Staeheli: I do have on my phone the picture of Diane’s license.  
Moermond: we did redact information to try to prevent identity theft.  
Staeheli: Diane lives there. Certificate of Occupancy doesn’t matter. But since I don’t  
know how this will land I will go through some things. We did have a conversation in  
August. You mentioned the guardrail is lattice. You mentioned new nails.  
Imbertson: the lattice material with no additional supports meets building requirement.  
Fasteners or material.  
Staeheli: I’d like a better description for reasonably free from dampness in basement.  
It is a 1909 house with rocks around it. It is a wet basement.  
Imbertson: additional moisture during reinspection, October 13. Standing water on the  
floor in multiple areas in the basement. Puddles of water.  
Staeheli: I’ve owned it for 43 years; I don’t know how to make it stop. It has always  
been there. Any suggestions?  
Imbertson: I’m not familiar with the site. Could be better grading, rainwater from roof. It  
could be a hole in the foundation.  
Staeheli: there aren’t gutters.  
Moermond: your job is to make a determination about whether the dampness exists,  
you aren’t a basement contractor, Mr. Imbertson?  
Imbertson: correct.  
Staeheli: exterior behind garage and fence. Halloween decorations there, I can’t store  
them there? Number 11?  
Imbertson: the order was accurate based on what I observed. I don’t have a photo of  
the items.  
Staeheli: does that create a nuisance or harbor rodents?  
Imbertson: the part about rodents is a reference to the legislative code. Nuisance OR  
harboring rodent.  
Staeheli: but it’s a nuisance?  
Imbertson: I observed it aligning with the code requirements.  
Staeheli: there has never been a vent cap on the fireplace. Loose deck boards is just  
a screw. Number 14, that isn’t my fence. The broken fence behind the deck isn’t my  
fence.  
Imbertson: it is in multiple areas, some at lot line and some into the property.  
Staeheli: I know one of the deck supports leans a little. [reviews photo] That isn’t my  
fence. The garage isn’t part of rental anything. I keep things in there.  
Moermond: but you do rent the garage.  
Staeheli: not anymore.  
Moermond: you met a renter there?  
Imbertson: I fielded a phone call since the revocation was posted with concerns about  
having to vacate the rented garage. Garages are typically inspected.  
Staeheli: Number 34, I’m concerned because we textured those walls 40 years ago. It  
has separated from the lathe in some areas so there is a noticeable bow. It isn’t  
cracked or missing, it is bowing. I don’t mind patching a crack but I don’t want to have  
to bust out the loose plaster that has held there beautifully for 40 years.  
They are going to pissed about the entry door because they like to be able to reach in  
if they forget their keys. The rest is half a day. But it is still my position and everyone’s  
position, that she lives there. St. Paul water, Xcel Energy, DMV, OFS.  
Moermond: Ramsey County shows 358 Arbor as the address for Ms. Staeheli. When  
this was looked at before, it isn’t out of the blue, when the City investigated in 2019 the  
Xcel bill was going to MS. Staeheli there, but water was going to Blackhawk. The  
Voter registration was moved to St Paul and rejected. Then reregistered in St. Paul.  
There are moving pieces that made it non-residential for her purposes. You’re saying  
you’ve tried to correct those issues on paper and getting that in order. I know back in  
2019 mail bounced back from Fire Certificate of Occupancy, our mail bounced back,  
saying she didn’t live there. I would say right now what I am looking at, and I do see  
someone here to testify, the thing tripping me up is that both of you are listed as the  
homesteaders at the Blackhawk address in Dakota County. That does contradict the  
information given to Ramsey County. In the past Ramsey County elections did work  
with Dakota County to make that finding. It was looked into and had a finding. Now the  
facts are changed so I understand that should be looked at. If we need to submit  
additional information, you can do that.  
Right now, the question is should it or should it not be in the Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy program as owner occupied. If it is or isn’t, what orders continue forward.  
