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, August 13, 2024

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Remove/Repair Orders

RLH RR 24-17

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at

887 CHARLES AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the May 1,

2024, City Council Public Hearing.

Sponsors:

Bowie

Layover to LH September 10, 2024 at 9 am. PO to submit evidence of financing,

affidavit, work plan including bids and schedule by noon September 9, 2024.

Voicemail left at 10:08 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about 887 Charles Avenue. We will try reaching you again in 30 to 60 minutes to

talk with you about moving forward. We were expecting to have work plans, financing

now.

Moermond: we tried reaching out to the owner, Kyle Runbeck, who emailed back he

is having cell phone issues. We don’t have what we were looking for by today, which

is work plans, financing, affidavit, etc. He also indicated he hadn’t received the Code

Compliance Inspection Report though it was issued July 29. We emailed it to him. I’ll

continue this to September 10 with the expectation by September 9 he will have

delivered those items missing.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/10/2024

RLH RR 23-10

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at

1117 JENKS AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the April 19, 2023,

City Council Public Hearing.

Sponsors:

Yang

Recommendation to grant 180 days forthcoming pending submission and approval of

financing, affidavit, and copy of purchase agreement.

Eden Spencer, Greater MN Housing Corp, appeared via phone

Moermond: checking in, left a detailed message earlier about where the closing and

financing is at?

Spencer: we expect to close next week, it is still with financing. They needed more

documentation. We expect final approval any day. I don’t foresee any issues; title

work is done. Just waiting for our lender, Greater MN Housing Fund to give final

underwriting for closing date. It won’t take long to close.

Moermond: you’ve already received bids, right?

Spencer: yes, we have bids and general contractor under contract. We had to have

that for financing.

Moermond: those numbers are what?

Spencer: $160,000. We have a 5% contingency as well for things that pop up.

Moermond: sounds good.

Spencer: I’m 100 percent confident on financing. The timing is what I don’t have

confidence on but we’ve worked with them for seven years.

Moermond: when do you want to start rehab once you close?

Spencer: probably just permit length approval. Hoping to get the bulk of exterior work

done so we can keep working on interior through the winter. I think our timeline is a

about a month behind our original timeline.

Moermond: we’ll put this in front of Council September 11 and get permits

greenlighted before the Council vote hopefully. We’ll try and fast track it from this end.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/11/2024

RLH RR 23-31

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.

Sponsors:

Noecker

Purchaser to submit financing, affidavit, work plan, bids and schedule and have

closing date by COB Friday, August 23, 2024.

Scott Blake, attorney in lieu of Tom Radio, appeared

Jeff Hogue, managing director of Wakota Commercial advisors, appeared

Bob Craft, o/b/o WSCO, appeared

Moermond: when we talked last, this file got sent to Council July 2023. There was the

exploration of demo or rehab, sales and marketing plan, working with you to get this

sold and rehabbed, but mostly get the nuisance condition abated. Most recently the

biggest deal was underground contamination to the parcel to the south. I haven’t had

any results of the phase 2 environmental review yet. Sales transaction proposed

currently. I am needing a closing date and we have to have that rehab plan. I don’t

have the buyer present and I have a file that’s old. I need that commitment to move

forward because I’m not willing to ask the Council for more time without a precise end

game on this.

Yannarelly: some issues with security as far as the fence. Another breech in the

fence last week.

Blake: it was general ransack. There was vandalism and discussion between parties

on cost to repair and how it affects the sale price. Buyer has made a counteroffer to

account for that vandalism. Our client is considering that. Disputes between quotes to

remedy the vandalism. Hopefully we can soon provide a counter or accept theirs. If

we agree the rough closing is 30 to 60 days.

Hauge: the delays in this sale have been from outside forces. Not the buyer and

seller. She isn’t here because she’s apprehensive to speak in front of people since

she’s ESL. The buyer has already purchased equipment for the new restaurant.

Seller has reduced price twice already to get it done. The vandalism the last couple of

months. Prior to that there has been a lot of lender delays. When they finally did get

back to them, there were a lot of requirements. The Phase 2 was done and my

understanding was the buyer will get a no action letter from the State. They didn’t

cause the issues, its coming from next door. That’s all buttoned up. The last item is

what we just talked about. Every piece of wire was removed. The electrical boxes

removed. Every plumbing part of any value has been removed. We’ve been as

diligent as possible in trying to keep it secure. Oftentimes we know about these

because the buyer drives by twice a day every day. We need bids for replacement of

everything that’s been pirated and coming together on that price. The buyer did float

an offer based on her bids. They’ll meet in the middle on price. I spoke to Council in

Houston last night, and we’ll probably close this thing without any lender involvement.

It’s a cash deal as long as it has been reduced. Take the lender out of the picture

because the lender has been so slow.

Moermond: Often with gutting and rebuilding it amounts to the complete rewiring of a

building, especially with commercial properties and different uses. Is this not a

marginal difference?

Houge: it’s a balancing act. The seller doesn’t want to give an amount of money

based on wiring the building for the end use. The vandals pulled the wire from under

the ground, under the street. The bid isn’t providing money for the end use, it is

replacing what was in there and they would have been able to reuse. That’s what the

money is towards. They certainly could have reused some of that plumbing and

electrical wiring.

Moermond: what’s the general idea of dollars?

Houge: $150,000 to $250,000. We just have to get that more defined. It is just coming

up with a number both parties feel good about. They’ll reduce again, we just have to

come up with that number.

Moermond: I’ve been talking to Mr. Radio about providing a plan, buyer developed.

Do they have an architect, how close are things to being able to apply for a permit.

I’ve been looking seriously for that so I have something to hang my hat on at Council.

Here we are, we’ll sell between 30 and 60 days is what you’re saying. How long have

we been doing this? Is she ready to go? Will she be done in six months? We’re in a

holding pattern that feels uncomfortable.

Houge: we can’t say by August 31 it will be done, but in every deal there’s been a

roadblock to get over. So many twists and turns. No delay on buyer or seller on this

deal. I can give you a floor plan of what she intends to do.

Moermond: I need what she will bring to Department of Safety & Inspections to apply

for permits. Contractor bids associated with those plans. That level of analysis. It isn’t

an accident that this is in this process. This was years of inactivity and it being a

significant problem property for the neighborhood. It took a lot to get the owner’s

attention to have this conversation. I know that was before you were involved. All we

have is a couple of electrical bids and a floor plan, that’s hard to bring to Council. Can

we put together a schedule about how this job gets done in six months?

