15 West Kellogg Blvd.  
Saint Paul, MN 55102  
City of Saint Paul  
Minutes - Final  
Legislative Hearings  
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer  
Mai Vang, Hearing Coordinator  
Joanna Zimny, Executive Assistant  
legislativehearings@ci.stpaul.mn.us  
651-266-8585  
Tuesday, September 17, 2024  
9:00 AM  
Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
Special Tax Assessments  
1
RLH TA 24-320  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 515  
BEAUMONT STREET. (File No. J1501E, Assessment No. 258300)  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: Mr. Kedrowski, Ms. Martin indicated this should be deleted. Why?  
Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: a correction notice was sent March 12 for garbage  
containers on the boulevard. Multiple Excessive Consumption fees sent. The inspector  
sending them is no longer with our dept. A new inspector took over who took over  
made contact with the property owner who indicated it was the neighbor’s.  
Moermond: I’ll recommend deletion of this Excessive Consumption fee.  
Kedrowski: there were 8 Excessive Consumptions total.  
Moermond: we have five as pending assessments.  
Kedrowski: the note by Inspector Williams says Excessive Consumptions have been  
cancelled but I don’t know how they are arriving at having that done.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025  
2
RLH TA 24-334  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 694  
WESTERN AVENUE NORTH. (File No. J2424R, Assessment No.  
248530)  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Andrea Gregory Schuelke, owner, appeared via phone  
Law Schuelke, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: when we last spoke we said I’d follow up. We have waste wood and a box  
spring. The main point of contention was whether or not a Bagster is allowed as a  
container for waste wood pending its pickup. I said I didn’t think so but would look into  
it further. You’d mentioned a couple of notions out of the Public Works right-of-way  
code and whether things are permitted or unpermitted. That’s dependent on whether it  
is in the right-of-way, I think your point was that should provide guidance in this  
decision.  
Law Schuelke: yes, and the fact that being put into a container it wasn’t being  
improperly stored and the violation was addressed.  
Moermond: the orders were written as a nuisance abatement under a violation of the  
property maintenance code. Section 34.08, there are two sections that apply. The first  
is part one, sanitation. Its rather general, but more specifically number 6, stored  
materials. It does meet this part of the code; despite the fact it was against the garage  
and moved it into the Bagster. I don’t believe that’s proper storage. You of course can  
argue that further to Council. You did have a venue to discuss this further, which was  
to appeal the original orders or calls the inspector to ask for an extension to the pickup  
date. The fact the box spring continued to exist would have already triggered the crew  
to be there. I’m looking up the marginal difference between that one item vs. pickup of  
the Bagster and that one item. There’s an auto charge fee of $40. General refuge of  
$102. Abatement fee of $130. I don’t know how the general refuge is split out for wood  
vs. boxspring. They used to be charged separately. Mr. Kedrowski, how are those  
handled now?  
Kedrowski: if it is something that can be compacted, they’d simply crush it and it  
would weigh into the 2 cubic yards charged out.  
Moermond: the box spring crushed would probably be about 1/3 of the volume. So,  
$66 attributable to the lumber alone. If there’s a reduction it would be one-third of that  
fee, which brings us to a reduction of $66.  
Law Schuelke: it was a $400 charge though, right?  
Moermond: it was. Most of the charge is dispatching the crew, $272. That is the crew  
labor and disposal together.  
Schuelke: it would be two-thirds of the $272?  
Moermond: no, the hourly charge for the crew would be $170, $102 is the cubic yards  
and the tires.  
Law Schuelke: it costs over $300 to pick up a mattress?  
Moermond: there’s service charges, plus a tire, but yeah.  
Law Schuelke: ok. The City went with a contractor who charges that much to pick up  
the mattress?  
Moermond: it was legitimate the wood continued to be in violation, in my opinion. I was  
trying to explain what I think the difference would be, were you to win your argument at  
Council, that marginal difference. You of course can argue further.  
Law Schuelke: ok.  
Moermond: you have this information on the notification of assessment but you have  
the ability to contest further. You can send in an email, testify by phone, or come in  
person. Any of those things are options to explain your difference of opinion. You can  
respond to Ms. Zimny’s follow up email from August 29 at 7:58 am.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 10/2/2024  
3
RLH TA 24-344  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 87  
COOK AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2501R, Assessment No. 258500)  
Kim  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: this is the garage on the end, orders were written to owner of 87 Cook, but  
you pointed out the condo units which are 81, 83, 85 and 87 which are the front, but  
the PIN numbers and tiny parcels are just the footprint of the building, the balance of  
the parcel has a different address.  
