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, February 20, 2024  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
Special Tax Assessments  
RLH TA 24-76  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 523  
BEAUMONT STREET. (File No. J2402A4, Assessment No. 248521)  
1
Sponsors:  
Noecker  
Approve the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Voicemail left at 9:08 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council trying to  
reach you again about your appealed special tax assessment for a cleanup at 523  
Beaumont. We left a couple messages on February 6 indicating we’d try and reach  
you this morning. Therefore, I’ll recommend approval of the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 32  
BENHILL ROAD. (File No. VB2405, Assessment No. 248804)  
2
RLH TA 24-88  
Sponsors:  
Noecker  
Reduce assessment from $5,075 to $1,000.  
Curt Wescott, son of property owners, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this has been in the Vacant Building  
program since June 8, 2016. This fee covers June 8, 2023 to June 4, 2024. Code  
Compliance certificate was issued October 19, 2023. Total proposed assessment of  
$5,075.  
Wescott: I think I met you in person last spring, you gave me an extension because  
we were waiting on the electric to get done. My brother passed away so it went to my  
parents. It didn’t get finished in the 90 days you gave me; we were waiting on kitchen  
cabinets. That’s the only thing that was outstanding. Everything is done now.  
Moermond: I see we’re looking at that a hair more than 4 months in the program.  
Typically, we do the 90 day waiver. What I’m thinking is you were in it 1/3 of the  
billable year. I’m happy to reduce that to less than one-fourth and take you down to  
$1,000.  
Wescott: I’m comfortable with that, just for the sake of having this done.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 3/27/2024  
RLH TA 24-90  
Deleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 646  
CHARLES AVENUE. (File No. VB2404, Assessment No. 248803)  
3
Sponsors:  
Bowie  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: they got a waiver through August 16, and  
got their sign off on August 17.  
Moermond: absolutely recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 126  
NINTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2405B, Assessment No. 248104)  
4
RLH TA 24-87  
Sponsors:  
Noecker  
Approve the assessment.  
Allen Kremer, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: St. Paul Police Department responded to a  
burglar alarm at the property, large broken building on SW side of building. Called in  
an emergency contractor to board the window. Total assessment of $474.  
Kremer: I think they did a good job, to be honest with you. By the time I got down  
there it was done, and I had the supplies on hand from a prior break-in. I would have  
had it boarded by noon that day. I’m just not sure—I wasn’t allowed time to repair it  
myself. Obviously this happened during the night. I’m just not sure where to go with  
this. If I owe it, I will pay it. But I just wasn’t given a chance to fix it myself. I also  
thought the price was high, but considering it was overnight. I felt it was a little unfair I  
didn’t get a chance to take care of it myself. We pay a lot of taxes, $26,000 a year.  
We’re just kind of hanging on. I just feel it is a bit excessive.  
Moermond: officers showed up in the middle night after the alarm went off. They did  
speak to someone, Frank Reilly Andrews, October 20th.  
Kremer: I don’t know who that is.  
Moermond: the St. Paul Police Department can’t leave a space unsecured because  
additional damage could occur since it was open to entry but additionally people  
could have access and start fires, set up camp, those things. They don’t wait for an  
owner to show up. I know you would have likely had it done by noon, but they  
couldn’t wait. Then you are left with an assessment on the other end. I don’t have a  
lot I can do since the City did do the job.  
Kremer: you are right.  
Moermond: I do appreciate you’re ready to go on these things and are a great  
downtown neighbor. It isn’t a reflection on your management at all. I’m sorry it  
happened.  
Kremer: thank you. Bottom line is?  
Moermond: I have to recommend the Council approve this assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 3/27/2024  
RLH TA 24-82  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 571  
VAN BUREN AVENUE. (File No. VB2401A, Assessment No. 248808)  
(Refer to March 19, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
5
Sponsors:  
Bowie  
Refer back to LH March 19, 2024 at 9 am (requested by PO).  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
10:00 a.m. Hearings  
Special Tax Assessments  
RLH TA 24-54  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 703  
BEDFORD STREET. (File No. J2404E, Assessment No. 248303)  
6
Sponsors:  
Noecker  
Approve the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: this was for a Summary Abatement Order  
issued June 1,6, 2023 to remove and dispose of garbage from the yard. This was an  
Excessive Consumption fee, a PAEC because it was done by owner. Total  
assessment of $169.  
Moermond: the crew was deployed but didn’t have to do work. Lacking an argument,  
I’ll recommend approval. You could also charge an Excessive Consumption fee for 3  
or more violations in a 12-month period, right?  
Martin: no. If no action was taken it doesn’t count.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
RLH TA 23-407  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at  
1643-1645 DIETER STREET. (File No. J2401E1, Assessment No.  
248309) (February 27, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
7
Sponsors:  
Yang  
Delete the assessment.  
Ricardo Patron, interpreter, appeared  
Jose Vargas, tenant, appeared via phone  
Hong & Natalie Yang, landlord, appeared via phone  
Voicemail left for Yang at 10:30 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City  
Council calling you about appealed special assessment for your property on Dieter  
Street. We’ll try you back in a few minutes.  
[recess from 10:31 am to 10:33 am]  
[Hong Yang was called in]  
Moermond: you are representing JY Investments?  
Yang: I thought this hearing was next Tuesday. I answered since this number called  
twice.  
Moermond: it sounds like you were emailing Mai Vang about this. It has to do with  
notices going to JY Investments about vehicle and parking issues at the Dieter  
address resulting in Excessive Consumption bills and whether you as ownership  
communicated with the tenants they needed to take care of it. I’m only following up  
with this because there is substantial money and a language barrier. If you didn’t give  
them a chance to take care of the problem. I think they feel like they didn’t get notice,  
then they finally spoke to the Inspector last summer. We’re going to get them on the  
line again.  
Yang: I mentioned to Mai when I spoke a month ago that we haven’t received any of  
those notifications. They didn’t get anything from us because we didn’t receive  
anything from the City. I know Mai was going to look into what address was on file.  
We are on top of things as landlord.  
[Jose Vargas called back into hearing]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Correction Notice was sent March 14, 2023  
regarding vehicles parked that appear inoperable. They were also missing plates.  
Orders were to provide plates, make operable, or remove entirely. The total  
assessment was $169. That was the first one. We also have 3 more Excessive  
Consumption fees for $303. We had 21 Excessive Consumption fees issued in total.  
7 are levied, 6 pending, including these.  
Moermond: how much money are we talking in total?  
Martin: $1,078 for the four assessments before us today.  
Moermond: where did notifications go? Both the Vehicle Abatement Order and the  
Excessive Consumption bills.  
Martin: JY Investments, LLC at 16505 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  
Yang: we don’t live at that address. We moved in 2022. Even prior to that, 16505 was  
not the correct address regardless. We did live on Limerick about a year, 16506 was  
the correct address. I have my wife here, Natalie, on the line too. 16506 was our  
address.  
Moermond: Ramsey County tax records, which is where the City gets its information  
for the address of the owner. It looks like we don’t have a recent sale, just a  
distressed sale in 2010, so no closing documents. But I can see in 2021 the property  
tax statement went to an address in Cottage Grove. In 2022 it went to that address  
on Limerick, and continued to the present.  
The Fire Certificate of Occupancy would be another place where the City looks for an  
address, and that doesn’t seem to be JY Investments, that is Elite Homes, LLC in  
Edina. Is that right?  
Yang: Joe Yannarelly Investments, LLC is the entity that owns it. Elite Homes is the  
management company for managing all our properties, including this one.  
Moermond: and the notices didn’t go there. Tell me about your address situation.  
Yang: we lived in Cottage Grove, the Homestead Avenue address, up until October  
or November of 2021. Then we moved to 16506 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka for a  
year. October or November of 2022 we moved from Minnetonka to Excelsior, 165  
Mounds Avenue. All the mail you mentioned sent to 16505 we didn’t get. We did have  
forwarding set up for 16506 so had those letters been sent there, we would have  
received them. We didn’t get anything about these citations until we got one at 165  
Mound. Then we reached out to the tenant about the insane number of citations.  
Moermond: it is your responsibility to make sure your address is correct with Ramsey  
County. I’m interested in at what point the City’s information was updated and how  
that timing works with the notices and bills going out. In addition to today’s  
assessments, we have a lot of others that have gone through. I’d want to make sure  
they were correct as of the timing the addresses were updated in the system. I don’t  
know how it came that the City’s is different than the County’s, nor when. It is  
possible that happened through the Fire Certificate of Occupancy but I don’t know.  
The notices that go out automatically reference the County’s information since it may  
result in a tax assessment on the property, not the City’s information?  
Martin: yes.  
Moermond: do you happen to know if it is possible to figure out when the address  
was corrected in the City’s system?  
Martin: I don’t, OTC would have to look into it.  