Both: yes.

Moermond: this goes to Council next week. I’d like that no later than Monday. If you

can get some documentation in it would be really helpful. I’m not working against you

but I have to have something to demonstrate progress. Actually, let’s aim for August

28 for plans, which I want by August 22. Then I’ll have a better idea of what to

present to Council. I’d like to see the proposal and purchase documents as well.

Mr. Radio has been great at keeping up to date with memos with the most recent

changes, which is useful, but it is time. And we can get an interpreter with even a

days’ notice, we do it all the time. I don’t want that to be an impediment to her

advocating for herself.

Craft: do you know there’s still a big fence hole in the back of the property? The chain

link fence has been removed at the rear, about 10 feet of it. The cutting of the hedge

improved access. Whoever cleaned up the trash removed the bush.

Houge: I requested the bush be removed. There was a huge bush which makes it

easier for the vandals to hide. We’ll get the fence fixed. We’ll get property

management over there to fix it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

RLH RR 24-29

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at

291 STINSON STREET within fifteen (15) days after the September 4,

2024, City Council Public Hearing. (Refer to September 10, 2024

Legislative Hearing)

Sponsors:

Bowie

Refer back to LH September 10, 2024 (rescheduled due to property rep family

emergency).

No one appeared

Moermond: we’ve received word from Carrie Nelson that her sister was in a car

accident and passed away and would like this continued. We’ll push this hearing from

today out to September 10. At the Council Public Hearing on September 4, we’ll have

it referred back.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/4/2024

RLH RR 24-30

Ordering the rehabilitation or razing and removal of the structures at

929 YORK AVENUE within fifteen (15) days after the September 18,

2024, City Council Public Hearing.

Sponsors:

Yang

Layover to LH September 10, 2024 for further discussion & review of documents. PO

to confirm cancellation of contract for deed, post $5,000 PD, submit work plan,

schedule, bids, financing and affidavit (CPH 9/18).

Alex Delendik, owner o/b/o Homestead Road, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Delendik: I am the owner of the deed. I sold the property to a General Contractor to

fix and due to health reasons he disappeared. That’s when the City inspector gave

the work order to him. It wasn’t a Category 2 in April. He failed to complete the work.

The City sent it to be a Category 3 immediately since they saw it was boarded and

could be dangerous. He also stopped cooperating with me. I filed for cancellation of

the Contract for Deed. After that, I took possession, secured the property, took care

of the landscaping and mowing. I did get that Code Compliance Inspection Report

too.

Moermond: Mr. Delendik, you are associated with MN Housing Corp, but you also

show up with associated with Homestead Road, which is your email address. How do

those two things fit together?

Delendik: MN Housing Corp is the owner. We use Homestead Road when we do

rentals. This house is probably not very high market price, better to repair and rent it I

think. Homestead road is basically a “doing business as”.

Moermond: and Mike’s contractor was the General Contractor?

Delendik: yes, the one who was to fix the house and failed to do so.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: The building is a one story, wood frame,

single-family dwelling with a detached two-stall garage on a lot of 6,273 square feet.

The property did not have a Certificate of Occupancy even though it was non-owner

occupied. Certificate of Occupancy inspector referred the property to Vacant

Buildings due to utilities shut off by Xcel. Files were opened on November 7, 2022.

The current property owner is Mikes Contracting LLC, per Amanda and Ramsey

County Property records. Minnesota Housing Corp indicated they have taken

possession of the property; however, a Cancellation of Contract for Deed has not

been filed with Ramsey County Property Records to date.

On April 10, 2024, an inspection of the building was conducted, a list of deficiencies

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

An Order to Abate a Nuisance Building was posted on June 5, 2024, with a

compliance date of July 5, 2024. 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 $25,000 on the land and $79,600 on the building. Real

estate taxes are current. The vacant building registration fees were paid by

assessment on December 3, 2023. A Code Compliance Inspection was done on July

18, 2024. As of August 12, 2024, the $5,000 performance deposit has not been

posted.

There have been ten Summary Abatement notices since 2022. There have been

twelve work orders issued for: Garbage/rubbish, Boarding/securing and Tall

grass/weeds. Code Enforcement Officers estimate the cost to repair this structure

exceeds $75,000. The estimated cost to demolish exceeds $30,000.

Moermond: have work orders increased or decreased since Mr. Delendik took over?

Yannarelly: there’s a current Summary Abatement Order. Two Summary Abatement

Orders in May. It has been constant. It is boarded, that is why there’s more work

orders than Summary Abatement Orders.

Delendik: I took possession in June when I got notice of the condemnation.

Moermond: it looks like you received notice July 16 of this hearing and the order to

abate a nuisance building June 5 also went to you in St. Louis Park.

Delendik: that’s what I got, yes. I have a General Contractor to provide a general

estimate, how does the City work on the process if there is a potential investor/buyer.

I know you can’t sell the deed until it is repaired. Does the City hold the deed in

escrow? How does that work?

Moermond: the City at no point is in the ownership change. Sounds like the County

Recorder’s office hasn’t received that contract for deed cancellation yet. There are

some loose ends there to deal with. If you want to be transferring to ad developer I

think it was covered in the emails, but what we look for is an agreement that would

provide the property is not transferred until the rehab is completed, or demolished.

The nuisance has to be abated before title transfer. You’re aiming to get the

six-month grant of time for yourself or a partner to get the job done.

Delendik: as far as the cancellation, it takes 60 days in Minnesota. That’s why it isn’t

recorded. We started mowing grass after June. Obviously the potential buyer is

scheduled to spend as much as $75,000 or more they want to have security. I was

reading chapter 43 and other paragraphs describing the Category 3 process. I

thought I provide the deed but the City holds it in escrow.

Moermond: we have nothing to do with the deed. The City doesn’t hold it, it isn’t in the

chain of title. What the City will say is it doesn’t recognize a transaction of this

property without arrangements it would be impossible to pull permits.

Delendik: I understand. I’ve been doing this a while. I got the Category 3 notice.

Moermond: it got your attention. July 16 you got notice of this hearing and the Order

to Abate went to you June 5.