Kedrowski: 1052 Park street.  
Moermond: and 1052 didn’t receive notice, so I will recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
RLH TA 23-330  
4
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1199  
REANEY AVENUE. (File No. J2501R, Assessment No. 258500)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Recommendation forthcoming. LHO staff to speak to DSI staff re: cleanup.  
Deborah Moriarty, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: Aril 9, 2024 a Summary Abatement  
Order was issued to trash and miscellaneous debris in the rear yard. Reinspection was  
supposed to be done around April 16, it was done April 24 and trash hadn’t been  
removed. City did the work for a total assessment of $345.  
Moermond: Ms. Moriarty, tell me what is going on and why you’re appealing?  
Moriarty: I didn’t get the order, the paper until the 29th. I was on vacation. I had a  
worker there, the tenant had stuff there. I cleaned it up on the 29th. When they came  
out they didn’t do anything. The only stuff removed I did. They told me once an order  
goes out you still get charged. I don’t think the cost of gas to come out is worth $345. I  
cleaned it up on the 29th.  
Moermond: I see some things remaining by a rust-colored shed with a white door. I see  
things there still on the 30th.  
Moriarty: they were still there.  
Moermond: they left without taking them?  
Moriarty: right.  
Moermond: and you took care of it?  
Kedrowski: it shows here the work was done on April 29th by our crew. If there was  
something there on the 30th.  
Moriarty: the pictures are from the 30th.  
Moermond: no, they were taken on the 29th but uploaded on the 30th. That’s noted on  
the photos. Sorry for confusion there.  
Moriarty: I was there outside cleaning all day on the 29th.  
Kedrowski: the work would have been done and photos loaded on 30th, that is normal.  
Moermond: in terms of documentation, does your Summary Abatement coordinator go  
out with the crew?  
Kedrowski: generally not, they get addresses in the morning and get follow up photos  
from them the next day.  
Moermond: I do see a note from Inspector Westenhofer he confirmed the work was  
done on April 28. I’m going to give this some more thought. I can see where it can be  
argued either way, quite frankly. I need to look at it deeper.  
Moriarty: I was there on Sunday, there’s some branches down and I can’t bring them to  
the compost until Thursday. So you know I’m working on it.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/1/2024  
RLH TA 24-363  
5
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 155  
RUTH STREET NORTH. (File No. J2501T, Assessment No. 258503)  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH October 15, 2024 at 9 am for further discussion. Staff to review  
contract.  
Laurencia Kyariga, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: a letter was sent May 23, 2024 for tall  
grass and weeds. Reinspection was done June 3, 2024 and it wasn’t done, so a work  
order was sent. The total assessment is $644.  
Moermond: Ms. Kyariga, tell me why you’re appealing?  
Kyariga: I realize they did the work, but I didn’t get the letter. I don’t know if it got lost  
in the mail. The neighbor cuts the grass when I tell them too because I am unable to.  
I’d like the amount reduced. I know I need to pay something, but I’m just asking for a  
lesser amount.  
Moermond: Ramsey County taxation, where the City gets it information from, lists you  
at 2085 East 63rd street in Inver Grove Heights.  
Kyariga: that’s correct. Last year I received one and I did it right away. If I had received  
it I would have done it. I’m not saying they didn’t send it, but I didn’t receive it.  
Moermond: Mr. Kedrowski, this is a 75’ wide lot, 110’ deep. No structures. What  
makes up the cost of the bill? The parts of the $480.  
Kedrowski: they’re required to cut the lot and trim along the fence lines. They are  
charged by the hours taken to do it, which was 3 hours.  
Moermond: you want it reduced, Ms. Kyariga. I can learn a bit more about the actual  
charge sent to the City and share that information with you. I can tell you now the City  
has a contract for doing this work, a private company won the City bid to do the work.  
The City does a similar thing for dead or dangerous trees on private property, but I  
don’t know the details of how that is charged. I think that is due to you as we talk  
about this. I’d like to continue this conversation so I can get that information and share  
what I can and we’ll figure it out from there.  