[Tanya Panzer and Lynn Rolf, Real Estate Office, were tried to be called into the  
hearing but unavailable]  
Moermond: I am concerned about the typographical error with the County and when  
the address was updated with the City. I really want to square up this difference.  
Code says it has to go to the owner of record with the County. Finally, Mr. Yang, I’m  
under the impression you have paid at least some of these assessments?  
Yang: yes because when we received the notice we spoke with the tenant to resolve  
this, but we didn’t want them to go onto our taxes, so we went to pay first while we  
figure out the details.  
Moermond: that happens to be what you shouldn’t have done. You should have  
appealed it so it was clear you wanted to sort this out. Paying it makes it looks like  
you agree with it, which you obviously did not. In the same way you are arguing you  
deserved proper notice, at the very least morally and probably legally, you have  
some requirement to resolve this before charging your tenant for it. A double error, so  
to speak. Mr. Vargas, have you paid Mr. Yang any money to cover these  
assessments?  
Vargas: no, we have not paid but we’ve been reviewing if we can include it in the rent  
little by little.  
Moermond: is that the same impression you have Mr. Yang? You’re talking with the  
tenants about a payment plan?  
Natalie Yang: when I received the letter I contacted the tenant right away. I pulled up  
the record on the City’s site and gave the tenant a copy of the entire amount.  
Moermond: I want to know if money has exchanged hands from the tenant to you for  
these assessments.  
Natalie Yang: no.  
Moermond: that was important for me to make clear because the discussion is  
exclusively between you as the owners and the City. What I would like to do is follow  
up with the City’s folks to double check the address situation. I believe the  
typographical error was with the County and want to get a sense of when the City got  
the right address. It still isn’t about the assessment, but if the County doesn’t have the  
right address, so it is hard to say. The City didn’t know you had moved because none  
of the mail was returned. Usually, the Post Office will return it to the sender, but the  
City people would know it went to the wrong place.  
I would say I’m at least 50/50 thinking we’ll be correcting the amount owed downward  
for you. It would be premature to make that commitment until I have all the facts. I am  
going to continue these four assessments so we can look into this, and we’ll have to  
go back in time and deal with the assessments you already paid. Which, again, I wish  
you hadn’t.  
Yang: I would like to note that the tenant has similar issues with the vehicles at the  
property before. This was before we moved. We brought it up to the tenant twice  
before and made it clear to them they cannot park the cars there per City code.  
We also made it very clear to the tenant that according to the letter from the City, if  
they have repeat violations there will be legal actions taken by the City.  
Moermond: there’s a contradiction, did you or didn’t you get notification? You just said  
you provided notice to the tenant? When was that?  
Yang: that was before we moved. When we still received letters from the City.  
Moermond: which would be when?  
Yang: a couple of years ago at least. When we received the most recent letter, and  
the tenant knows this is a repeat issue.  
Moermond: each individual instance requires its own legal notification. I understand  
you provided notice this wasn’t allowed, but all of those things are private matters. It  
is a premature discussion, and also not the right venue to have it. We will look into  
this and get back to you. I know once our inspector had a conversation with the  
tenant things got cleared up with no issues since then.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
RLH TA 23-408  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at  
1643-1645 DIETER STREET. (File No. J2402E2, Assessment No.  
248311) (February 27, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
8
Sponsors:  
Yang  
Delete the assessment.  
Ricardo Patron, interpreter, appeared  
Jose Vargas, tenant, appeared via phone  
Hong & Natalie Yang, landlord, appeared via phone  
Voicemail left for Yang at 10:30 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City  
Council calling you about appealed special assessment for your property on Dieter  
Street. We’ll try you back in a few minutes.  
[recess from 10:31 am to 10:33 am]  
[Hong Yang was called in]  
Moermond: you are representing JY Investments?  
Yang: I thought this hearing was next Tuesday. I answered since this number called  
twice.  
Moermond: it sounds like you were emailing Mai Vang about this. It has to do with  
notices going to JY Investments about vehicle and parking issues at the Dieter  
address resulting in Excessive Consumption bills and whether you as ownership  
communicated with the tenants they needed to take care of it. I’m only following up  
with this because there is substantial money and a language barrier. If you didn’t give  
them a chance to take care of the problem. I think they feel like they didn’t get notice,  
then they finally spoke to the Inspector last summer. We’re going to get them on the  
line again.  
Yang: I mentioned to Mai when I spoke a month ago that we haven’t received any of  
those notifications. They didn’t get anything from us because we didn’t receive  
anything from the City. I know Mai was going to look into what address was on file.  
We are on top of things as landlord.  
[Jose Vargas called back into hearing]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Correction Notice was sent March 14, 2023  
regarding vehicles parked that appear inoperable. They were also missing plates.  
Orders were to provide plates, make operable, or remove entirely. The total  
assessment was $169. That was the first one. We also have 3 more Excessive  
Consumption fees for $303. We had 21 Excessive Consumption fees issued in total.  
7 are levied, 6 pending, including these.  
Moermond: how much money are we talking in total?  
Martin: $1,078 for the four assessments before us today.  
Moermond: where did notifications go? Both the Vehicle Abatement Order and the  
Excessive Consumption bills.  
Martin: JY Investments, LLC at 16505 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  
Yang: we don’t live at that address. We moved in 2022. Even prior to that, 16505 was  
not the correct address regardless. We did live on Limerick about a year, 16506 was  
the correct address. I have my wife here, Natalie, on the line too. 16506 was our  
address.  
Moermond: Ramsey County tax records, which is where the City gets its information  
for the address of the owner. It looks like we don’t have a recent sale, just a  
distressed sale in 2010, so no closing documents. But I can see in 2021 the property  
tax statement went to an address in Cottage Grove. In 2022 it went to that address  
on Limerick, and continued to the present.  
The Fire Certificate of Occupancy would be another place where the City looks for an  
address, and that doesn’t seem to be JY Investments, that is Elite Homes, LLC in  
Edina. Is that right?  
Yang: Joe Yannarelly Investments, LLC is the entity that owns it. Elite Homes is the  
management company for managing all our properties, including this one.  
Moermond: and the notices didn’t go there. Tell me about your address situation.  
Yang: we lived in Cottage Grove, the Homestead Avenue address, up until October  
or November of 2021. Then we moved to 16506 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka for a  
year. October or November of 2022 we moved from Minnetonka to Excelsior, 165  
Mounds Avenue. All the mail you mentioned sent to 16505 we didn’t get. We did have  
forwarding set up for 16506 so had those letters been sent there, we would have  
received them. We didn’t get anything about these citations until we got one at 165  
Mound. Then we reached out to the tenant about the insane number of citations.  
Moermond: it is your responsibility to make sure your address is correct with Ramsey  
County. I’m interested in at what point the City’s information was updated and how  
that timing works with the notices and bills going out. In addition to today’s  
assessments, we have a lot of others that have gone through. I’d want to make sure  
they were correct as of the timing the addresses were updated in the system. I don’t  
know how it came that the City’s is different than the County’s, nor when. It is  
possible that happened through the Fire Certificate of Occupancy but I don’t know.  
The notices that go out automatically reference the County’s information since it may  
result in a tax assessment on the property, not the City’s information?  
Martin: yes.  
Moermond: do you happen to know if it is possible to figure out when the address  
was corrected in the City’s system?  
Martin: I don’t, OTC would have to look into it.  
[Tanya Panzer and Lynn Rolf, Real Estate Office, were tried to be called into the  
hearing but unavailable]  
Moermond: I am concerned about the typographical error with the County and when  
the address was updated with the City. I really want to square up this difference.  
Code says it has to go to the owner of record with the County. Finally, Mr. Yang, I’m  
under the impression you have paid at least some of these assessments?  
Yang: yes because when we received the notice we spoke with the tenant to resolve  
this, but we didn’t want them to go onto our taxes, so we went to pay first while we  
figure out the details.  
Moermond: that happens to be what you shouldn’t have done. You should have  
appealed it so it was clear you wanted to sort this out. Paying it makes it looks like  
you agree with it, which you obviously did not. In the same way you are arguing you  
deserved proper notice, at the very least morally and probably legally, you have  
some requirement to resolve this before charging your tenant for it. A double error, so  
to speak. Mr. Vargas, have you paid Mr. Yang any money to cover these  
assessments?  
Vargas: no, we have not paid but we’ve been reviewing if we can include it in the rent  
little by little.  
Moermond: is that the same impression you have Mr. Yang? You’re talking with the  
tenants about a payment plan?  
Natalie Yang: when I received the letter I contacted the tenant right away. I pulled up  
the record on the City’s site and gave the tenant a copy of the entire amount.  
Moermond: I want to know if money has exchanged hands from the tenant to you for  
these assessments.  
Natalie Yang: no.  
