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, October 1, 2024

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House/Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 276

EXCHANGE STREET SOUTH. (File No. VB2502, Assessment No.

258801)

RLH TA 24-373

Sponsors:

Noecker

Reduce assessment from $2,618 to $600.

John Sugimura, contractor o/b/o Taher Inc, appeared via phone

Inda Streed Taher Inc, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: prospective fee covering May 12, 2024 to

May 12, 2025. It was released from the Vacant Building program after Fire Certificate

of Occupancy issuance August 2, so in the program just under 3 months. Total

assessment of $2,618.

Moermond: tell me why you’re appealing.

Sugimura: I’ve been working on the building on behalf of Bruce Taher since March of

2022. Very well documented rehab. It closed in 2019 after the passing of a key

employee, then we went into Covid. The delay was out of our hands; the adjacent

property had 3 large trees crushing the foundation. We worked for 2 years with the

neighbor to remove the trees, which was done in September 2022. We had to rebuild

the foundation. That was our focus. It delayed things for 2 years.

In the window of the last 3 months, that building has been utilized and habited since

June 2023 and working out of it, an active renovation with all utilities on. It hasn’t

been a vacant building by definition. I’m sure you’ll narrow this down to the Vacant

Building form being submitted. I had roughly 20 interactions with St. Paul staff or fire.

We were only given the form 3 months ago.

Moermond: I don’t know if it is about the form. If you met the definition of a Vacant

Building, it did until it got its Certificate of Occupancy reinstated. It was 2 months and

3 weeks out of a 12-month time period. I’ll recommend the Council reduces this down

to $600, for the time the building was in the program. $2,618 to $600 even.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 276

EXCHANGE STREET SOUTH. (File No. J2502B, Assessment No.

258101)

RLH TA 24-374

Sponsors:

Noecker

Approve the assessment.

John Sugimura, Taher Inc, appeared via phone

Inda Streed Taher Inc, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: there was a break in at the property and

the police arrested 5 juveniles exiting. There was a window broken and they called in

emergency boarding of the window. Total proposed assessment of $474.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

John Sugimura: we were only appealing the Vacant Building fee, no questions about

the boarding.

Moermond: I’ll recommend this one is approved then.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1033

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2501B, Assessment No.

258100)

RLH TA 24-348

Sponsors:

Yang

Approve the assessment.

Javonna McCoy-Barber

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Moermond: I know we spoke recently about the Vacant Building registration. This is

for a boarding done in January.

McCoy-Barber: I’m not disputing this. I am disputing the $2,500 because I’m not

getting any services. I see where nothing is free for this one. I understand someone

came out in the middle of the night to keep our stuff safe, I appreciate that. I have a

problem with the $2,500.

Moermond: alright, and that’s on the agenda tomorrow. Do you want this considered

withdrawn? Should I send it forward as approved?

McCoy-Barber: I wasn’t contesting the boarding, because someone did the work. I

saw it. Just contesting the $2,500.

Moermond: appreciate that. We’ll see you tomorrow it sounds like.

McCoy-Barber: I’ll be there.

Moermond: recommend approval of the assessment.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH TA 24-394

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1122

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2502B, Assessment No.

258101)

Sponsors:

Yang

Layover to LH December 3, 2024 at 9 am. Staff to get police report and contact

prosecutor.

Angela Myers, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: a vehicle crashed into the house and,

according to the report, after consultation with the homeowner it was agreed to shore

up the corners of the porch and board up the front windows. Total proposed

assessment of $654.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Myers: because I’m a victim. Jesse James Anderson ran into my house and caused

the damage. I’m still living in a boarded house. This bill should go to the driver of the

car on May 5. Why are you charging the homeowner? It makes no sense.

Moermond: these charges do attach to the property. It becomes the property owner’s

responsibility to get that money back from the person causing the damage, or your

insurance company.

Myers: that makes no sense.

Moermond: I hear you and I don’t have the ability to go after someone and make a

finding they are criminally liable. That would be handled through the courts. All I have

is the work being done and this being the cost of the work. It would be more by way

of restitution you would get reimbursed, or by your insurance company.

Myers: I don’t agree with this, it makes no sense. I’m listening to you. He hit my

house; he is charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Again, shouldn’t t he pay

for the damaged he caused?

Moermond: I’m not disagreeing one bit. Are you working with a Ramsey County

prosecutor on this?

Myers: no.

Moermond: I was just thinking if the prosecutor who did the charges was aware they

could ask the court to order restitution from Mr. Anderson.