Kyariga: I do not have a fence, or any trees for trimming. I’m surprised it took 3 hours.  
My neighbor does it in 45 minutes for $50. I wouldn’t risk not doing it if I had received  
the letter. The City may charge more, but 3 hours seems impossible.  
Moermond: it appears no one had done the work based on the height of the grass. It  
appears to be 17 to 18” in height. I don’t know any mowing had occur before this during  
the year. We’ll get back to you with any details we can. We’ll continue this  
conversation October 15 and see if we can’t get to the bottom of it.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/15/2024  
10:00 a.m. Hearings  
Special Tax Assessments  
RLH TA 24-364  
6
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 291  
BATES AVENUE. (File No. J2502R, Assessment No. 258501)  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Layover to Tuesday, October 1, 2024 at 10 am (PO unavailable for hearing).  
Cathy Costello, o/b/o owner, appeared via phone  
Vincent Tran, owner, appeared via phone  
Costello: you want to talk to Vincent. I’m just the office manager. Can we set  
something up? 651-242-1163  
Moermond: we’ll try reaching out to him.  
Voicemail for Tran left at 10:29 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City  
Council calling you about your appealed tax assessment for 291 Bates. We’ll try  
reaching back in 30 to 45 minutes.  
Vincent Tran, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: are you expecting my call?  
Tran: I am out of town; can you call my office?  
Moermond: we already called Cathy Costello; you want to delay the hearing?  
Tran: yes.  
Moermond: ok We’ll talk to you Tuesday October 1.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/1/2024  
7
RLH TA 24-369  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1733  
BEECH STREET. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Continue CPH to May 3, 2025. If no same or similar violations, reduce assessment  
from $537.75 to $268.  
Devin McVay, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Moermond: I do have an email from you from Friday, September 13.  
Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: June 4, 2024 a tall grass and weeds  
notice was sent. Reinspection was done June 12 and it was not done. Sent to work  
order which resulted in a total tax assessment of $537.75.  
McVay: I won’t read the email off, but if you want more specific details, I’ll admit much  
was neglectfulness. The front of our house is steep, so I need a weed trimmer to do it,  
and it failed to start. It put me on a quest to get it fixed on a timely matter which I  
couldn’t do. We did get home and see the yard was done. That’s all I really wanted to  
add.  
Moermond: Mr. Kedrowski, the notes look like the City hasn’t done any work except for  
this instance at the property.  
Kedrowski: correct.  
Moermond: what I am thinking we can do is continue your hearing to May 3, 2025 and if  
there are no same or similar violations I’ll recommend it is reduced by half, down to  
$268.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
8
RLH TA 24-354  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 463  
FOREST STREET. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: Summary Abatement Order was sent, another one from  
Vacant Buildings.  
Moermond: no notification, recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
RLH TA 24-353  
9
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2016  
FREMONT AVENUE. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 10 am (unable to reach PO).  
Voicemail left at 10:37 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling  
you about 2016 Fremont Avenue and your appealed special assessment. We’ll try you  
back in 20 to 40 minutes.  
Voicemail left at 11:19: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling you  
again about tall grass and weeds cut in June this year. I’ll push this out to Tuesday,  
October 15 between 10 and 11:30.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/15/2024  
10  
RLH TA 24-366  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 565  
HATCH AVENUE. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)  
Kim  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Allyn Mishek, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: are you expecting my call?  
Mishek: no, but I’ll listen to what you have to say.  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Mishek: I am surprised it has to be such a big production. I’ll mow my lawn.  
Moermond: I don’t understand where you’re coming from on that. It looks like there was  
a lot of grass.  
Mishek: just walk outside right now and look around.  
Moermond: this is from something done in June.  
Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: June 13, 2024 a notice to cut tall grass  
and weeds was sent, reinspection date of June 20th. Reinspection was done June 21  
and grass had not been cut. Work order sent for a total assessment of ---  
Mishek: $300 to cut my lawn!?  
Kedrowski: total assessment of $537.75.  
Mishek: I used to cut people’s lawns for like $5. My God. Seriously. Congratulations on  
your stellar career of ripping people off.  
Moermond: tell me what was going on in June that you had grass over a yard tall?  