Moermond: that was important for me to make clear because the discussion is  
exclusively between you as the owners and the City. What I would like to do is follow  
up with the City’s folks to double check the address situation. I believe the  
typographical error was with the County and want to get a sense of when the City got  
the right address. It still isn’t about the assessment, but if the County doesn’t have the  
right address, so it is hard to say. The City didn’t know you had moved because none  
of the mail was returned. Usually, the Post Office will return it to the sender, but the  
City people would know it went to the wrong place.  
I would say I’m at least 50/50 thinking we’ll be correcting the amount owed downward  
for you. It would be premature to make that commitment until I have all the facts. I am  
going to continue these four assessments so we can look into this, and we’ll have to  
go back in time and deal with the assessments you already paid. Which, again, I wish  
you hadn’t.  
Yang: I would like to note that the tenant has similar issues with the vehicles at the  
property before. This was before we moved. We brought it up to the tenant twice  
before and made it clear to them they cannot park the cars there per City code.  
We also made it very clear to the tenant that according to the letter from the City, if  
they have repeat violations there will be legal actions taken by the City.  
Moermond: there’s a contradiction, did you or didn’t you get notification? You just said  
you provided notice to the tenant? When was that?  
Yang: that was before we moved. When we still received letters from the City.  
Moermond: which would be when?  
Yang: a couple of years ago at least. When we received the most recent letter, and  
the tenant knows this is a repeat issue.  
Moermond: each individual instance requires its own legal notification. I understand  
you provided notice this wasn’t allowed, but all of those things are private matters. It  
is a premature discussion, and also not the right venue to have it. We will look into  
this and get back to you. I know once our inspector had a conversation with the  
tenant things got cleared up with no issues since then.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
RLH TA 23-409  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at  
1643-1645 DIETER STREET. (File No. J2403E2, Assessment No.  
248314) (February 27, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
9
Sponsors:  
Yang  
Delete the assessment.  
Ricardo Patron, interpreter, appeared  
Jose Vargas, tenant, appeared via phone  
Hong & Natalie Yang, landlord, appeared via phone  
Voicemail left for Yang at 10:30 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City  
Council calling you about appealed special assessment for your property on Dieter  
Street. We’ll try you back in a few minutes.  
[recess from 10:31 am to 10:33 am]  
[Hong Yang was called in]  
Moermond: you are representing JY Investments?  
Yang: I thought this hearing was next Tuesday. I answered since this number called  
twice.  
Moermond: it sounds like you were emailing Mai Vang about this. It has to do with  
notices going to JY Investments about vehicle and parking issues at the Dieter  
address resulting in Excessive Consumption bills and whether you as ownership  
communicated with the tenants they needed to take care of it. I’m only following up  
with this because there is substantial money and a language barrier. If you didn’t give  
them a chance to take care of the problem. I think they feel like they didn’t get notice,  
then they finally spoke to the Inspector last summer. We’re going to get them on the  
line again.  
Yang: I mentioned to Mai when I spoke a month ago that we haven’t received any of  
those notifications. They didn’t get anything from us because we didn’t receive  
anything from the City. I know Mai was going to look into what address was on file.  
We are on top of things as landlord.  
[Jose Vargas called back into hearing]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Correction Notice was sent March 14, 2023  
regarding vehicles parked that appear inoperable. They were also missing plates.  
Orders were to provide plates, make operable, or remove entirely. The total  
assessment was $169. That was the first one. We also have 3 more Excessive  
Consumption fees for $303. We had 21 Excessive Consumption fees issued in total.  
7 are levied, 6 pending, including these.  
Moermond: how much money are we talking in total?  
Martin: $1,078 for the four assessments before us today.  
Moermond: where did notifications go? Both the Vehicle Abatement Order and the  
Excessive Consumption bills.  
Martin: JY Investments, LLC at 16505 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  
Yang: we don’t live at that address. We moved in 2022. Even prior to that, 16505 was  
not the correct address regardless. We did live on Limerick about a year, 16506 was  
the correct address. I have my wife here, Natalie, on the line too. 16506 was our  
address.  
Moermond: Ramsey County tax records, which is where the City gets its information  
for the address of the owner. It looks like we don’t have a recent sale, just a  
distressed sale in 2010, so no closing documents. But I can see in 2021 the property  
tax statement went to an address in Cottage Grove. In 2022 it went to that address  
on Limerick, and continued to the present.  
The Fire Certificate of Occupancy would be another place where the City looks for an  
address, and that doesn’t seem to be JY Investments, that is Elite Homes, LLC in  
Edina. Is that right?  
Yang: Joe Yannarelly Investments, LLC is the entity that owns it. Elite Homes is the  
management company for managing all our properties, including this one.  
Moermond: and the notices didn’t go there. Tell me about your address situation.  
Yang: we lived in Cottage Grove, the Homestead Avenue address, up until October  
or November of 2021. Then we moved to 16506 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka for a  
year. October or November of 2022 we moved from Minnetonka to Excelsior, 165  
Mounds Avenue. All the mail you mentioned sent to 16505 we didn’t get. We did have  
forwarding set up for 16506 so had those letters been sent there, we would have  
received them. We didn’t get anything about these citations until we got one at 165  
Mound. Then we reached out to the tenant about the insane number of citations.  
Moermond: it is your responsibility to make sure your address is correct with Ramsey  
County. I’m interested in at what point the City’s information was updated and how  
that timing works with the notices and bills going out. In addition to today’s  
assessments, we have a lot of others that have gone through. I’d want to make sure  
they were correct as of the timing the addresses were updated in the system. I don’t  
know how it came that the City’s is different than the County’s, nor when. It is  
possible that happened through the Fire Certificate of Occupancy but I don’t know.  
The notices that go out automatically reference the County’s information since it may  
result in a tax assessment on the property, not the City’s information?  
Martin: yes.  
Moermond: do you happen to know if it is possible to figure out when the address  
was corrected in the City’s system?  
Martin: I don’t, OTC would have to look into it.  
[Tanya Panzer and Lynn Rolf, Real Estate Office, were tried to be called into the  
hearing but unavailable]  
Moermond: I am concerned about the typographical error with the County and when  
the address was updated with the City. I really want to square up this difference.  
Code says it has to go to the owner of record with the County. Finally, Mr. Yang, I’m  
under the impression you have paid at least some of these assessments?  
Yang: yes because when we received the notice we spoke with the tenant to resolve  
this, but we didn’t want them to go onto our taxes, so we went to pay first while we  
figure out the details.  
Moermond: that happens to be what you shouldn’t have done. You should have  
appealed it so it was clear you wanted to sort this out. Paying it makes it looks like  
you agree with it, which you obviously did not. In the same way you are arguing you  
deserved proper notice, at the very least morally and probably legally, you have  
some requirement to resolve this before charging your tenant for it. A double error, so  
to speak. Mr. Vargas, have you paid Mr. Yang any money to cover these  
assessments?  
Vargas: no, we have not paid but we’ve been reviewing if we can include it in the rent  
little by little.  
Moermond: is that the same impression you have Mr. Yang? You’re talking with the  
tenants about a payment plan?  
Natalie Yang: when I received the letter I contacted the tenant right away. I pulled up  
the record on the City’s site and gave the tenant a copy of the entire amount.  
Moermond: I want to know if money has exchanged hands from the tenant to you for  
these assessments.  
Natalie Yang: no.  
Moermond: that was important for me to make clear because the discussion is  
exclusively between you as the owners and the City. What I would like to do is follow  
up with the City’s folks to double check the address situation. I believe the  
typographical error was with the County and want to get a sense of when the City got  
the right address. It still isn’t about the assessment, but if the County doesn’t have the  
right address, so it is hard to say. The City didn’t know you had moved because none  
of the mail was returned. Usually, the Post Office will return it to the sender, but the  
City people would know it went to the wrong place.  
I would say I’m at least 50/50 thinking we’ll be correcting the amount owed downward  
for you. It would be premature to make that commitment until I have all the facts. I am  
going to continue these four assessments so we can look into this, and we’ll have to  
go back in time and deal with the assessments you already paid. Which, again, I wish  
you hadn’t.  
Yang: I would like to note that the tenant has similar issues with the vehicles at the  
property before. This was before we moved. We brought it up to the tenant twice  
before and made it clear to them they cannot park the cars there per City code.  
We also made it very clear to the tenant that according to the letter from the City, if  
they have repeat violations there will be legal actions taken by the City.  
Moermond: there’s a contradiction, did you or didn’t you get notification? You just said  
you provided notice to the tenant? When was that?  
Yang: that was before we moved. When we still received letters from the City.  
Moermond: which would be when?  
Yang: a couple of years ago at least. When we received the most recent letter, and  
the tenant knows this is a repeat issue.  
Moermond: each individual instance requires its own legal notification. I understand  
you provided notice this wasn’t allowed, but all of those things are private matters. It  
is a premature discussion, and also not the right venue to have it. We will look into  
this and get back to you. I know once our inspector had a conversation with the  
tenant things got cleared up with no issues since then.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
RLH TA 23-413  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at  
1643-1645 DIETER STREET. (File No. J2404E, Assessment No.  