Delendik: that’s the one I got. The only question I have is I have a general contractor

to provide estimate and financials. How does the City work on the process if there is

a potential investor contractor, buyer. If I sell to him it isn’t allowed until the work is

done. How does that work?

Moermond: the City at no point is in the ownership change for the building. Sounds

like the County hasn’t received that contract for deed cancellation. If you want to sell

for a developer, we look for an agreement that would provide the property isn’t

transferred until the rehabilitation is completed or demolished. The nuisance has to

be abated before title can transfer. We have to see and approve a written agreement

before a grant of time is made. You’re aiming to get the six months from Council for

yourself or a partner to get the job done. I can say that this has been a policy in place

a long time so buyers aren’t unaware of the levels.

Delendik: we have a professional general contractor. It takes 60 days in Minnesota to

do that contract for deed cancellation. We took immediate possession in June. When

the potential buyer is scheduled to start spending over $75,000. I was reading

chapter 43 describing Category 3, I thought City keeps the deed in escrow.

Moermond: the City has nothing to do with the deed or chain of title. What the City

will say is it doesn’t recognize the transaction of this property. Without arrangements

it is impossible to pull a permit.

Delendik: I understand that. They want to secure their interests before spending

$75,000.

Moermond: the most common is a purchase agreement with addendum or a

mortgage that can be foreclosed upon.

Delendik: the other question I have is about timing. Let’s say we secure that; can we

do the contract for deed again so they become the owner but there’s no transfer?

Moermond: you can prepare something for us to look at but that’s certainly trickier.

Delendik: and then post the $5,000 Performance Deposit.

Moermond: once it is posted, if there is performance the $5,000 is returned. If there

isn’t, the City has the right to forfeit that money. It is automatically continued if you are

at 50% or greater at 6 months, otherwise it is at Council’s discretion.

We look for that Performance Deposit, a scope of work, bids from various

contractors.

Delendik: does the general contractor need to provide subs, or as a general can he

do the total amount and scope of work?

Moermond: we’ve had general contractors do the whole package, other cases where

someone like yourself is managing the subs.

Delendik: is there a way to remove the Vacant Building fee if we’re making progress?

Moermond: no, what I would suggest is we revisit this in the assessment process and

we can discuss possible proration of the fee.

Delendik: I just want to make the costs clear to the General Contractor. How much

time do I have to get this to you?

Moermond: this goes to Council Public Hearing September 18. If you end up needing

more time to sort through, what I ask for is to see the $5,000 posted and the Code

Compliance Inspection Report. That tells me you are in and participating. We can talk

September 10 if we need too.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/10/2024

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH RR 24-32

Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for 188

ACKER STREET EAST in Council File RLH RR 23-62. (Public

hearing continued to September 25, 2024)

Sponsors:

Bowie

Continue CPH to September 25, 2024. Recommendation forthcoming pending

issuance of CC certificate.

Carolyn Brown appeared o/b/o owner

Staff update by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Clint Zane was out there and said 90%

Moermond: a great report.

Brown: it is just the front porch. He wanted to talk about the footings and structure.

They’re meeting with the contractor tomorrow about whether to rebuild or repair.

Moermond: need to verify front footings beneath addition. Built without and with

non-compliant footing.

Brown: we’ll know more tomorrow.

Moermond: is this an additional cost you hadn’t anticipated?

Brown: no. It’s a small porch. I feel confident in two weeks.

Moermond: I’ll send this to Council on August 28 and I’ll ask them to make a finding

that it is not yet abated but grant an additional 30 days to complete the project. I’ll ask

them to lay the matter over to September 25. Hopefully we can just close the book at

that time.

Yannarelly: her Vacant Building fee is coming due August 19.

Moermond: Ms. Vang, if we get that renewal letter and appeal form. Let’s put that on

for September 24 here, at 1:00. If you’re done I’ll recommend the fee is waived, no

assessment. The question after that is doing a waiver if you aren’t done.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for

1726 FOURTH STREET EAST in Council File RLH RR 23-51.

(September 10, 2024 Legislative Hearing)

RLH RR 24-33

Sponsors:

Johnson

Layover to LH September 10, 2024 at 10 am for further discussion after progress

report % given by building inspector. (CPH 9/11)

Carolyn Brown appeared o/b/o owner

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Clint wasn’t called for a progress

inspection and haven’t been since the Code Compliance Inspection. Plumbing permit

was cancelled. Mechanical, and building no inspections. Electrical has been finaled.

Moermond: sounds like you’re at the beginning?

Brown: we do have a new plumber. HVAC should be almost finaled. We did get the

steps done. As soon as they finish 494 Edmund and Lawson, they’ll move to start on

this address. If I have to call Clint I can.

Moermond: it will no doubt help Clint to give greater percentage complete if

mechanical can get its rough in and final. Then the new plumbing permit pulled. Let’s

get that scheduled. Council Public Hearing August 28. The goal is that 50% to

continue the Performance Deposit, or we talk about forfeiture. Let’s push the Council

Public Hearing to September 11 to get those walk throughs and get contractors to

move things forward a bit more.

We can talk September 10th. If it isn’t resolved before then, and Council Public

Hearing on September 11.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/11/2024

RLH RR 24-31

Making finding on the appealed substantial abatement ordered for 594

BRUNSON AVENUE in Council File RLH RR 24-10.

Sponsors:

Noecker

Layover to LH September 10, 2024 at 10 am for further discussion. PO to post

additional $5,000 PD (at which time permits can be pulled again), submit updated

financing, schedule, and bids if using new contractor(s).

Elizabeth Sibet, owner, appeared

Moermond: we’re checking progress on the work. Most importantly is the

Performance Deposit. 50% it is automatically continued. Less than that, it isn’t

automatic and we have to figure out where to go.

Staff report by Supervisor: there has been no progress according to Mr. Zane. I

haven’t been there since Code Compliance Inspection Report. Building permit applied

for August 9, and is ready but not picked up yet. No other permits applied for.

Moermond: tell me where things are at?

Sibet: the contractor is an older guy and out of town a lot and working on other things.

I explored having other contractors. He did apply for the permit recently, was turned

away, then received it. I didn’t get a call on the plumbing and electrical. I called to

schedule but couldn’t because permits weren’t pulled. We spent thousands of dollars

on cleaning. I spent thousands on tree removal. It is clean, secure again. I think the

contractor is really committed. He said to get the water and electricity on so he can

get working. It was a lot of months of working on his own stuff. That was difficult. I

think some other contractors were saying they were on board but wouldn’t even get

me quotes. This contractor is most likely to get it done, it just didn’t go well so far.