Myers: the court offered him some sort of situation and he didn’t comply with that

diversion program was, so he was charged again September 10th. The homeowner

still has to pay what is caused by a 25-year-old that hit my house? I haven’t done

anything. I pay my bills; I pay my taxes. I continue to get hurt by this accident. I still

keep paying for it one way or another.

Moermond: I understand your frustration. We can see if we can find the prosecutor

and email them this information and ask for restitution.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 12/3/2024

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1297

SEVENTH STREET WEST. (File No. VB2502, Assessment No.

258801)

RLH TA 24-372

Sponsors:

Noecker

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: this was in front of Council earlier VBR 24-18 adopted June 26. That was

a layover from March. Department of Safety & Inspections was to review records and

using this logic, she testified with her son/realtor and delayed it for City reasons. The

charge of the Vacant Building fee for that time period seems inappropriate so I’ll

recommend this Vacant Building fee is deleted.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1714

VAN BUREN AVENUE. (File No. J2501B, Assessment No. 258100)

RLH TA 24-350

Sponsors:

Jalali

Delete the assessment (welfare check).

No one appeared

Moermond: this is a securing after a welfare check. It is my consistent policy to

recommend boardings resulting from welfare checks; we shouldn’t be doing anything

that encourages people to not call when they need to.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH TA 24-375

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1645

WHITE BEAR AVENUE NORTH. (File No. J2411B1, Assessment No.

248111) (Public hearing continued to October 16, 2024)

Sponsors:

Yang

Approve the assessment. Continue CPH to October 16, 2024.

Muntasir Eisa, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: March 7 St. Paul Police Department was

responding to a burglary. They found the building open to entry on arrival. They

attempted to secure it themselves, were unable too. Tried calling the listed keyholder

and got no response, so they called in the emergency boarding crew. Total proposed

assessment of $474.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Eisa: because no one called about it happening. It was empty storage on that side, it

isn’t vacant. It costs too much; it was just two screws with two metal pieces. This is

too much.

Moermond: when you say you don’t think anyone called, who did you mean by

“nobody”.

Eisa: we didn’t have any number listed there.

Moermond: they responded to a neighbor reporting the burglary. They pried the front

door open.

Eisa: I believe it happened.

Moermond: the other thing was the cost, Mr. Yannarelly, what is included in the cost

for this?

Yannarelly: the main cost is just having a crew, private contractor, out there at a

moment’s notice. That’s $250 alone. $60 for fastener and labor, then the service

charge of $164.

Moermond: it does sound like the police tried to reach you, or someone who is the

listed keyholder. They tried both it says and didn’t reach anyone. I’m kind of stuck on

this one, I get it is expensive but the police can’t leave the scene with the building

unsecured.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/2/2024

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1659

EDMUND AVENUE (File No. CRT2502, Assessment No. 258201)

RLH TA 24-390

Sponsors:

Kim

Reduce assessment from $398 to $239.

No one appeared

Moermond: looks like the Department resolved this?

Supervisor Leanna Shaff: we had a cost of $239 with a service charge of $159. We

had the incorrect address on file. It should have been on Cleveland Ave North and it

should have been South. No entry fees were removed, and we recommend removing

the service charge.

Moermond: I’ll recommend the reduction from $398 to $239.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 419

HERSCHEL STREET. (File No. CRT2410A, Assessment No. 249212)

(Refer to October 1, 2024 Legislative Hearing)

RLH TA 24-340

Sponsors:

Jalali

Approve the assessment.

Charles Merck, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this is a Fire Certificate of Occupancy on a

duplex. Total assessment of $439. property owner is named as Megan A McGuire

Merck. We sent Appointment letter January 22, 2024. Correction letter February 14,

2024. Complied with on March 8. Billed March 13 and April 12. All mail sent to 1784

Highland Parkway in St. Paul.

Merck: we were both certain we had gone online and paid that, because we have the

new Certificate of Occupancy. We both were like, but we paid that. That was the only

confusion.

Moermond: you got the bill and you each thought the other paid it?

Merck: we didn’t think about it after the fact until we got this notice, because we both

we were certain we went online and paid it. Then we got this.

Moermond: are you looking for anything in particular?

Merck: would we have got the new Certificate of Occupancy document without

paying it?

Shaff: yes. After you don’t pay the second bill it goes to assessment. At that point it is

marked as paid by assessment and generates the Fire Certificate of Occupancy. You

don’t get it until you paid, but then it automatically generates it.

Moermond: policy-wise, we don’t want people to not be able to occupy a building

because they haven’t paid the bill yet.

Merck: one of the people I talked to about this said they shouldn’t be assessing any

sort of fees to the original bill. They said this is one in particular they shouldn’t be

attaching any additional fees too.