248303) (February 27, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
10  
Sponsors:  
Yang  
Delete the assessment.  
Ricardo Patron, interpreter, appeared  
Jose Vargas, tenant, appeared via phone  
Hong & Natalie Yang, landlord, appeared via phone  
Voicemail left for Yang at 10:30 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City  
Council calling you about appealed special assessment for your property on Dieter  
Street. We’ll try you back in a few minutes.  
[recess from 10:31 am to 10:33 am]  
[Hong Yang was called in]  
Moermond: you are representing JY Investments?  
Yang: I thought this hearing was next Tuesday. I answered since this number called  
twice.  
Moermond: it sounds like you were emailing Mai Vang about this. It has to do with  
notices going to JY Investments about vehicle and parking issues at the Dieter  
address resulting in Excessive Consumption bills and whether you as ownership  
communicated with the tenants they needed to take care of it. I’m only following up  
with this because there is substantial money and a language barrier. If you didn’t give  
them a chance to take care of the problem. I think they feel like they didn’t get notice,  
then they finally spoke to the Inspector last summer. We’re going to get them on the  
line again.  
Yang: I mentioned to Mai when I spoke a month ago that we haven’t received any of  
those notifications. They didn’t get anything from us because we didn’t receive  
anything from the City. I know Mai was going to look into what address was on file.  
We are on top of things as landlord.  
[Jose Vargas called back into hearing]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Correction Notice was sent March 14, 2023  
regarding vehicles parked that appear inoperable. They were also missing plates.  
Orders were to provide plates, make operable, or remove entirely. The total  
assessment was $169. That was the first one. We also have 3 more Excessive  
Consumption fees for $303. We had 21 Excessive Consumption fees issued in total.  
7 are levied, 6 pending, including these.  
Moermond: how much money are we talking in total?  
Martin: $1,078 for the four assessments before us today.  
Moermond: where did notifications go? Both the Vehicle Abatement Order and the  
Excessive Consumption bills.  
Martin: JY Investments, LLC at 16505 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka, Minnesota.  
Yang: we don’t live at that address. We moved in 2022. Even prior to that, 16505 was  
not the correct address regardless. We did live on Limerick about a year, 16506 was  
the correct address. I have my wife here, Natalie, on the line too. 16506 was our  
address.  
Moermond: Ramsey County tax records, which is where the City gets its information  
for the address of the owner. It looks like we don’t have a recent sale, just a  
distressed sale in 2010, so no closing documents. But I can see in 2021 the property  
tax statement went to an address in Cottage Grove. In 2022 it went to that address  
on Limerick, and continued to the present.  
The Fire Certificate of Occupancy would be another place where the City looks for an  
address, and that doesn’t seem to be JY Investments, that is Elite Homes, LLC in  
Edina. Is that right?  
Yang: Joe Yannarelly Investments, LLC is the entity that owns it. Elite Homes is the  
management company for managing all our properties, including this one.  
Moermond: and the notices didn’t go there. Tell me about your address situation.  
Yang: we lived in Cottage Grove, the Homestead Avenue address, up until October  
or November of 2021. Then we moved to 16506 Limerick Lane in Minnetonka for a  
year. October or November of 2022 we moved from Minnetonka to Excelsior, 165  
Mounds Avenue. All the mail you mentioned sent to 16505 we didn’t get. We did have  
forwarding set up for 16506 so had those letters been sent there, we would have  
received them. We didn’t get anything about these citations until we got one at 165  
Mound. Then we reached out to the tenant about the insane number of citations.  
Moermond: it is your responsibility to make sure your address is correct with Ramsey  
County. I’m interested in at what point the City’s information was updated and how  
that timing works with the notices and bills going out. In addition to today’s  
assessments, we have a lot of others that have gone through. I’d want to make sure  
they were correct as of the timing the addresses were updated in the system. I don’t  
know how it came that the City’s is different than the County’s, nor when. It is  
possible that happened through the Fire Certificate of Occupancy but I don’t know.  
The notices that go out automatically reference the County’s information since it may  
result in a tax assessment on the property, not the City’s information?  
Martin: yes.  
Moermond: do you happen to know if it is possible to figure out when the address  
was corrected in the City’s system?  
Martin: I don’t, OTC would have to look into it.  
[Tanya Panzer and Lynn Rolf, Real Estate Office, were tried to be called into the  
hearing but unavailable]  
Moermond: I am concerned about the typographical error with the County and when  
the address was updated with the City. I really want to square up this difference.  
Code says it has to go to the owner of record with the County. Finally, Mr. Yang, I’m  
under the impression you have paid at least some of these assessments?  
Yang: yes because when we received the notice we spoke with the tenant to resolve  
this, but we didn’t want them to go onto our taxes, so we went to pay first while we  
figure out the details.  
Moermond: that happens to be what you shouldn’t have done. You should have  
appealed it so it was clear you wanted to sort this out. Paying it makes it looks like  
you agree with it, which you obviously did not. In the same way you are arguing you  
deserved proper notice, at the very least morally and probably legally, you have  
some requirement to resolve this before charging your tenant for it. A double error, so  
to speak. Mr. Vargas, have you paid Mr. Yang any money to cover these  
assessments?  
Vargas: no, we have not paid but we’ve been reviewing if we can include it in the rent  
little by little.  
Moermond: is that the same impression you have Mr. Yang? You’re talking with the  
tenants about a payment plan?  
Natalie Yang: when I received the letter I contacted the tenant right away. I pulled up  
the record on the City’s site and gave the tenant a copy of the entire amount.  
Moermond: I want to know if money has exchanged hands from the tenant to you for  
these assessments.  
Natalie Yang: no.  
Moermond: that was important for me to make clear because the discussion is  
exclusively between you as the owners and the City. What I would like to do is follow  
up with the City’s folks to double check the address situation. I believe the  
typographical error was with the County and want to get a sense of when the City got  
the right address. It still isn’t about the assessment, but if the County doesn’t have the  
right address, so it is hard to say. The City didn’t know you had moved because none  
of the mail was returned. Usually, the Post Office will return it to the sender, but the  
City people would know it went to the wrong place.  
I would say I’m at least 50/50 thinking we’ll be correcting the amount owed downward  
for you. It would be premature to make that commitment until I have all the facts. I am  
going to continue these four assessments so we can look into this, and we’ll have to  
go back in time and deal with the assessments you already paid. Which, again, I wish  
you hadn’t.  
Yang: I would like to note that the tenant has similar issues with the vehicles at the  
property before. This was before we moved. We brought it up to the tenant twice  
before and made it clear to them they cannot park the cars there per City code.  
We also made it very clear to the tenant that according to the letter from the City, if  
they have repeat violations there will be legal actions taken by the City.  
Moermond: there’s a contradiction, did you or didn’t you get notification? You just said  
you provided notice to the tenant? When was that?  
Yang: that was before we moved. When we still received letters from the City.  
Moermond: which would be when?  
Yang: a couple of years ago at least. When we received the most recent letter, and  
the tenant knows this is a repeat issue.  
Moermond: each individual instance requires its own legal notification. I understand  
you provided notice this wasn’t allowed, but all of those things are private matters. It  
is a premature discussion, and also not the right venue to have it. We will look into  
this and get back to you. I know once our inspector had a conversation with the  
tenant things got cleared up with no issues since then.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
Special Tax Assessments-Rolls  
Ratifying the assessments for Equipment and Labor for Clean Up  
services during September to October 2023. (File No. J2412A,  
Assessment No. 248511)  
11  
12  
RLH AR 24-15  
Sponsors:  
Jalali  
Referred to the City Council due back on 4/3/2024  
Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean Up services during  
RLH AR 24-16  
October 20 to 25, 2023. (File No. J2413A, Assessment No. 248512)  
Sponsors:  
Jalali  
Referred to the City Council due back on 4/3/2024  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders  
RLH SAO 23-53 Appeal of Thomas Nelson and Ranettia Alexander-Nelson to a Vehicle  
Abatement Order at 493 VAN BUREN AVENUE.  
13  
Sponsors:  
Balenger  
Grant to March 4, 2024 for compliance with the VAO and grant to May 1, 2024 for  
compliance with the Class 5 surfacing.  
Thomas Nelson & Ranietta Alexander-Nelson, owners, appeared via phone  
Moermond: we have received a copy of a site plan here from mid-February. Ms.  
Martin will update the record and then we’ll talk with you.  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: a site plan was approved for parking by the  
alley only. No parking in the front. Approved gravel parking lot. This area has not  
been established yet, so we do still have cars parking on an unapproved area, with  
expired tabs, and flat tires.  
Thomas: I have classic car plates on the vehicles.  
Martin: I had an inspector out there this morning.  
Thomas: all the plates are up to date. I can go take a photo right now.  