We’ve been able to secure it and not have anyone in for a while now, but it has been

costly fixing the doors and all of that. No complaints, I’ve spent a lot mowing and

trimming so it looks good outside. He is really committed to getting it done. This has

been just the worst financial situation of my life with this house and not knowing it

was going to be condemned when I bought it. I would like one last chance for 180

days; I understand I may lose that $5,000. But if it gets torn down, I have loans, it

would be devastating. I do want to make it affordable housing for people. I’ve had a

lot of setbacks. My divorce being finalized. My mom and daughter both being

hospitalized. Not making excuses, I have designs I just need them to do the work.

Moermond: I think what may have been throwing this off a bit was the permit desk

looking at the calendar being a bit tight with that 180 days. I’m concerned that the

plans, money and contractor didn’t get the job done in the first six months. In fact, it

didn’t get it done at all. I’m glad you’re mowing, but that’s just basic property

maintenance. Let’s get some updated plans, bids, financing and be able to look at

that and plan a course of action. I need a higher level of assurance than what I had

before given where we’re at. The grant of time is a serious things and cards on the

table, I’m looking at asking the Council to require an additional $5,000 Performance

Deposit, but not forfeit the original. That doesn’t mean the money is gone at least.

Let’s talk again and give you a chance to talk to your people and look at your

previous plans and go through them again so we have clean information.

Today is the 13th. Could you have updated information in by Friday, September 6?

Sibet: definitely.

Moermond: earlier means we review earlier. I would anticipate I’ll ask for an additional

$5,000 and we’ll figure out those logistics down the line. Have that in your thoughts.

This is doable but the heat is getting turned up.

Sibet: if I needed to change contractors, I lose the $1,000 for the permit?

Moermond: I’m not saying to change contractors. Sometimes people build in

expectations for timing, so maybe a contract change, but that’s between you and

them.

Sibet: with the $80,000 I spend on renovation what is the level of standard? Is there a

chance they say it doesn’t pass? Then I lose the loans?

Moermond: without being a trades inspector the plumber will pull a permit, and it will

say it will do all the work on the Code Compliance Inspection Report. This is the

minimal list of things. The inspector then comes and does a rough-in and give any

corrections needed. Then those are done and permits are finaled. We will continue

having conversations about how to make it right, unless we have another 0%. I need

accountability but I also want you to be able to do this. Pull together those plans and

money, and work on posting another $5,000. We’ll talk again September 10. As soon

as the second $5,000 Performance Deposit is posted, we’ll allow permits to continue

to be pulled.

[discussion about Vacant Building fee and pending assessments]

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/10/2024

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Correction Orders

RLH CO 24-5

Appeal of Lesley Anizor to a Correction Notice at 692 WILSON

AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Johnson

Deny the appeal and grant an extension to December 2 to get approval for intermodal

container to remain OR be removed by February 3, 2025.

Lesley Anizor, owner, appeared

Johnathon McClellan, son & attorney, appeared via phone

Moermond: we had a conversation July 16 and I’ll restate the basics. [Moermond

gives background of appeals process] July 16 Ms. Anizor was talking about a couple

of things, and she was saying this intermodal container had been present for a

number of years and thus should be allowed to continue to be there. She was

thinking it preceded the existence of code on storage containers and therefore

shouldn’t be required to abate.

McClellan: my understanding after contacting Code Enforcement was that didn’t

come about until 2017 and this was there well before that. I am aware of prior

communication and testimony and I would rest on that.

Anizor: isn’t there a grandfather clause, didn’t you find that out from the inspector?

McClellan: there is for nonconforming zoning but the issue I ran into was that even

though they have that they tend to believe it has been policy to grandfather things like

this as nonconforming. That’s typically how they classify it. That’s all I was able to dig

up when researching.

Moermond: that’s more of a zoning concept than having to do with property

maintenance standards. I was able to determine that the Code didn’t go into place in

2017, it existed in 2005 and I think in 1999. The problem with the 1999 item was the

original ordinance was microfilmed, so the yellow section didn’t work well so it was

grayed over. That seems to be the juncture at which the code changed. This is

exterior maintenance problem under chapter 34. Intermodal containers are not

allowed. I am going to say it is problematic to say it can say because it existed before

the code. I think previous provisions in the Code before would cover this, either

accessory structures or stored materials. I know changes in federal transportation

law got us a lot more intermodals and they became more prevalent.

What I’m looking at whether this needs a deeper conversation, can it stay or

automatically has to go. If you wanted to build a shed the first question is how it is

built, secured to the ground, exits, under MN building code. This is being used as a

structure. If a permit was pulled when it was put into the yard, would that permit have

been granted and finaled for a large metal cube as opposed to a structure with the

code requirements at the time. That’s one balancing thing. I am not the building

official. The second piece is if it is considered a structure it has to go through plan

review and look at setbacks and property lines. That goes back to the beginning of

zoning. I’m going to ask that this be a permitted structure and the changes be made

to make it a permanent structure, or it be removed. The Council may look at it

differently. I do believe the minimum property maintenance code applies. If you would

have built a shed this size, you would have had to pull a permit building. I’d like to

give a reasonable length of time to come to an answer with building and zoning to

make this a doable endeavor and also give a time certain for removal that doesn't

work. As well as giving you time to talk to Council later, if you want to.

That brings us to a timeline. They will look for some plans to make this qualify as a

building under the code. Where it is located is the second question and the person

reviewing the permit looks at that as well. They’d give you feedback about that and

you can make decisions. This isn’t instantaneous. I’d like to send this to Council

Wednesday, September 4.

Anizor: I can’t do the first week in September.

McClellan: I’m out of town August 28.

Moermond: can you testify by phone?

Anizor: I wouldn’t be able to be here. We’ll be in Texas so I don’t know how well my

phone would work. I have two weeks down there.

Moermond: I’ll do September 11 and I’ll recommend this need to be approved for

existence in this location as a structure by---

McClellan: I would ask that if you’re asking it to be approved as a structure I would

like something that indicates an acceptable structure but encompass the fact it has

been there since the 90’s and if there’s some type of grandfather provision. That’s

something the Council should decide.