Moermond: I don’t know who that was, but that isn’t the case. I’ve been doing this

since 2007 and there’s always been service fees attached.

Merck: I understand. Would we have avoided it if the first appointment---I set this up

a month ago and they never called. So I want to make sure we’re not getting any fees

for that.

Moermond: no, this was attached as it went forward as an assessment. It has been

there since the beginning.

Merck: got it.

Moermond: I need to give you a new Council Public Hearing date, if you agree with

my recommendation they will just go with it, but if you want a different outcome you

can testify to the Council. It makes sense to me it should be approved in full, the

entire $439. We’ll have the Council Public Hearing October 16.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/16/2024

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2401

SEVENTH STREET WEST. (File No. CRT2501, Assessment No.

258200)

RLH TA 24-338

Sponsors:

Jost

Approve the assessment.

Latrice Dasher, property management, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this an appeal on a Fire Certificate of

Occupancy fee for a commercial A3 building. The total cost of the assessment is

$839. We sent appointment letters November 15 and December 8, 2023. Correction

letter February 2, 2024. Approved with deficiencies April 8, 2024. Billing dates of April

10 and May 10, 2024. No returned mail. Appointment and correction letters sent to:

Mare Jane Waitros, Paster Properties 5320 West 23rd Street, suite 205 in St. Louis

Park. Approval with corrections and billing sent to: Latrice Dasher, Sibley Plaza LLP,

606 Washington Avenue North, suite 400 in Minneapolis.

Moermond: I see an email chain here, Ms. Dasher, but why are you appealing?

Dasher: when the letters were initially sent last year, they were in the process of

relocating. These were oversights mailed to the former address. It was addressed to

an individual that is no longer with that company. We had outsourced property

management seven years ago. Basically, I have only been here a year, but I don’t

know why you didn’t get the letters back, but the mailing address—none of this was

brought to our attention. As soon as it was back in house I was on top of it and trying

to unravel the many properties. I just felt in light of the transitions within the company

this was something we weren’t aware of. It wasn’t anything we didn’t do or you

weren’t trying to make us aware of. We’re just asking for some forgiveness this one

time, in light of what we were going through. We understand City’s enforce policies

and procedures, but we just want to ask for some forgiveness due to the company

transitions.

Moermond: can I confirm the address you want things sent to?

Dasher: the entity should be Sibley Plaza Limited Partners, LLP, because that is both

buildings. Care of Castor Properties. 606 Washington Ave N. Suite 400. Minneapolis,

MN 55401.

Moermond: that’s where the bills were sent, as well as the warning letter about the

bill.

Dasher: but the notices went too—

Moermond: yes, but you aren’t being charged for multiple inspections. You’re being

charged for the initial fee, no additonal no-show fees or anything added on.

Dasher: that’s simply for this building, or is it the entire plaza? Is this for the building

permit for both buildings?

Moermond: my records show this is 2401 West Seventh. Ms. Shaff?

Shaff: this is for planet fitness and several other businesses. The other building is

under 2409.

Dasher: that’s what I thought. That’s part of the confusion too. The initial letter in

November was sent to Mary Jane, however we weren’t there. I don’t know where it

went. The next letter was December 8 at the West 23rd address. We didn’t get a

letter from the City until April 10, 2024.

Moermond: how does this impact your bill?

Dasher: we didn’t know, it was just an invoice for the fee. We didn’t know what this

was. We’d already paid for the one at 2409 and were trying to dig through with the

Inspector. This is for 2409 as well?

Moermond: the City sent the notification you wanted it to go to, and you had a change

of business practice which caused it to not be received. I’m listening for the bright line

between where this is a private business responsibility versus the taxpayers at large

to cover that cost. I’m hearing you had this change—

Dasher: I’m not disputing the $680.

Moermond: I understand that. An extra service was provided since it had to be

processed as an assessment. That’s the cost you want removed.

Dasher: and I have a letter here showing the check arrived July 2.

Moermond: is that to real estate or Department of Safety & Inspections?

Dasher: the City of St. Paul.

Moermond: I think that was past—

Dasher: that’s why they told me to appeal this. It came late. The date on the check

was May 22

Moermond: and it says in the letter it must be received no later than May 25. You

sent that check again, to who?

Dasher: it was made payable to Department of Safety & Inspections.

Moermond: they would have rejected it, Ms. Shaff?

Shaff: they would have returned it if it was received after the due date. I don’t process

the money so I don’t have exact details, but it doesn’t show in the fees we processed

any money for this.

Moermond: I’d like proof from you Ms. Dasher that the check cleared.

Dasher: it was returned with a letter.

Moermond: because it arrived after the due date.