Alexander-Nelson: four months ago you came and towed four of them.  
Moermond: this morning an inspector said there weren’t collector plates on it?  
Martin: there aren’t on the Jag. 247-TMZ expired July of 2021 with a flat tired.  
Alexander-Nelson: that is an old photo.  
Martin: it was taken this morning.  
Alexander-Nelson: there is no way whatsoever.  
Nelson: we have collector plates for the van. The Mercedes has up to date plates.  
The Ford has up to date plates. The Jag has paper plates, but we have collector  
plates.  
Martin: they are not on the vehicle.  
Nelson: we have temporary plates on there. We do have collector tags on there. The  
Mercedes and Ford are licensed with up to date tags. He’s only talking about the  
conversion van and the Jag. I have the plates for those.  
Martin: the jag has a flat tire and no current places. We could tow it. We sent photos  
after the last hearing showing this. If you have collector plates those vehicles cannot  
be stored in the open or shielded.  
Alexander-Nelson: a collector car has to be in the garage?  
Moermond: all collector cars?  
Martin: if there is a violation. Put the plates on the Jag and make sure its operable  
and title on it.  
Moermond: and then it doesn’t need to be screened from view. If it does have a flat  
tire, etcetera, then it does need to be screened from view.  
Martin: I’m not sure when they will have the parking surface done. Right now, they  
shouldn’t be parking there.  
Nelson: the zoner said we just needed to add four feet.  
Moermond: you’re saying the gravel that is there isn’t in adequate shape?  
Martin: it has not been maintained, which is why it was called out originally. It should  
have class five refresh, shouldn’t be able to see any grass. I need to know when that  
will be done.  
Nelson: it is going to cost us $800, so how long do we have to do it?  
Moermond: that’s exactly what we should be talking about this morning. I would be  
satisfied going to May 1, 2024 on the class 5 surfacing.  
Nelson: we can have that done by then.  
Moermond: I’m getting conflicting information on the situation with tabs and plates. I  
am hearing guarded language on what is going on with the plates.  
Nelson: what plates are expired?  
Moermond: the Jag plates.  
Nelson: we have classic tags on---ok, we’ll take care of it.  
Moermond: I’m hearing you pretty much addressed most of these orders. We’ll allow  
them to continue to be parked in the area that was approved for parking, towards the  
back of the house. Notably in an aerial photo from 2022 you have a vehicle parked in  
the front yard side of driveway, and that cannot happen.  
Alexander-Nelson: we understand that.  
Moermond: the Council Public Hearing will be next Wednesday, February 28. I will  
ask them to give until March 4 for compliance. If there isn’t compliance, March 6 the  
Council will authorize the vehicles to be towed.  
Nelson: understood. It will be done.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
Appeal of Augustine Sylvester to a Summary Abatement Order at  
1341 CASE AVENUE.  
14  
RLH SAO 24-9  
Sponsors:  
Yang  
Grant to June 3, 2024 for fence repair and grant to March 18, 2024 for compliance  
with the balance of the orders.  
Augustine Sylvester, owner, appeared via phone  
Cedric Thompson appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: February 8, 2024 a Summary Abatement  
Order was issued to Augustine Sylvester and Cedric Thompson to dispose of chairs,  
totes and miscellaneous debris from inside the bed of the pickup truck and from  
driveway and yard. Compliance date of February 15, photos on file.  
Moermond: your appeal says you need more time. Tell me more.  
Thompson: you’re calling on the fence or the trailer full of stuff?  
Sylvester: my neighbor’s fence fell down. we haven’t had a chance to do it properly  
due to weather.  
Martin: when we see a fence just sitting there with no permit, we assume it is  
miscellaneous wood.  
Moermond: tell me what you’re looking for today.  
Thompson: we’re just looking for a couple months, until the weather is better, to get  
the fence back up and move all the debris.  
Moermond: I can see my way clear to pushing the fence further out, but not that far  
for the items in the truck. I’ll put this in front of Council February 28 and ask them to  
give you through March 4 to get the work done, and we’ll check it on the 5th. Is that  
too fast?  
Thompson: that isn’t enough time for the fence.  
Moermond: this is just the stuff in the back of the property. Everything except the  
fence.  
Sylvester: can you give us until April?  
Moermond: no, I’ll go to March 18. That’s the furthest I’ll go. Things must be done by  
that date so an inspector can go by Monday morning and see its done. We can have  
a conversation on the 19th if necessary and then Council Public Hearing 20th.  
The fence I am going to recommend the Council give through June 3, 2024. We will  
check on it and the Council Public Hearing for that June 5.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 3/6/2024  
RLH SAO 24-15 Appeal of Jennifer Oliver & Reginald Petrie to a Summary and Vehicle  
Abatement Order at 1525 MARGARET STREET.  
15  
Sponsors:  
Johnson  
Grant to March 4, 2024 for compliance with SAO and grant to March 11, 2024 with  
removal of the vehicles or demonstrate that it is operable and has current tabs and  
plates.  
Jennifer Oliver, owner, appeared via phone  
Voicemail for Petrie left at 12:12 p.m.: we’re about to conduct a hearing on 1525  
Margaret. This is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you. We do  
have Jennifer Oliver on the line.  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: a Summary Abatement Order was issued  
February 8, 2024 to remove and dispose of metal debris in a trailer, appliances from  
property. 2/16 compliance date. Photo in the Summary Abatement Order.  
Moermond: and we have a Vehicle Abatement Order as well on the Toyota.  
Oliver: I just need more time to get the debris removed. We’re remodeling our house  
and that’s some of the debris from the renovation. He just wanted to do it once  
instead of making multiple trips for disposal. They won’t be done with the work until  
spring when they can paint. That’s what the debris is about.  
Moermond: and the vehicle?  
Oliver: I purchased that vehicle for my daughter. She moved to China to be a  
teacher. It is on rocks though. I can’t start it but tabs and registration are up to date  
now. I just need to get it running before I can move it. My son is graduating next year,  
so I was going to save it for him. I tried to start it yesterday and it appears someone  
tried to steal it, and stuck a screwdriver in the ignition, so I can’t start it. I don’t know  
what is involved with fixing that.  
Moermond: when did you buy this vehicle?  
Oliver: 2015 or 2016.  
Moermond: looking at some old aerial photos of the property, it looks like it hasn’t  
moved in a long time. Is that accurate?  
Oliver: yes.  
Moermond: while I understand it may be easier to make one trip the trailer looks  
pretty full and it seems a fair expectation your yard be kept in better order and those  
things can go sooner than later. For the trailer and other miscellanous items, it seems  
reasonable to put a deadline of March 4 on this. Department of Safety & Inspections  
can recheck it March 5 and then Council can deploy the crew March 6 if isn’t done.  
As far as the car, you haven’t done anything with it since 2017. That’s a really long  
time. What is going on?  
Oliver: right. It was my daughters; I don’t want to get rid of it because she’s not here. I  
drive my own vehicle. I can’t fit it in my garage because there’s a collector car in  
there. They did tell us before as long as it was on gravel it should be ok.  
Moermond: who is ‘they’?  
Oliver: whoever comes out to inspect. Had to be on grade-level gravel, which it is.  
Moermond: that’s one of the things. They’re calling you out on lack of current tabs  
and appearing undrivable.  
Oliver: tabs and plates are resolved, I did it Friday.  
Moermond: and making it operable?  
Oliver: I just found that out last night. I had to find the keys. I can’t start it. I’m not sure  
what they will have to do to fix it.  
Martin: Mr. Williams was out there in 2016, we had similar issues back then with it.  
Oliver: that’s when they told us it had to be on gravel or whatever.  
Moermond: boy it looks like your gravel needs to be mowed. And your car is sinking  
into the ground.  
Oliver: probably because the tires are flat.  
Moermond: you’ll need to do a few things if you want to keep the car there. You’ve  
tackled plates and tabs. Next thing is getting it operable. I’m not clear if this was  
originally approved as gravel. It does appear the entry into the garage is an approved  
surface, but it also appears to be grass originally.  
Martin: you’d have to go to zoning with site plan for approval. I’m thinking there’s a lot  
going on with that car, but I’m not a mechanic. I think we could reasonably go out to  
March 11 to have that vehicle removed, which could be to a repair shop, or fixed and  
drivable. You aren’t being written right now on it being an unapproved surface.  
Martin: it does. Vehicle Abatement Order says “E” unapproved surface.  
Moermond: my apologies. Do you want to do a revised Vehicle Abatement Order  
since it says D.  
Martin: we can, but she did admit it doesn’t run. If she’s applied for a site plan by the  
11th, and it is operable with current tabs, we’d be happy with that.  
Moermond: I’m happy to do an extension here, that’s 3 weeks. We’ll check on March  
12 whether or not it has been addressed. If it hasn’t, on March 20th I’ll report to the  
Council and they could authorize the Department to remove the vehicle.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
Appeal of Joseph W. Guion Jr. to a Vehicle Abatement Order at 1655  
WILSON AVENUE.  