Moermond: I don’t have documentation of when this was put there. You could testify

to that. With respect to grandfathering in, I’m not making a finding about whether or

not this is grandfathered in, except that I do believe the minimum property

maintenance codes do apply. Grandfathering would be a concept you could likely talk

about in terms of building or zoning code. The building code would have required you

to pull a permit in the past in order for there to be a grandfathering. The building code

of 1900 is different than 2024, so no one is making people redesign staircases that

are too steep. My recommendation is to deny the appeal but grant an extension to

December 2 to get approval for it to be there OR it should be moved by January 2,

2025. I do believe property maintenance will give it to you

Anizor: John, I don’t have $3,000 to move it.

McClellan: one problem is the cost and burden for a homeowner that is elderly and

living off Social Security. If the City or Zoning makes a determination that this

structure is allowed to stay, then what? Is there room in the order to allow the City to

work in this gray area you spoke of earlier. That’s my concern, that we’re providing

the City and Zoning and building permit and everyone to sit over here and operate in

this space because they may have something we are unaware of that says yes. I

want to be able to have the possibility to work with that within the order, but if the

order says we’re homing in on it without these other things then we kind of put

ourselves in a box without the ability to move and shift as the law does and has. I

want to make sure that we have that ability to do that. We can talk to the City and

figure this out with them, but we want to make sure they aren’t’ looking at orders

saying I’m only complying with this even though it says that.

Moermond: I am not saying this is a structure right now. There is an actual building

code definition of a structure and I am not implying that is what this is. I am saying

there are other people who need to make that determination.

My thought on giving to December 2 is to allow adequate time for there to be these

conversations, permit applications, zoning review and handling any disagreement

with those conclusions time to appeal. If it isn’t, then to figure out a map forward from

there. That was my intention. The zoning code isn’t gray in my world, neither is the

building code. September 11 it will go to Council. You use it as a structure, so let’s

make it a structure with the proper setup.

McClellan: December is the cold months; I would say it would take more time than

that. Is there a review hearing in December? if it ultimately needs to be moved, if we

have time to figure that out.

Moermond: what is your ask? Time beyond January 2 to remove if that’s what is

required?

McClellan: yes.

Moermond: I’m thinking about logistics and MN weather. If we’re moving something

that size, heavy equipment is involved. I could see my way clear to give another 30

days, but I’m not willing to give a recommendation beyond that. I’ll say February 3 if

you don’t have success. That is the same time frame for executing any changes

needed by building or zoning.

McClellan: I would be remiss if I didn’t mention there’s been discussion about

increasing the property size, buying the property next door. That may change some

things. The streets have changed since the placement of that container, so to get a

truck in that space, I’m thinking about snow on the ground and ice and navigating the

streets. Logistically I obviously have concerns about that having been there and seen

the container.

I didn’t create this situation. I’m doing my best. I know Ms. Anizor was using the

neighbor’s backyard to be able to drive out. Is that what you were describing before?

Anizor: yeah, because you guys took out my---

McClellan: Mom, this isn’t about that. This is about the container specifically in

relation to the property and property lines and logistics, but also how to work with the

City to get it so it is an acceptable structure. Also, how the City deals with prior

construction on a property in relation to new code. That’s something we can talk

about with the Council and ordinances. They may have something they’re willing to

accept because of these reasons. It is my understanding that the Hearing Officer is

saying that’s what she needs to be able to let it stay. It I has to pass through that

process, whatever it is. Setting a timeline around that for compliance.

Moermond: any other questions today?

Both: no.

Referred to the City Council due back on 9/11/2024

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 24-48 Appeal of Michael Nayman to a Notice to Cut Tall Grass and/or

Weeds at 1818 BLAIR AVENUE. (Legislative Hearing August 13,

2024)

Sponsors:

Jalali

Grant extension to August 26, 2024 for compliance.

Michael Nayman, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Moermond: I have photos from when the orders were written and then updated

photos from this morning.

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: we received a tall grass and weeds complaint,

orders issued July 19, 2024 for grass and weeds over 8”. The reinspection was to be

July 23, we noticed the entire boulevard and yard is probably six feet tall. I’m not sure

if this is weeds or intended to be a boulevard planting, but even so they can’t be

above 36”. We can’t even see the address number on the home due to the tall grass.

Moermond: I do see some things have been taken care of. Less volume. I see

progress.

Martin: the side of the property has been cut back, but still overhangs into the street.

The front is still not in compliance. Still can’t see address numbers. Work to do to

bring into to compliance.

Nayman: normally they don’t get that tall, but due to the rain it has amazed me how

tall it has gotten. It is goldenrod, it is a Minnesota wildflower and it promotes

pollinating insects. Those I would like to leave. They should be done blooming within

a couple of weeks. I’d like to wait until that happens then I’m glad to cut them. I

thought I’d pretty much complied with the original orders. There are many boulevards

with sunflowers on them in my neighborhood. Many flowers on people’s boulevards

higher than 36” so I didn’t realize it was a thing. I would like to keep the goldenrod

until they’re done blooming, then I’m happy to remove them completely, it has gotten

out of hand even for me.

Moermond: here’s the thing, setting the pollinator issues aside, the primary issue is

the height. That’s all about visibility. You have to be able to see the kid on the trike

coming out from behind the overgrowth and not being hit by a car. That’s why its 18”

when within 5’ of driveway or intersections. In terms of getting that down, I am happy

to work on an extension but not a long one. Moving forward you are more than

welcome to have pollinators of that height as long as they don’t qualify as tall grass

and weeds. The State of MN defines clearly what native plantings are. You’re looking

at managed natural landscapes I think. We can send you a copy of that. I know the

original order talks about just tall grass and weeds. This looks four to six feet tall.

Council Public Hearing August 21 and give you through the 26th to take care of it. On

the 27th we’ll take a look to see if it was addressed. Then Council authorizes the City

to take action .August 28.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/14/2024

RLH SAO 24-34 Appeal of Gonzalo R. Sanchez to a Summary Abatement Order at

1040 BUSH AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Yang

Layover to September 10, 2024 at 11 am for discussion of work plan after site visit by

inspector(s).

Gonzolo Sanchez, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: Lisa Martin and I are talking about the various orders and permits pulled

and trying to get it organized. There are a lot of moving parts. Would it work if there

was going to be another inspection from Lisa, a building inspector and an electrical

inspector. I’m curious about if there are any hazards that may need to be top priorities

and provide assistance that the permits pulled cover the things you are working on.