[Mishek hangs up]  
Moermond: ok, recommend approval.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
11  
RLH TA 24-357  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 463  
HERSCHEL STREET. (File No. J2502R, Assessment No. 258501)  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Continue CPH to May 12, 2025. If no same or similar violations, reduce assessment  
from $375 to $100.  
Claire Warren, owner, appeared via phone  
Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: a Summary Abatement Order was  
issued April 12, 2024 to dispose of tires and Bagster and contents from the boulevard.  
Rechecked May 1, 2024. It wasn’t removed. Work order was sent, total assessment of  
$375.  
Moermond: why are you appealing?  
Warren: I was diagnosed with melanoma and had numerous surgeries during that  
timeline. This started a bit earlier; I had folks dumping in my back yard. A TV, tires  
and I received a letter March 5 about that. This was right after I got my diagnosis. I got  
a Bagster and did my best, put them out front and put a no dumping sign out. Had  
multiple surgeries, with the last one being April 22. I believe I got the letter April 12,  
between my two surgeries. I was not reading my mail during that time. April 24 I had  
my porch steps redone and my handyman was using the bag as well for that purpose.  
So, I used it for the tv and tires as well as my steps. I didn’t get that bag picked up  
because I was still having work done, but also still recovering. A lot of life going on,  
and it wasn’t a priority to get that bag picked up. When it was picked up, I called the  
City that day to ask questions and learn more. Unfortunately, I guess that was a little  
too late.  
Moermond: an extension was given by the Inspector. Not sure why. He gave an  
extension to April 30th. The work got done a couple weeks later on May 13. A whole  
month, but a difficult month for you.  
Warren: a lot of post op appointments in there too.  
Moermond: balancing the cost incurred by the City and private versus public  
responsibility and your life circumstances as well. Not the easiest thing in the world.  
No history here. If there are no violations between now and May 12, 2025 I will  
recommend this is reduced to $100.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
12  
RLH TA 24-349  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 284  
MAPLE STREET. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Ty Lawrence, o/b/o owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Supervisor Richard Kedrowski: June 3, 2024 a Summary Abatement  
Order was issued to cut tall grass and weeds. Reinspection was done June 17; it had  
not been cut. Work order was sent for a total assessment of $451.50.  
Moermond: Mr. Lawrence, why are you appealing?  
Lawrence: I thought this hearing was about 342 Bates. I believe the grass was tended  
to; I just have to submit evidence with the dates attached.  
Moermond: that could play a role, certainly. I do have contractor photos of what it  
looked like when they arrived and after they did the work. Those were emailed August  
30th.  
Lawrence: oh, I do recall getting emails after the fact. I think there’s an issue with  
communication. A lot have been sent to the wrong address, we talked about this at the  
last hearing. The current owner is frequently out of town, but the home is occupied by  
family.  
Moermond: are you talking about Maple?  
Lawrence: yes.  
Moermond: and this is about a tall grass and weeds and the mail went to him at a P.O.  
Box in Minneapolis.  
Lawrence: we didn’t receive that mail.  
Moermond: I have no idea what address is on the record for this property, it is the  
owner responsibility to make sure each of the individual properties have the correct  
owner address. I would suggest doing that. Back to June, I heard you say you thought  
the work was done by your team?  
Lawrence: that is correct.  
Moermond: I do see it going to the owner of record, the work having been done. I would  
need an argument. I know you told me you go the address changed during the other  
hearings. I don’t know where those corrections were at in June.  
I also see we have two cases head to Council this week, one for an Excessive  
Consumption fee and one for the Vacant Building fee. That was Vacant Building and  
there’s a quit claim deed with the County. The owner transferred from a trust into his  
name.  
Lawrence: yes, all prior to our hearings.  
Moermond: and it isn’t registered with the County yet. But that was May 15. The  
address he hand wrote on that document to Jared Gillespie at that P.O. Box in  
Minneapolis. So as of May, the address of record, per you who drafted it, indicates that  
address. I’m going to recommend approval since notice was provided. I’ll recommend  
the Vacant Building fee gets deleted; the information provided suffices with the quit  
claim deed.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
13  
RLH TA 24-345  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1173  
SEVENTH STREET WEST. (File No. J2501P, Assessment No. 248400)  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: there’s a note here saying there’s no photos of after the cleanup.  