16  
RLH SAO 24-10  
Sponsors:  
Johnson  
Grant to March 28, 2024 for compliance.  
Joseph Guion Jr, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: a Vehicle Abatement Order was issued  
February 8 for a beige Mazda, inoperable, open and unsecured, and appears  
undrivable. Compliance date of February 15. Photos in the file.  
Guion: I need time to contact the actual owner of the vehicle. That’s our old family  
home, where I grew up. My brother had it and allowed a lady to live there. She just  
kind of assumed it was her house. It took her 7 months to be evicted. That is her  
vehicle sitting there. I have limited options to contact her.  
Moermond: when did she leave?  
Guion: the end of September.  
Moermond: so you have no obligation with property left on site, just that you’d like to  
give her a chance to remove it.  
Guion: yes. She has a bad temper.  
Moermond: the City is going to hold the property owner accountable for the owner,  
whether it is yours or whoever’s. It doesn’t sound like your prospects are high for  
having her remove it. The tabs are from 2019. Bumper is coming off. It has been  
broken into. It doesn’t speak well of the house, neighborhood, anything.  
Guion: I was hopeful I could get it out myself, but I don’t know what I’d do with it.  
Moermond: they can be scrapped. Ms. Martin can you describe what he can do as a  
property owner with a vehicle like this?  
Martin: you can call the St. Paul Police Department and ask for a manager’s tow.  
They would have you sign a citation that it is on your property without permission.  
They tow it to the lot. They then contact the property owner and sell if they don’t  
respond and pay the fees.  
Moermond: can it be towed by a private tow truck?  
Martin: yes. You can contact any towing company and let them know there’s a tag  
from the St. Paul Police Department.  
Moermond: and they’d take it for scrap. I need to put a deadline on this. Your first call  
is to St. Paul Police Department parking enforcement by calling the non-emergency  
number. We’ll give you a deadline of March 18, 2024. Recheck 19. Council Public  
Hearing March 20.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 3/6/2024  
Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements  
RLH SAO 24-11 Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 29  
ACKER STREET WEST in Council File RLH SAO 24-3. (February  
27, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
17  
Sponsors:  
Bowie  
LH February 27, 2024 for update from inspector. Recommendation forthcoming (CPH  
2/28)  
Jacob Lucas, owner, appeared via phone  
Lucas: wasn’t the Council Public Hearing on the 28th?  
Moermond: they meet to talk about whatever it is we come up with today. The  
deadline to have the work done was February 15.  
Staff update by Supervisor Lisa Martin: the inspector went out and took photos of all  
3 of the properties. There has been work done, some vehicles moved from yard, but  
they still aren’t in compliance. Expired tabs. Commercial vehicle. Vehicles under  
tarps. There is still a trailer in the yard. Garbage and debris. A fence and what  
appears to be carpet up in the corner at 28 Sycamore. 760 Sylvan still has garbage.  
29 Acker, the one vehicle looks inoperable, something under the tire. Expired tabs on  
the commercial vehicle.  
Lucas: I thought they said the vehicles could be on the driveway. They were saying I  
had to vacate the two vacant lots. The car on the tarp in the trailer I’m moving.  
Moermond: I see a very short driveway. Ms. Martin, when these are called out, tell  
me what you’re looking at.  
Martin: the vehicles can be in the driveway but they have to be operable, current  
tabs. There’s a black Ford pickup with October 2021 tabs with a broken rear tire, up  
on a block.  
Lucas: it is a manual truck; it is in park and locked up.  
Martin: does it run?  
Lucas: yes.  
Martin: you have a commercial vehicle, which you can’t have in a residential  
neighborhood. Gray mercury mountaineer expired tabs, flat tire. Tarped vehicle or  
trailer parked behind the house. I don’t even see a plate on the commercial vehicle.  
There’s a fridge and stuff outside the play structure.  
Lucas: I’m working on cleaning the yard. That’s why there’s a refrigerator and stuff. I  
was just getting it on the one that isn’t vacant, so they don’t have to come vacate the  
empty properties. I moved the trailers out of the yard. I moved the truck. I’ll have to  
find storage for the big truck. He just said it couldn’t be on the vacant lot.  
Moermond: you may be talking about different trucks; the commercial truck can’t be  
on the properties at all. The Ford truck has an issue with tabs, and that can be on the  
driveway.  
Lucas: alright. I’m still cleaning up 29 Acker. That was just move the trailer and cars. I  
did all that. I moved the green box truck onto the driveway, but I guess I have to get  
rid of that. But I pretty much got the 2 vacant lots cleaned up. I moved it to the Acker  
house so I could organize and keep getting rid of stuff.  
Moermond: there’s an odd-looking trailer on the Sycamore parcel. It is right next to a  
garage.  
Lucas: it looks like a car with a tarp over it?  
Moermond: no tarp, just gray wood.  
Lucas: I think I got rid of that. I have no more trailers in the yard or anything.  
Moermond: it is next to a 2-story house.  
Lucas: it isn’t mine.  
Moermond: is it the neighbors? I think they’re parking on your land.  
Lucas: he said you talked to him.  
Moermond: it is your land sir. His house appears to be a few feet from the property  
line.  
Lucas: I talked to him to see if he got a letter too. He said he got a letter and said he  
can keep it there because he pays taxes. I’m not trying to have an altercation with  
him.  
Moermond: this is 776 Sylvan. I’m thinking at most there are maybe 4 or 5 feet his  
house is setback from the property line.  
Martin: there are orders on the trailer sent to the neighbor.  
Moermond: so he does have an order and it isn’t removed. It is on your property, so  
maybe some grief for you. How would the City tow it Ms. Martin? If the trailer is on  
both sides of the property line?  
Martin: the photos from 776 show two trailers, it gets billed to the property owner  
where they were towed from, but we do have orders. The owner did receive an  
Excessive Consumption for not removing it already. The recheck date has passed,  
and the inspector was out this morning. He hasn’t put in his notes yet.  
Moermond: the commercial trailer can’t be there. We talked about the trailers, they  
can’t be there but one belongs to the neighbor, though it is on both parcels. The Ford  
has to get current tabs. The same with the Mountaineer, it needs tabs and appears  
inoperable. There is some cleanup that needs to be done still.  
Lucas: I have like three pallets of plastic out there.  
Moermond: that could be it; it is close to the fence panel.  
Martin: I did pull up 776 Sylvan and look at the property line. The trailer is right next to  
the house, there’s a tiny bit on the vacant lot but if we tow it, it would be charged to  
776.  
Moermond: this goes to Council Public Hearing next Wednesday. I’d like to give you  
a few more days to take care of these odds and ends, and we will get updated photos  
to next Tuesday. I can’t change what the Council already gave for a deadline.  
Lucas: it didn’t say the commercial vehicle though, it just said it had to be removed  
from the vacant lot.  
Moermond: it says box truck yellow, no plates.  
Lucas: so I just need plates?  
Moermond: it can’t be on a residential property at all. On top of that there are no  
plates, no tabs, and on an unapproved surfaces.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
RLH SAO 24-12 Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 28  
SYCAMORE STREET WEST in Council File RLH SAO 24-3.  
(February 27, 2024 Legislative Hearing)  
18  
Sponsors:  
Bowie  
The nuisance is abated as staff determined that trailer was not on this property.  
Jacob Lucas, owner, appeared via phone  
Lucas: wasn’t the Council Public Hearing on the 28th?  
Moermond: they meet to talk about whatever it is we come up with today. The  
deadline to have the work done was February 15.  
Staff update by Supervisor Lisa Martin: the inspector went out and took photos of all  
3 of the properties. There has been work done, some vehicles moved from yard, but  
they still aren’t in compliance. Expired tabs. Commercial vehicle. Vehicles under  
tarps. There is still a trailer in the yard. Garbage and debris. A fence and what  
appears to be carpet up in the corner at 28 Sycamore. 760 Sylvan still has garbage.  
29 Acker, the one vehicle looks inoperable, something under the tire. Expired tabs on  
the commercial vehicle.  
Lucas: I thought they said the vehicles could be on the driveway. They were saying I  
had to vacate the two vacant lots. The car on the tarp in the trailer I’m moving.  
Moermond: I see a very short driveway. Ms. Martin, when these are called out, tell  
me what you’re looking at.  
Martin: the vehicles can be in the driveway but they have to be operable, current  
tabs. There’s a black Ford pickup with October 2021 tabs with a broken rear tire, up  
on a block.  
Lucas: it is a manual truck; it is in park and locked up.  
Martin: does it run?  
Lucas: yes.  
Martin: you have a commercial vehicle, which you can’t have in a residential  
neighborhood. Gray mercury mountaineer expired tabs, flat tire. Tarped vehicle or  
trailer parked behind the house. I don’t even see a plate on the commercial vehicle.  