Bottom line is, are you ok with another visit so we can get a cleaned-up list that takes

into the building, electrical and yard issues in one package?

Sanchez: yeah, you can come anytime. We’ve been working around the house. I am

still recuperating from my surgery so I’m not very fast.

Moermond: I know you have your wife and the friend who came to the first hearing

who was helping. Paulino Ortega? Is he still around?

Sanchez: yes.

Moermond: would you like to talk to the inspectors and figure out a time and then let

Mr. Sanchez know that time.

Martin: I noticed he cut the grass and they’ve been working on the yard. I’ll call you

by Friday with that.

Moermond: we’ll look at the results and recommendations with concrete deadlines

and have it voted on September 18 hopefully.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/10/2024

RLH SAO 24-51 Appeal of Michael E. Corcoran to a Summary Abatement Order and

two Correction Notices at 1478 AMES AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Yang

Layover to LH September 3, 2024 at 11 am for further discussion. PO to submit work

plan with timeline/schedule by COB August 30, 2024.

Michael & Angelique Corcoran, owners, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: we sent a Summary Abatement Order to

dispose of the gas cans, cardboard boxes, Compliance date of August 5. Photos

attached. Two other orders. One is for vehicles, a correction notice issued the same

day, July 24 to remove all boats, commercial vehicles, and vehicles from unapproved

parking surface (grass). Compliance date of August 7. One other exterior complaint

that isa correction notice, issued the same date by Inspector Williams to secure the

shed in the rear yard. We did deem these structures were unsafe. It was referred to

the building inspector and Inspector Brash posted a stop work order. I spoke with the

owners and am happy to give some time to give compliance.

Moermond: what are you looking for today?

Corcoran: we have been working on this for years. I realize looking at the photos, I

realized when snow would start flying I’d start covering it where I could. That

happened throughout the years on some of it. I don’t have a problem taking care of

this stuff. Through the end of the year would be appreciated. I do have a plan for all

the cars. Anything there I can take care of. I did speak with Jason regarding my rear

deck and everything .I’ll see what I can do with him regarding what he wants done. I

don’t have a problem with anything necessary. I built the house in 2000. Originally

was built as if I was going to retire and turn it into a triplex. That won’t happen now,

but last June I ended up with all the I beams in the backyard and stairways and

whatnot to put up proper stairways in the rear of the house. I talked to Jason about

this. I ended up purchasing this cheap from work. I’ll just take all of it out right now. I

do have people who want it. I don’t have a problem with taking care of the shed. I did

inherit a lot when I got that shed as far as the junk. I bought it from a little old lady.

Angelique: we just need a lot of time. I am handicapped, I can’t do things outside

anymore. I used to garden and there was a lot of stuff I have accumulated that

contributed to this. We just need more time to remove everything we need to. I’ve

been working on it all summer; I just can’t do much in one day.

Corcoran: the street out front was being replaced when I built my house. I requested

the 17’ wide apron in the driveway. The gentleman said as long as I had the parking

pad I could park. They gave me the extra apron. I had approval for a driveway that an

organization was going to pay for, but they went out of business, so I never got my

driveway. That was 2000 when we built the house. I put down the recycled asphalt all

the way to the hill. There’s a lot in there. Apparently that was supposed to be okay to

do, at least I thought so.

Angelique: at that time, you could have asphalt or a certain type of gravel, which was

allowed in 2000, and I think it was changed in 2017. So, the asphalt, class 5, was

approved back in 2000 because we didn’t get our driveway. It is so expensive to tar

that much. It was $50,000 back in 2000.

Corcoran: I had to put those within the property lines when I bought it. They’re 60’

lots. It’s a diagonal street. I had wanted to give the extra lot to my son.

Angelique Corcoran: we have temporary structures they tagged us for, required us to

remove.

Martin: a lot would be considered dangerous. A lot of those 2000 permits were done

without ever being inspected and closed.

Corcoran: they were giving away permits at half price back then. I was the general

on that.

Angelique Corcoran: it would take a couple of years to do it ourselves. But we’ve

called a couple people for help.

Corcoran: I’ve called Willie to ask about zoning and parking.

Moermond: we can certainly discuss driveway surface, but I’m more concerned about

the stuff and the vehicles written up aren’t for being on class 5, it was for being

parked on the grass.

Martin: yes, there is a lot going on out there. Again, I’d be happy to meet with them

out there and walk through the orders and get some timeframes down.

Moermond: I want a “to-do” list with deadlines attached. I’m not willing to look at a 1-

or 2-year deadline. This is narrowing it down. I want to have periodic check-ins. Have

a plan to my office by August 30. We’ll talk about it if needed on September 3. You

are the ones who own the development of the plan. Ms. Martin gives feedback on

safety issues. I want you to think through what is involved and the timeline. Think

through costs.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 9/3/2024

RLH SAO 24-50 Appeal of Virginia Dunivan to a Summary Abatement Order at 1746

LINCOLN AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Jost

Grant to October 15, 2024 for compliance.

Virginia Dunivan, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: July 25, 2024 a Summary Abatement Order

was issued to owner & occupant for boulevard plants so they don’t exceed 36” in

height and don’t overhand any portion of the sidewalk or street. Photos attached and

new ones this as of this morning. Majority are now under 36”, still some too high. A

private tree.

Dunivan: the City planted that tree. I didn’t. I wanted to give the pollinators extra time

with the flowers over 36”. It is prime time for them and the reason we did the

boulevard. What are the procedures to change the law so we can have plants over

36”. 36” in the center of the boulevard I would like to see change.

Moermond: sounds like you have permission from forestry to have that tree, which is

great. The other thing is we’re talking about a few plants, not a lot, over 36” still. I feel

good that it is thinned out enough it isn’t creating a visibility problem. I call it the

tricycle rule, can you see the trike going down the sidewalk at the alley, driveway, or

corner. That isn’t an issue here since it's clear. Moving forward it is something you

may need to wrestle with that location. As far as changing the ordinance, I would

suggest reaching out to Councilmember Jost, and that is typically where things start.

It basically comes down to visibility lines.

Dunivan: I have a lot of cars parked in front of my house. Those are harder to see

through than plants. I know we are trying to increase the availability for the pollinator

it is arbitrary to say three feet.