You’ve addressed parts as part of the preliminary conversation. Do you have more?  
Staeheli: no.  
Christensen: I am supposed to move out January 1, unless we can move it to February  
1. I’m fortunate to have a section 8 voucher, but there is such a housing shortage. The  
City came up with 30 plus booboos. My landlord has been there maybe half a dozen  
times in 10 years.  
Moermond: when you say your landlord, who are you referring to?  
Christenson: he [Mr. Staeheli] is my landlord. The few times she’s been there she’s  
screamed at me. Diane has as well. They aren’t pleasant people.  
Moermond: so, you took time out of your day to come down and say they aren’t  
residents?  
Christenson: they are not residents. They put a box on front with her name.  
Moermond: this is a duplex, who rents the other unit?  
Christensen: Mary Kay Brennan rents the other unit and there’s a disabled man living in  
the garage who is using my electricity. It is coming off of my meter. It isn’t kosher.  
This is kind of a blessing to have to move, but I need more time since there’s a  
housing shortage. My car is in the shop, will be over $2,000. I understand there may be  
help through the County to get help moving. I have a tiny SS disability check. It is a  
blessing to have moved to Minnesota from South Dakota. I need to get out of there.  
This is where I’m at. I made the mistake of renting from him.  
Moermond: Ms. Staeheli doesn’t live with Mary Kay?  
Christenson: no.  
Moermond: before you arrived Mr. Staeheli indicated the gentleman who was there is  
no longer renting the garage.  
Christensen: he’s still there. His car is still there.  
Moermond: I unfortunately cannot help with housing, but we’ll give you a brochure for  
House Calls. Maybe they can provide direction on how to pursue this.  
Staeheli: am I allowed to ask questions, or not?  
Moermond: normally we don’t do that, usually as part of a public hearing people come  
to testify, say their peace---you can say something, that’s fine. What comments do you  
have I can follow up on?  
Staeheli: Diane lives there. She lives with Mary Kay upstairs. The entrance is on a  
totally different side of the house. She has entrances in the back and the front.  
Between the two houses is where Diane comes and goes.  
Christensen: the car is never there, so she is never there.  
Moermond: we’ll let him say his piece, he was quiet while you spoke. If we need to, I  
can transition, but one voice at a time. Mr. Staeheli, continue.  
Staeheli: she would have no idea what she drove. I don’t know why she is angry with  
me. I’ll tell you what, I’ll put my comments in writing because this is going to denigrate  
pretty quickly.  
Moermond: you are more than welcome to do so.  
Staeheli: let’s do it that way. This will just be a back and forth. You don’t know what  
you’re talking about and yes, I do.  
Moermond: your main comment is that she lives with Mary Kay in that space and the  
entrance is in a separate location that isn’t visible.  
Staeheli: yes. I don’t know where Diane is parking. Diane suggests we invite you all to  
breakfast but I don’t know that that is going to work. Whoever wants to see her get up,  
use the bathroom, make coffee, you’re welcome to see a video. Just for the sake of  
argument, though this isn’t my position, if she doesn’t live there. If she moves in on  
January 1, can Vicki and Mary Kay stay since she now lives there and as  
owner-occupied unit doesn’t need a Fire Certificate of Occupancy. How do we make  
the order to vacate go away? How do I establish her residency more accurately and  
completely for the benefit of everyone. Her license is already there. I’m surprised the  
homestead wasn’t fixed yet. I don’t know why that is still wrong. We did move to Eagan  
together, then we moved back.  
Moermond: it is a substantial homestead. The combined value is much higher than  
both the properties in St. Paul.  
Staeheli: right but that’s not where we live. I do office out of there. That’s where I get  
my mail. Let’s say she doesn’t live there; how does she move in and make it go away?  
Moermond: that’s a reasonable question, and the other shoe to drop is that if it is  
determined she does live there what happens to the list of code violations. Traditionally  
the list is transferred from the Certificate of Occupancy program to Code Inspections.  