There’s a fridge and stuff outside the play structure.  
Lucas: I’m working on cleaning the yard. That’s why there’s a refrigerator and stuff. I  
was just getting it on the one that isn’t vacant, so they don’t have to come vacate the  
empty properties. I moved the trailers out of the yard. I moved the truck. I’ll have to  
find storage for the big truck. He just said it couldn’t be on the vacant lot.  
Moermond: you may be talking about different trucks; the commercial truck can’t be  
on the properties at all. The Ford truck has an issue with tabs, and that can be on the  
driveway.  
Lucas: alright. I’m still cleaning up 29 Acker. That was just move the trailer and cars. I  
did all that. I moved the green box truck onto the driveway, but I guess I have to get  
rid of that. But I pretty much got the 2 vacant lots cleaned up. I moved it to the Acker  
house so I could organize and keep getting rid of stuff.  
Moermond: there’s an odd-looking trailer on the Sycamore parcel. It is right next to a  
garage.  
Lucas: it looks like a car with a tarp over it?  
Moermond: no tarp, just gray wood.  
Lucas: I think I got rid of that. I have no more trailers in the yard or anything.  
Moermond: it is next to a 2-story house.  
Lucas: it isn’t mine.  
Moermond: is it the neighbors? I think they’re parking on your land.  
Lucas: he said you talked to him.  
Moermond: it is your land sir. His house appears to be a few feet from the property  
line.  
Lucas: I talked to him to see if he got a letter too. He said he got a letter and said he  
can keep it there because he pays taxes. I’m not trying to have an altercation with  
him.  
Moermond: this is 776 Sylvan. I’m thinking at most there are maybe 4 or 5 feet his  
house is setback from the property line.  
Martin: there are orders on the trailer sent to the neighbor.  
Moermond: so he does have an order and it isn’t removed. It is on your property, so  
maybe some grief for you. How would the City tow it Ms. Martin? If the trailer is on  
both sides of the property line?  
Martin: the photos from 776 show two trailers, it gets billed to the property owner  
where they were towed from, but we do have orders. The owner did receive an  
Excessive Consumption for not removing it already. The recheck date has passed,  
and the inspector was out this morning. He hasn’t put in his notes yet.  
Moermond: the commercial trailer can’t be there. We talked about the trailers, they  
can’t be there but one belongs to the neighbor, though it is on both parcels. The Ford  
has to get current tabs. The same with the Mountaineer, it needs tabs and appears  
inoperable. There is some cleanup that needs to be done still.  
Lucas: I have like three pallets of plastic out there.  
Moermond: that could be it; it is close to the fence panel.  
Martin: I did pull up 776 Sylvan and look at the property line. The trailer is right next to  
the house, there’s a tiny bit on the vacant lot but if we tow it, it would be charged to  
776.  
Moermond: this goes to Council Public Hearing next Wednesday. I’d like to give you  
a few more days to take care of these odds and ends, and we will get updated photos  
to next Tuesday. I can’t change what the Council already gave for a deadline.  
Lucas: it didn’t say the commercial vehicle though, it just said it had to be removed  
from the vacant lot.  
Moermond: it says box truck yellow, no plates.  
Lucas: so I just need plates?  
Moermond: it can’t be on a residential property at all. On top of that there are no  
plates, no tabs, and on an unapproved surfaces.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
RLH SAO 24-13 Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 760  
SYLVAN STREET in Council File RLH SAO 24-3. (February 27, 2024  
Legislative Hearing)  
19  
Sponsors:  
Bowie  
The conditions were not abated on deadline and layover to LH February 27, 2024 for  
update from inspector.(CPH 2/28)  
Jacob Lucas, owner, appeared via phone  
Lucas: wasn’t the Council Public Hearing on the 28th?  
Moermond: they meet to talk about whatever it is we come up with today. The  
deadline to have the work done was February 15.  
Staff update by Supervisor Lisa Martin: the inspector went out and took photos of all  
3 of the properties. There has been work done, some vehicles moved from yard, but  
they still aren’t in compliance. Expired tabs. Commercial vehicle. Vehicles under  
tarps. There is still a trailer in the yard. Garbage and debris. A fence and what  
appears to be carpet up in the corner at 28 Sycamore. 760 Sylvan still has garbage.  
29 Acker, the one vehicle looks inoperable, something under the tire. Expired tabs on  
the commercial vehicle.  
Lucas: I thought they said the vehicles could be on the driveway. They were saying I  
had to vacate the two vacant lots. The car on the tarp in the trailer I’m moving.  
Moermond: I see a very short driveway. Ms. Martin, when these are called out, tell  
me what you’re looking at.  
Martin: the vehicles can be in the driveway but they have to be operable, current  
tabs. There’s a black Ford pickup with October 2021 tabs with a broken rear tire, up  
on a block.  
Lucas: it is a manual truck; it is in park and locked up.  
Martin: does it run?  
Lucas: yes.  
Martin: you have a commercial vehicle, which you can’t have in a residential  
neighborhood. Gray mercury mountaineer expired tabs, flat tire. Tarped vehicle or  
trailer parked behind the house. I don’t even see a plate on the commercial vehicle.  
There’s a fridge and stuff outside the play structure.  
Lucas: I’m working on cleaning the yard. That’s why there’s a refrigerator and stuff. I  
was just getting it on the one that isn’t vacant, so they don’t have to come vacate the  
empty properties. I moved the trailers out of the yard. I moved the truck. I’ll have to  
find storage for the big truck. He just said it couldn’t be on the vacant lot.  
Moermond: you may be talking about different trucks; the commercial truck can’t be  
on the properties at all. The Ford truck has an issue with tabs, and that can be on the  
driveway.  
Lucas: alright. I’m still cleaning up 29 Acker. That was just move the trailer and cars. I  
did all that. I moved the green box truck onto the driveway, but I guess I have to get  
rid of that. But I pretty much got the 2 vacant lots cleaned up. I moved it to the Acker  
house so I could organize and keep getting rid of stuff.  
Moermond: there’s an odd-looking trailer on the Sycamore parcel. It is right next to a  
garage.  
Lucas: it looks like a car with a tarp over it?  
Moermond: no tarp, just gray wood.  
Lucas: I think I got rid of that. I have no more trailers in the yard or anything.  
Moermond: it is next to a 2-story house.  
Lucas: it isn’t mine.  
Moermond: is it the neighbors? I think they’re parking on your land.  
Lucas: he said you talked to him.  
Moermond: it is your land sir. His house appears to be a few feet from the property  
line.  
Lucas: I talked to him to see if he got a letter too. He said he got a letter and said he  
can keep it there because he pays taxes. I’m not trying to have an altercation with  
him.  
Moermond: this is 776 Sylvan. I’m thinking at most there are maybe 4 or 5 feet his  
house is setback from the property line.  
Martin: there are orders on the trailer sent to the neighbor.  
Moermond: so he does have an order and it isn’t removed. It is on your property, so  
maybe some grief for you. How would the City tow it Ms. Martin? If the trailer is on  
both sides of the property line?  
Martin: the photos from 776 show two trailers, it gets billed to the property owner  
where they were towed from, but we do have orders. The owner did receive an  
Excessive Consumption for not removing it already. The recheck date has passed,  
and the inspector was out this morning. He hasn’t put in his notes yet.  
Moermond: the commercial trailer can’t be there. We talked about the trailers, they  
can’t be there but one belongs to the neighbor, though it is on both parcels. The Ford  
has to get current tabs. The same with the Mountaineer, it needs tabs and appears  
inoperable. There is some cleanup that needs to be done still.  
Lucas: I have like three pallets of plastic out there.  
Moermond: that could be it; it is close to the fence panel.  
Martin: I did pull up 776 Sylvan and look at the property line. The trailer is right next to  
the house, there’s a tiny bit on the vacant lot but if we tow it, it would be charged to  
776.  
Moermond: this goes to Council Public Hearing next Wednesday. I’d like to give you  
a few more days to take care of these odds and ends, and we will get updated photos  
to next Tuesday. I can’t change what the Council already gave for a deadline.  
Lucas: it didn’t say the commercial vehicle though, it just said it had to be removed  
from the vacant lot.  
Moermond: it says box truck yellow, no plates.  
Lucas: so I just need plates?  
Moermond: it can’t be on a residential property at all. On top of that there are no  
plates, no tabs, and on an unapproved surfaces.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 2/28/2024  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
Appeal of William Munson to a Vacant Building Registration Notice  
and Summary Abatement Order at 12 OAKLEY AVENUE.  
20  
RLH VBR 24-11  
Sponsors:  
Jalali  
Deny the appeal of the VB registration (property remains a Cat 2 VB and requires a  
CCI). Waive VB fee for 90 days (to April 25, 2024).  
Note: SAO was not discussed in hearing. Grant to March 8, 2024 for compliance.  