Moermond: definitely something to talk to Council about. I know City and State law

are supportive of that, but your yard is also a place to do so, too. I don’t have an

answer as far as how it relates to small pedestrians. We can include that information

in a follow up letter. I’m comfortable saying you are good to October 1, 2024.

Dunivan: can we do October 15 because with weather there may still be some

pollinators.

Moermond: I can go to October 15, yes.

[long discussion about how Department of Safety & Inspection’s complaint system

works]

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

RLH SAO 24-53 Appeal of Angela Glenhue to a Summary Abatement Order at 1941

STANFORD AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Jost

Layover to LH August 20, 2024 at 11 am (unable to call PO during hearing window).

Voicemail left at 1:11: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you

about the orders at 1941 Stanford. We’re calling a bit after the window we gave, so

I’d like to continue this to next Tuesday. we’ll try to have you at the top of the lineup at

11.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/20/2024

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR 24-43 Appeal of Yia Jef Yang to a Vacant Building Registration Fee Warning

Letter at 1688 EUCLID STREET.

Sponsors:

Johnson

Grant the appeal and release the property from the VB program.

Ya Jef Yang, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we were asking you make application for a Fire Certificate of Occupancy

and staff said you have. We’ll get a quick update from them.

Shaff: the application was received and stamped August 8, 2024.

Moermond: so, I’ll recommend the appeal granted and released from the Vacant

Building program. Make sure you show up when you get an appointment letter from

the Fire Certificate of Occupancy program.

Yang: I did that, and also enrolled in the Landlord 101 class.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

RLH VBR 24-41 Appeal of John S. Jagiela to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at

134 MONTROSE PLACE.

Sponsors:

Jalali

Grant the appeal and release the property from the VB program and allow occupancy

of one unit on condition that the other 2 units are not rented/occupied until Fire C of O

is reinstated. Balance of orders to be referred to Code Enforcement.

John Jagiela, owner, appeared

Moermond: trying to figure out how to get your needs met while addressing the code

violations. I want to ask inspectors about the roof damage and you can occupy one,

and the other two can’t be lived in until they are certified.

Shaff: Inspector Imbertson did the inspection and he is out so it wasn’t possible to

confer with him.

Jagiela: how can you tell me that, this is my house. I’ve lived there 34 years. You’re

telling me I can’t occupy my own house?!

Moermond: I started this out saying I want to work with you, I don’t want

confrontation. I was looking for a solution that would meet your needs as you

described them.

Jagiela: you know how you would feel if someone told you that you couldn’t occupy

your house.

Moermond: I know if I have Fire Certificate of Occupancy orders and didn’t mean the

compliance date and I assumed because I had no more renters they would

understand that and the orders would evaporate. The thing is, we talked last time

these are not orders just for rental properties. It applies to all properties, including

owner-occupied properties. You’ve been broken into, and I have tremendous

sympathy for that. At the same time, you weren’t there and didn’t have a security

system. There isn’t culpability on the part of the City for that having happened. That

happens to a lot of people, owner occupied or not. I want to figure out whether you

can occupy the first or second floor based on the nature of the code violations in the

second floor and move forward from there. Your paperwork says the second floor is

where you occupy.

Jagiela: that’s all gone now. My bank accounts, my checks, tax returns. That place is

trashed. They took all the crystal, glasses on the floor. They kicked in the doors.

There is supposed to be a procedure for declaring a property a Vacant Building.

You’re supposed to get a notice, a chance to be heard. That didn’t happen here.

They sent me the letter after the appeal period expired and they already put my

house on the internet as a vacant house. That’s a violation of my due process rights.

There is responsibility; there is case law in Minnesota that says if you don’t provide

people with due process under the MN constitution they will be liable.

Moermond: you didn’t receive the July 5 notice sent to your address on Montrose?

Jagiela: I received something July 15.

Moermond: I tell you what, if you want to present that information to Council, fine.

We’re talking about how to get you out from under the Vacant Building registration

and what a reasonable approach is. When asking about the second floor, I’m asking

them for feedback on the soundness of the ceiling and if there are any electrical

concerns with the leaking. If there are, then that directs us one way. If it is just a

temporary fix from before keeping water out, it is different.

Jagiela: I live there, you realize that?

Moermond: I understand that is what you’ve said throughout. I’m just going with it. It

is what it is.

Jagiela: you’re saying the Fire Inspector, or some other Department, has the

authority to tell me I can’t live in my house?

Moermond: yes. But we’re working on it. Tell me about the second floor and ceiling

damage.

Shaff: the upper unit has been uncertified for quite some time, and was not to be

occupied. There were people in the first-floor unit at the time Inspector Imbertson

stated that at the time of the 10/25/23 approval with corrections, basement and

second floor were both uncertified and not approved. Would require plumbing and

building permits. Only first floor was occupied as a rental at time of info. Per the

owner’s info on appeal form they moved out November 2023, and neither of the other

units were certified for re-occupancy. It should have been in the Vacant Building

program since then.

Jagiela: that property is homestead by Monica Clark, not me.

Shaff: Supervisor Vue pulled up photos from July 25, 2023 showing significant ceiling

damage.

Moermond: at that time, it wasn’t condemned due to that damage?

Shaff: just uncertified saying you can’t occupy it.

Moermond: I’m going to recommend this is released from the Vacant Building

program. One unit of the three may be occupied and may not be used as a rental

property until Fire Certificate of Occupancy is reinstated. Balance of orders to be

referred to Code Enforcement.

Jagiela: I appreciate everything done and I think you did as much as you could.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

RLH VBR 24-44 Appeal of Sheree Brundage to a Vacant Building Registration Fee

Warning Letter at 931 CHARLES AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Bowie

Deny the appeal.

Sheree Brundage, owner, appeared via phone

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: 931 Charles Ave was made a Category 2

Vacant Building on June 7, 2024 per a form 4 St. Paul Fire Department referral to

code enforcement on May 15. That report reads excessive storage/health and safety

concerns. Code followed up on the 16th and had no answer at door, but sent an

appointment letter. Smith spoke with property owner who said she was not at

property due to medical condition. June 6, 2024 Inspector Smith notes that at the

inspection he "met property owner’s brother and sister as well as 2 other family

members helping clean out the property. They were aware of inspection and allowed

access. Significant amount of garbage and clutter in entry and living room, couldn’t

get past living room due to volume. Inspector Kedrowski told me to condemn and not

post a placard. property owner’s brother informed me they boarded the back door.

property owner will not be returning to the property, per the family. Sent to Vacant

Building program. I opened the Vacant Building file June 7, 2024 per that referral and

issued a Summary Abatement Order for tall grass and weeds. June 25 and July 23 I

noticed the property appeared to be vacant, secured and maintained."