Dasher: when I called they told me to go through the appeals process just to waive

the fee. All the correspondence went to the wrong person. We divided that building,

we’d already paid for 2209, didn’t know by doing so it was giving us two bills. By the

time we dug through this and figured it out we immediately sent out a check and it

was then returned. We moved and severed ties with the former management

company. We would just like the fee forgiven, we have the check ready to go. We

didn’t mean to be lake, we were trying to figure out what we were paying for, why it

was charged to 2401. Doing our due diligence.

We have properties in 10 cities and I’m trying my best to understand every fee and

the taxes we have. I just wanted to see the process to dispute it, I’m not trying to

waste anyone’s time.

Moermond: we have the two inspected properties, the 2401 and 2409. It doesn’t

seem like this would be annually, is it every 2 years?

Shaff: yes, every 2 to 3 years.

Moermond: so $680 due every two years. If they were considered as one property,

would the price still be same? Around $1,360?

Shaff: I’d have to calculate it, but it is clearly two separate building. In its history it has

never been considered one building.

Moermond: I have no doubt you will run a tight ship moving forward.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/8/2025

RLH TA 24-364

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 291

BATES AVENUE. (File No. J2502R, Assessment No. 258501)

Sponsors:

Johnson

Layover to LH October 15, 2024 at 10 am for PO to review documents previously

sent to him.

Vincent Tran, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: Summary Abatement Order was issued April

30 2024 to remove and dispose of appliances and debris from the boulevard. May 6

compliance. No appeal filed then. Category 2 Vacant Building that is now abated.

Code Compliance approved 8/12/24.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Tran: when we got the house, someone dropped a tire there. I already had someone

take the tire and recycle it.

Moermond: did you get the email from Mai Vang with the photos and everything?

Tran: no, I didn’t.

Moermond: she sent it. There was a photo of a refrigerator on the boulevard.

Tran: we set that out and scrapper took it.

Moermond: I have photos of the contractor doing it.

Tran: no, we always do this. Set it out for free and a scrapper took it. Never does the

City come and take something. We have one scrapper who goes around the

neighborhood and he took it for us.

Moermond: how do you know that?

Tran: my assistant, Charlie Lee, makes sure. We do a lot of Category 2 building and

none of them have a problem, okay?

Moermond: I’m struggling when I see photos of the refrigerator.

Tran: the City didn’t take it. I always comply with the letters I get. I always do it before

the City comes. You can see on my record.

Moermond: this is for this one specific appliance in the boulevard. It looks like it is just

for the appliance.

Tran: I didn’t see it.

Moermond: it was sent to Cathy Costello; she didn’t share it with you?

Tran: no.

Moermond: your employee filed the appeal and didn’t send it to you? You need to

manage your communication better.

Mai Vang: I email it to Cathy on September 13 at 8:06 am and copied Mr. Tran.

Tran: I know you Mai.

Moermond: let’s talk again in 2 weeks and wrap up this conversation.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/15/2024

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1199

REANEY AVENUE. (File No. J2501R, Assessment No. 258500)

RLH TA 23-330

Sponsors:

Yang

Reduce assessment from $345 to $175.

Deborah Moriarty, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we’re calling again about the cleanup in the back yard. Lisa Martin is a

Supervisor in Code, she’s on the line this time. We had a chance to look over some

of the photos. There was a lot in your yard besides what was in the photos, correct?

Moriarty: right.

Moermond: the items in the photos it looked like you had cleaned up, by the porch

area that is painted yellow. The other things in the back yard weren’t necessarily

cleaned up. Is that fair? I’m seeing black plastic bags and other things.

Moriarty: yes.

Moermond: there’s some confusion about what the expectation was versus what

actually got cleaned up. The City’s order does say from the rear yard and the entire

property, besides the area in the photo. I think you just looked at the photo. I want to

say I’m going to split it down the middle. You have some responsibility but I can

understand some of the misunderstanding. I’ll recommend the Council decreases this

from $345 down to $175. Any questions?

Moriarty: no.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/15/2025

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 515

BEAUMONT STREET. (File No. J1502E, Assessment No. 258301)

RLH TA 24-365

Sponsors:

Noecker

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: this is an Excessive Consumption for garbage cans in the street.