William Munson, owner, appeared  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Inspector James Hoffman: Code Enforcement referred it over as  
possibly abandoned property that wasn’t secured and St. Paul Police Department  
had been called. Supervisor Kedrowski sent it over since the house was already  
boarded, one breach, and doors pretty secured. I opened the Vacant Building file  
since it appeared vacant. Exterior is in ok shape. That was January 21. On February  
7 I sent a Summary Abatement Order about a shed in the backyard that was wide  
open with items scattered throughout the yard. That was cleaned up on my recheck. I  
got an email this morning from St. Paul Fire Department Form 4 saying they were out  
yesterday and kicked out people in there stealing copper piping and had it  
re-secured. We got the Form 4 around 10 p.m. So, a breach between when I was  
there Friday and yesterday.  
Moermond: and that was St. Paul Police Department or St. Paul Fire Department?  
Lisa Martin: that is St. Paul Fire Department district chief.  
Moermond: it sounds like you have a lot going on.  
Munson: yes, I was going to move in after the holidays. The realtor was going to pay  
them off to leave. The owner lived out of state. When I talk to the police they say no,  
it is burglars. That’s why I boarded it up. When I go to work, which I have to do to  
afford the property, I didn’t want them coming in.  
Moermond: is this where you are living?  
Munson: yes, I live here. But after what has been happening it is just me, I go to  
work, and things happen. The boards were the smartest thing I could do to keep  
them out.  
Moermond: tell me where you sleep.  
Munson: second floor. There are still windows open on the second floor. I boarded  
the porch because my mail was getting stolen. I’m looking into riot glass and bars.  
Moermond: do you have an alarm system?  
Munson: I need internet first. I’m trying to stop this.  
Moermond: you are worried about calling the police because it will be a nuisance?  
Munson: I know if you get too many calls it can be a nuisance.  
Moermond: these are property crimes on your own home. If you are the victim of a  
crime in your home that you are living in, it isn’t a nuisance situation. Having  
someone break into your home and steal copper is a crime. You are living there. If  
you need to call the cops, call the cops. Don’t worry about a charge, do what you  
need to to protect yourself.  
Munson: I go over there, toss them.  
Hoffman: the gas has been turned off.  
Munson: I don’t know what else I can do. The people weren’t supposed to be there. I  
didn’t know boarding was against code.  
Moermond: Mr. Hoffman, a person can have a broken window and board it. The  
concern in Vacant Building is ‘secured by other than normal means.’  
Hoffman: if you have to board something in the interim while you’re ordering a  
window, that’s fine. When every single window on the main floor is boarded, that  
triggers us to look more deeply.  
Munson: I don’t want to be sleeping and have something happen.  
Moermond: it is just a big red flag when it is boarded like that. We just have to check  
these things out. Tell me how it is going.  
Munson: it is getting better. At one time 20 people were removed. Now it is just one  
or two people. I want to get bars and shatterproof glass. It is more expensive. I’ve  
looked into steel framed doors. It wasn’t turnkey, but I was going to live there with my  
friends. Now it is just me and it is really scary. I get my mail forwarded and half the  
time I sleep in my office because I am scared.  
Moermond: we had an out of state seller. Were you represented?  
Munson: I had an agent.  
Moermond: your taxes have you being here, but the water bill goes to an address in  
Minneapolis.  
Munson: the mail has been tampered with. All my mail goes to a family member’s  
house and they bring it to me. Most of it is done online.  
Moermond: what is your timeline on fixing this?  
Munson: I was hoping to have it done by this summer.  
Moermond: I’d like it done well before that. I need you to reach out to the St. Paul Fire  
Department. I need them to be able to get in the front and back door. This should be  
closed using regular locks.  
Munson: I’ll work on getting Bluetooth locks with codes. I’m concerned about using a  
lock box.  
Moermond: you can’t really break into these things. I can’t have you staying there  
unless the St. Paul Fire Department can get into and out of both entrances in an  
emergency. I’m already going to say we can have the lower level boarded and you  
sleeping upstairs, but that has to be on condition that the St. Paul Fire Department  
can get in and out. They have to be able to knock that door down in an emergency  
and not meet unusual barriers.  
Hoffman: it comes down to your safety in an emergency, as far as allowing you to  
stay there in its current state. We need safeguards that if there is any type of  
emergency, there aren’t things preventing emergency services from happening.  
Moermond: technically not having gas at the property is a reason for it to be  
condemned by itself. If you don’t have that you’re already on a timer to be  
condemned. You’re already a registered Vacant Building. We need to figure out a  
plan. I’m also concerned about financing. You have copper piping to replace. You  
need a plumber. You have doors, window bars. This is not cheap. Do you have  
resources to do it?  
Munson: I’m looking into getting a HELOC on other properties.  
Moermond: do you have someplace else you can stay for a while?  
Munson: not really.  
Moermond: you just said you were looking into HELOC.  
Munson: I’m going to sell it to pay for this. There are other properties that aren’t mine  
that I’m involved with. I’m pretty well set. I want the steel doors and windows first. I  
need to get all those lines checked anyway, and I didn’t get an inspection when I  
purchased.  
Hoffman: this sounds like it should have a Code Compliance Inspection, based on  
what I’ve heard and my experience.  
Moermond: you understand if you weren’t already in the program, it should be  
condemned because it doesn’t have gas. Xcel sends a letter to the City.  
Hoffman: even if you notify Xcel to turn off the gas, they still tell the City?  
Moermond: whether or not we can find you or contact you, we’d send letters to you  
about it. In this case it was already a Vacant Building. It was broken into because it  
was vacant. If you were there do you really think they wouldn’t have broken in?  
Munson: the 3 days I’m working I’m paying my security guard to go out there.  
Moermond: there was no Truth in Sale of Housing (TISH) report done, and no  
existing Fire Certificate of Occupancy. I assume if anyone lived there and the owner  
was a rental, I have no current conditions on housing status.  
Hoffman: I do see a TISH from October 3, 2023.  
Munson: I walked through it and it looked good.  
Moermond: there are seven hazards listed in the TISH. That’s a lot. I’m not thrilled  
about this situation at all.  
Hoffman: if the property was sold and an investment company bought it, that TISH  
becomes void because you can only have one TISH per owner. If whoever you  
bought it from Sir didn’t get a TISH, then that is a problem in itself.  
Munson: I got a TISH.  
Moermond: yes, I see it here.  
Munson: I walked through and things looked good.  
Moermond: seven hazards is a lot of hazards. I am not thrilled about this situation at  
all.  
Hoffman: You’re looking at the October TISH?  
Moermond: yes, and knowing there have been other squatters and break-ins since  
October. Including this last weekend. I am thinking you need to talk to your insurance  
company, and perhaps whoever represented you in a sale. I don’t know, but if a  
realtor was paying off squatters to not be there—  
Munson: that is what I believe. They told my driver that they had permission from the  
realtor to be there. I know it wasn’t my realtor. The sellers were in Vermont, so I  
thought maybe it was previous tenants. There were 20 people and we tossed them  
with the St. Paul Police Department. It has been a lot less since then, but things still  
happen. If I would have known 3 days after the sale I could have walked. Usually you  
get a second walk through and an inspection.  
Hoffman: I am seeing Ramsey County has no record of any sale that I can see from  
the previous owners to whoever you bought it from. The last sale was December 13,  
2023 which is when Mr. Munson bought it.  
Between then, the last sale was 2006. There’s no recorded sale of whoever you  
bought it from.  
Munson: it was listed on the MLS.  
Moermond: Cut copper. No gas. Boarded windows. Difficulty with access for  
emergency services, and other code violations. You struggling to find somewhere  
else to be while this is resolved and wanting to be present to deter future break-ins. If  
I recommend continuing to allow occupancy I have conditions I need met, at the  
same time things are getting worse.  
Munson: it isn’t getting worse.  
Moermond: there was just a break-in this weekend.  
Munson: well, the copper, yeah. I don’t have 20 people there anymore. It is one  
person on occasion when I am not there.  
Moermond: I am not comfortable allowing allow occupation. The best advice I have is  
to reach out to your realtor and your home insurance.  
Munson: can I get a lock box?  
Moermond: I think this should be a Vacant Building. It’s a Category 2 Vacant Building.  
What that means is you will need to have an inspection done to create a punch list to  
bring to minimum Code Compliance. I think that’s what is called for here. I don’t feel  
comfortable trying to throw a rope around these moving parts. I think this is a  
homeowner’s insurance matter now.  
Munson: I think I got in Category 2 because of the boards, right?  
Moermond: getting the gas cut off and all of the break-ins are red flags too. You’d end  
up here either way. I’ll recommend the Vacant Building fee is waived for 90 days.  
Munson: please, 120.  
Moermond: by waiving it, that means you don’t have to pay the fee in order to order  
the Code Compliance Inspection Report. [Moermond explains tax assessment  
process]  
Referred to the City Council due back on 3/6/2024