Moermond: Ms. Brundage, sounds like you have family helping you and a lot going

on. What are you looking for today?

Brundage: I really can’t afford a $2,000 charge. We’re trying to work on it and they

said it will cost $10,000 to clean it up. My son reached out to a flipper who offered an

amount to take as-is. Then we’ll just be done with it. I will just be done with it. I was in

the hospital, very sick in May and June, and then when I got out I had to go back for

another 10 days. Then I went to transitional care for a week. I’m staying with my

sister. I spoke with an attorney, too. That cost me $4,300, with an additional $1,500

for incidentals. New will, health care directive, something else. Then $2,000 to have it

boarded.

Moermond: it sounds like you’re ready to sell and someone has looked at it and ready

to purchase?

Brundage: yes.

Moermond: right now, the concern is the Vacant Building fee. Don’t pay that bill. It will

then come forward as an assessment. That is an appealable thing, so the people

buying it will need to deal with that when they get ahold of it. They can appeal it, if

you still owned it you could. At that point I could make it payable over 5 years if you

still own it. If someone is in there again, then you may not have any fee at all.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

RLH VBR 24-46 Appeal of Megan Giesen to a Vacant Building Registration Notice and

Summary Abatement Order at 1676 EUCLID STREET.

Sponsors:

Johnson

Grant the appeal and release the property from the VB program.

Meg Giesen appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: was made a Category 1 Vacant Building by

me on July 25, 2024 per receiving a Vacant Building registration form from a Bron

Incorporated. They are representing Celine Finance out of Dallas TX. Due to that

proactive registration form, we went out to look at the house and found the grass over

2 feet tall and gave the impression it was vacant. Not being maintained. So that file

was opened per that referral from the bank. Since then, I talked to Ms. Giesen July

30th who refuted its vacancy and said she would cut the grass. I advised her to file

this appeal and told her that is the easiest way to get out of this.

Giesen: I want to be out of the Vacant Building program. I apologize for wasting City

resources and taxpayer’s dollars on not mowing. I’ve been trying to get ahold of the

bank to figure out what is going on. I purchased it in 2007 from my grandparents who

built it. I work 60 hours a week and am the only able-bodied person able to mow. On

top of that my mower broke, then I borrowed a friend’s after I got the tall grass and

weeds notice.

Moermond: it’s a Category 1 meaning it’s a turnkey property, someone living there is

fine. You are there and I don’t see any issue other than this institution sent that form.

That’s not anything definitive. I will recommend the Council grant your appeal and get

you out of the Vacant Building program.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

RLH VBR 24-47 Appeal of James Swartwood to a Vacant Building Registration Notice

at 729 FOURTH STREET EAST.

Sponsors:

Johnson

Rescheduled to August 20, 2024 at 1 pm (per PO's request).

Moermond: request to reschedule for one week to next Tuesday, August 20.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 8/20/2024

RLH VBR 24-45 Appeal of Karin Jordahl to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at

2184 PRINCETON AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Jalali

Grant the appeal and release the property from the VB noting that electrical service

has been restored.

[Confirmation by staff of restoration of electrical service on 8/15 - JZ]

Karin Jordahl, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: July 15, 2024 we received a complaint that it

appeared vacant and there was tall grass and weeds. Inspected July 15, tall grass

and weeds orders issued. July 22, 2024 a Category 1 Vacant Building was opened

due to the house appearing to be vacant, tall grass and weeds were documented,

and there has been no water usage since February 15, 2023 according to SPRWS.

Moermond: Ms. Jordahl what is going on?

Jordahl: I live in my house. I have no idea where this is coming from. I’ve lived here

since 2022. I’m baffled. I won an alley award for pollinator garden. I am an herbalist; I

grow things I use for natural medicine. I have a front yard of violets I don’t need to

mow or water. A no mow lawn. Lawn to Lagoons?? Gave me an award. I think that

was 2022. I love my home. I put on a front porch. I’ve done many things. I have my

mom in the room who I have been in and out caring for. I find it an overreach that

people are checking my water usage. That is complete overreach and an invasion of

privacy. Every single tax has been paid on time, even early. Every bill on time. I’m

baffled out of my mind. I feel like I need help from the constitution, 1776 style, we the

people. I don’t feel I need to be pushed into this direction. The City Councilmembers

have been illegally put into office. I feel like I’m being targeted because I am a Trump

supporter.

Getting back to my home. I’ve been there since 2002. I’ve been caring for family

members who needed me on site. I’ve been back and forth, to my home. When they

came in July I was probably caring for some relatives. I don’t understand this type of

threat and it is an overreach of the City in my opinion.

Moermond: when the Vacant Building program gets a complaint a place is vacant and

it sort of looks that way. Category 1 means it is in good shape, it is turnkey, they’re

trying to figure out what is going on. Often they can get a clue from the water usage,

as an investigative tool. I think you’re right; it isn’t definitive. As of August 4, Xcel

energy referred it to the City for lack of electric. You do lack that basic facility. I am

happy to get you out of the Vacant Building program. Complaints need to get

investigated. I just need that electric back on so it I can deem it habitable.

Jordahl: I thought I paid. I had no idea it happened that fast, then when I realized I

thought ok.

Moermond: this sounds reasonable. I’ll let this sit for a couple of days and give Mr.

Dornfeld time to call Xcel and when they confirm the power is back on I’m happy to

recommend this appeal is granted and the file closed. I’ll lay this over a week. If you

can turn a light bulb on, we have no problems. Otherwise, we’ll give you a quick ring

to see what is going on.

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 24-26

Appeal of Mark Thieroff, attorney for owner, to a Revocation of Fire

Certificate of Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 251 MARIA

AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Johnson

Grant through October 18, 2024 for compliance (as permit application was submitted

in full to DSI/HPC as required as of 8/16/24).

Referred to the City Council due back on 8/28/2024