The violations exist, but it isn’t on a reinspection cycle.  
Staeheli: so the list won’t go away?  
Moermond: there may be items specific for the Fire Certificate of Occupancy program  
potentially. The other thing you brought up is revocation for a property without a  
Certificate of Occupancy. I think you’re saying you haven’t filled out an application but  
there have been some inspections.  
Staeheli: in the entire existence of the Certificate of Occupancy program I have never  
paid for one. I’ve only had this argument. I’ve never had a Certificate of Occupancy.  
That’s my position. De facto you can’t revoke something you never had.  
Moermond: when I reviewed code, it indicates that all properties in the City require Fire  
Certificate of Occupancy but for single-family home and duplexes that are  
owner-occupied. The thing is, other violations of that section of the code are reasons  
for a certificate to be revoked and the property vacated. They do connect and it has to  
do with violations of other sections.  
Christensen: I observe who is on the street, who is walking around. I haven’t seen Ms.  
Staeheli around. I do observe the cars on the side streets. Ms. Staeheli is not around  
and isn’t in and out. If there’s one set of footsteps upstairs, that is it. This isn’t a  
truthful person. That’s all there is too it. I still need to request an extension past  
January 1 to move. I need to be able to seek alternative housing. I don’t want to be  
there. He’s probably smiling because the voucher does pay my rent.  
Moermond: any further comments?  
Staeheli: I’d just like to hear yours.  
Moermond: and I can expect you have additional comments?  
Staeheli: I should have it done today.  
Referred to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/13/2023  
RLH VO 23-38  
9
Appeal of Leon E. Mastel to a Re-Inspection Fire Certificate of  
Occupancy With Deficiencies (which includes condemnation) at 1120  
BEECH STREET.  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH December 5, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss results of December 4, 2023  
3 pm inspection. (CPH 12/13).  
Leon Mastel, tenant, appeared via phone  
Moermond: I have Mr. Imbertson here, there was going to be an inspection to confirm  
or make a finding about the condition of the interior.  
Staff update by Supervisor Mitch Imbertson: I was out to the property with inspector  
Thomas. We weren’t able to get in. We did knock and left a Voicemail at the number I  
had from the appeal. Waited 20 minutes. We didn’t have access to verify the interior  
conditions either way. The exterior areas on the property were cleaned up.  
Moermond: that was the pallet issue?  
Imbertson: yes, exterior storage issue.  
Moermond: you missed your inspection appointment.  
Mastel: I apologize for that. I could have sworn it was Friday. He said he wasn’t aware  
of it being Friday. I apologize. Is it something we can do today? Is it too late.  
Moermond: we had a long conversation about them being short staffed and squeezing  
you in between hearings and accommodating your work schedule. You have to know  
I’m impatient with the situation. The minutes have a full-page discussing inspection.  
[reads minutes] It was put in the US mail and it said out loud. It is important because  
it has to do with whether or not you have to leave your apartment. Mr. Imbertson, the  
department is charging for this next inspection?  
Imbertson: we typically would but it was an appealed filed by the tenant not the  
property owner who would have received the bill. We don’t have a process for billing the  
tenant directly.  
Moermond: and I see the landlord was copied on Ms. Zimny’s follow up letter. He had  
that information as well. I am frustrated you aren’t taking responsibility for this, putting  
the City in a position of having to do this, having to reschedule to accommodate the  
situation because of the gravity of asking someone to leave your residence. I’m going  
to continue to move forward and ask the Department to schedule an inspection. I’d like  
to put this in front of Council December 13th. Either the 5th or 12th on the Legislative  
Hearing agenda. My recommendation can be forthcoming if the 12th is the date.  
Imbertson: I can do Monday the 4th with Inspector Thomas in the afternoon again. 2 or  
3 pm.  
Mastel: it is up to you, I apologize again.  
Moermond: let’s do 3 pm Monday, December 4th. Without that additional information I  
have very few options.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/5/2023