Mai Vang: delete because there are no photos of cleanup provided by contractor.  
Moermond: we don’t have any after photos, just before photos?  
Vang: yes.  
Moermond: recommend deletion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025  
14  
RLH TA 24-323  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 935  
WOODBRIDGE STREET. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 258505)  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Mai Vang: the notice was sent by the correct address, but the work done by the  
contractor was at the wrong address.  
Moermond: work was done at 945 Woodbridge; orders went to 935 Woodbridge.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
Staff Reports  
SR 24-134  
15  
Review Request of Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for  
property at 819 AURORA AVENUE adopted by Council on August 7,  
2024 under File RLH AR 24-50. (File No. J2420R, Assessment No.  
248524)  
Bowie  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Moermond: the orders were issued for removal of a car bumper and chair. The chair  
was a nice living room chair. When the crew showed up the bumper was gone and the  
original chair was gone. It was definitely a different chair the crew took. Recommend  
deletion.  
Received and Filed  
Special Tax Assessments-ROLLS  
16  
RLH AR 24-83  
Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services  
during May 29 to June 12, 2024 (File No. J2501T, Assessment No.  
248503)  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
17  
18  
RLH AR 24-84  
RLH AR 24-82  
Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services  
during May 10 to 20, 2024 (File No. J2502R, Assessment No. 248501)  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
Ratifying the assessment for Rubbish and Garbage Clean Up services  
during April 29 to May 10, 2024 (File No. J2501R, Assessment No.  
248500)  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
19  
RLH AR 24-85  
Ratifying the assessment for Tall Grass and Weed Removal services  
during June 7 to 26, 2024 (File No. J2502T, Assessment No. 248505)  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders  
RLH SAO 24-47  
20  
Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 1302  
BAYARD AVENUE in Council File RLH SAO 24-41.  
Jost  
Sponsors:  
The nuisance is abated and the matter resolved.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 9/25/2024  
Orders To Vacate - Code Enforcement  
RLH VO 24-31  
21  
Appeal of Donald A. Hinrichs to a Notice of Condemnation as Unfit for  
Human Habitation & Order to Vacate, Notice to Cut Tall Grass and/or  
Weeds, and Summary Abatement Order at 995 WAKEFIELD AVENUE.  
Johnson  
Sponsors:  
Deny the appeal. Grant to September 25, 2024 for compliance with SAO & TG&W  
orders. Property must be in compliance and condemnation lifted or vacated by  
September 30, 2024.  
Don & Tischauna Hinrichs appeared via phone  
Moermond: sounds like we had a follow up inspection last week with both Animal  
Control and Code Enforcement.  
Staff update by Supervisor Kedrowski: based on my understanding, a follow up  
inspection was done September 11 and amended notice of condemnation and order to  
vacate was issued at that time. 11 items dealing with interior sanitation, animals,  
smoke alarms, animal feces, extension cords. City’s orders haven’t changed as far as  
the recommendation that the air quality is at a level it would support someone living in  
the house.  
Moermond: tell me what is going on.  
Don Hinrichs: prior to the visit we removed all the carpet and padding and scrubbed the  
floors .Anything that had an extension cord, we didn’t know air conditioners couldn’t be  
plugged in like that. It is now plugged into the wall. We were given another carbon  
monoxide detector as well as smoke alarms. We are getting a rug doctor so it should  
be able to be cleaned or removed.  
Moermond: I’m concerned because urine in general, it soaks into the sub floor.  
Don Hinrichs: I have a sister and brother-in-law helping and I’m hoping we can just  
sand it down.  
Kedrowski: we had an investment property with similar issues, someone with 27 cats,  
and we had a professional contractor do it and it is more than a sanding. We took out  
all the sheetrock, multiple coats of Killz and you could still smell it.  
Don Hinrichs: we may have to hire professionals. Hopefully not.  
Moermond: last time we spoke you were behind in the mortgage.  
Don Hinrichs: we’re talking to the bank. We bought this with my wife’s uncle. He  
moved out and we went from 3 incomes to 2. We’re trying to get payments lowered,  
also look into moving. Trying to weigh all our options.  
Moermond: you were hesitant to have the follow up inspection, but we needed that for a  
plan to move forward. It seems to me like you need to have these animals permitted or  
licensed or removed. Tell me where that is at.  
Don Hinrichs: we got permits for the dogs. They didn’t say anything about permitting  
the rescue animals. We stopped intaking rescue animals. We are rehoming numerous  
ones with some other rescues and partners right now.  
Moermond: you didn’t get a notification from animal control that the non-dogs and cats  
needed permitting?  
Don Hinrichs: no.  
Moermond: I do see in the system it looks like three dog licenses were issued, 2 are  
pending. That’s not surprising because Code says you can have 3 dogs and a permit  
to go beyond 3.  
Don Hinrichs: we are getting updated shots on one and one just turned old enough to  
get shots.  
Moermond: but it is still 2 above the number requiring a permit. Similarly, there needs  
to be a permit for nontraditional pets. I don’t see an application on those. I can speak  
with Animal Control on that. What’s going on with rehoming?  
Don Hinrichs: with the rats we have a couple rescues we work with. A bunch are going  
there. The ferrets we have four going to new homes next week. Everything else is just  
one or 2. Three guinea pigs and a rabbit, that’s it. We’re downsizing so we can get this  
place back to normal.  
Moermond: animals haven’t been relocated yet but it is pending.  
Don Hinrichs: there’s only one rabbit.  
Tischauna Hinrichs: a family is adopting 2 today. Another lady is taking 10 to 12 rats.  
Moermond: the animals are contributing to the unsanitary and unhealthy conditions and  
that needs to happen as well as the cleaning. And cleaning may or may not suffice to  
clean the house of the odors and urine and bacteria related to excrement. The air  
quality issue of it too. I’m obviously struggling with this. I’d love to know more from  
Animal Control. I’m looking at not if the house should be vacated, but when. Maybe  
live somewhere else until it is cleaned and passes inspection.  
Don Hinrichs: I’m not sure where we’d go. We have been cleaning all week. We’ll keep  
working with you guys. I don’t want to be sleeping under a bridge.  
Moermond: I know, and it is made harder with dogs too. It may require surrendering  
some animals. I assume there’s some equity in the house, but with the mortgage the  
way it is-- How long have you been living there?  
Don Hinrichs: six years. He moved out last year.  
Moermond: so likely some equity. I’m going to check with those guys, and maybe we  
can reach out to you this afternoon. Are you available then?  
Don Hinrichs: yes ma’am.  
[suspended at 11:55 am]  
[hearing resumed at 1:36 pm]  
Moermond: I had a chance to speak to animal control, it sounds like they’ve had  
interactions with you previously?  
Don Hinrichs: nothing negative. They just told us we needed permits for the dogs, not  
any other animal.  
Moermond: I’m looking at putting this in front of the Council next weds and recommend  
the property be vacated the 30th. We’ll have an inspection on the 25 so we have the  
most up to date information on conditions. I was just asking Mr. Kedrowski if someone  
can be available that day and he said if Lisa Martin can’t make it, he himself will go. I  
really want to give you every chance, but I want to take seriously the air quality issues.  
It isn’t good for the animals and isn’t good for you. It isn’t safe. I recognize if it goes  
into a status being vacated, you have access 8 am to 8 pm to work on the house and  
get yourselves back in sooner. That’s what I’m going to recommend to Council. I want  
to give you the chance to get as far as you can in addressing this.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 9/25/2024  
1:00 p.m. Hearings  
Vacant Building Registrations  
22  
RLH VBR  
24-53  
Appeal of John Hutton to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at 1823  
HEWITT AVENUE.  
Jalali  
Sponsors:  
Grant the appeal and release the property from the VB program.  
John Hutton, owner, appeared via phone  
Moermond: we talked a couple of weeks ago about the Vacant Building registration for  
this property. The question was whether you were living there. I got the email your  
neighbor sent, and one of the things mentioned last hearing was water usage being  
low. It is clear from the water bill from August 2, which was 7 units, which is what we  
expect for 1 person being there. Before that it was somewhat less depending on the  
time of year. I’m going to say you are there and certainly since July when this went into  
the program, so I’m going to recommend that your appeal is granted.  
Hutton: I appreciate it.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 10/2/2024  
1:30 p.m. Hearings (NONE)  
2:00 p.m. Hearings (NONE)  
Fire Certificates of Occupancy