Apparently they belong to the neighbor placing their cans there. It isn’t something 515

Beaumont could have taken care of. Recommend deletion.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

RLH TA 24-377

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 908

EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. J2401V1, Assessment No. 248001)

Sponsors:

Bowie

Layover to LH October 15, 2024 at 10 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 11:35. This is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

Elvira Garcia about your appealed special assessment for vehicle removal at 908

Edmund. We’re going to reschedule this a couple weeks out, October 15 between 10

am and 12 pm. We’ll try you again then.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/15/2024

RLH TA 24-376

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1386

EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. J2501E, Assessment No. 258300)

Sponsors:

Jalali

Layover to LH October 15, 2024 at 10 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 11:37 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about your appealed assessment for 1386 Edmund Avenue. We’re going to

continue this to October 15 and hopefully talk to you then between 10 and 12.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/15/2024

RLH TA 24-346

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 443

JOHNSON PARKWAY. (File No. J2501E, Assessment No. 258300)

Sponsors:

Johnson

Layover to LH November 5, 2024 at 10 am for further discussion. CE staff to visit

property to assess property line.

Ed Brazman, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: February 13, 2024 a Summary Abatement

Order was issued to remove or dispose of a wheelchair lift and trash from the

property. Compliance date of February 20th. Still there on recheck March 8, was not

done and Excessive Consumption sent. Rechecked March 26 and it was done by the

owner. Small history at the property, but orders have always been done by the

owner.

Brazman: I don’t understand what is going on. Some neighbor is calling the City for

some reason and making these things an issue. The lift in my driveway was saving

for a man customizing a van for his disabled child. I was cited for it being on my

private property, albeit in my driveway. None of is it viewable from Johnson Parkway

or Conway. It isn’t impeding anyone else’s property. I certainly don’t run a junk yard. It

was there, and I told the City inspector what I told you, it is being saved for a

purpose. I just wanted to someone benefit from it. I was cited, it is a private item on

private property nothing to do with anyone else and was going for a good cause.

Number two, the trash on the side of our garage. I told the inspector that isn’t our

garbage. We didn’t put it there. That isn’t even our property. Technically it is my

neighbor’s property. Basically, what I was told was the inspector’s hands were tied

since it was already cited and the only way I could contend was having some sort of

hearing and the Council would make the decision. I have received hate mail

anonymously. They won’t disclose who they are, nor come speak to my wife and I

like adults. There was a bus parked in my driveway and I have the residential

inspector calling me about the bus and I had to tell him it was a personal vehicle not a

commercial vehicle. It didn’t even fit the guidelines of what would be a commercial

vehicle. Then I never heard more about it.

Moermond: let’s go back to the situation at hand. The garbage between garage and

fence and the lift. You told the inspector the lift had a purpose, was there any

discussion about addressing it in a certain time period?

Brazman: I asked if I moved it into the yard or garage if it would curb the issue

altogether. He said yes. IT is still private property either way.

Moermond: I’m going to ask a Code Enforcement supervisor to go by and eyeball the

property line. Generally speaking, there is a 3 foot setback from the structure. You

can’t build on a property line. In terms of storing the lift, it was listed February 13 in

the Summary Abatement Order and you didn’t appeal that order. Why?

Brazman: I missed the cut off, which I wasn’t aware of until I read the notice more

closely. Then I called and they said it would be an assessment and you can appeal

that and contest. To the side would be considered my neighbor’s drive. She’s had

cleanup done and trees cut that include the space where the trash is. My chain-link

fence would be the marker of the end of our property and that trash it outside of the

fence line.

Moermond: we’ll have that looked at. There are plenty of times where fences are not

on the property line. Let’s talk again November 5.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 11/5/2024

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 874

SEVENTH STREET EAST. (File No. J2502P, Assessment No.

258401)

RLH TA 24-370

Sponsors:

Johnson

Delete the assessment.

No one appeared

Moermond: this is a deletion, first thing is the assessment notice was sent to the

wrong address, and we also have a graffiti abatement waiver for the property.

Mai Vang: there were two different properties on one parcel, which is now being fixed

by Department of Safety & Inspections.

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

RLH TA 24-378

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1127

WINTHROP STREET SOUTH. (File No. J2502T, Assessment No.

258505)

Sponsors:

Johnson

Layover to LH October 15, 2024 at 10 am. PO to submit invoice for lawn service for

the time period in question.

Geraldine Lopez, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: May 30, 2024 a notice to cut tall grass and

weeds was sent. Compliance date of June 3. Rechecked June 11 and photos taken;

grass was not cut. Sent to work order and the work was done June 14.

Lopez: I spoke to Mr. Munoz; I told him we have a lawn service who comes every 3

weeks. I also asked about the leaves. They were going to mulch the leaves for the

vegetable garden, and we were removing the rest which I told him. He said we were

doing what we needed to. I checked in because we’ve never got a letter before. I did

tell him I was on a schedule, I thought it was taken care of. The owner is my father

and mother, who are seniors, but I take care of it.

Moermond: do you have any sort of an invoice you could get that would give me

some dates?

Lopez: sure. He didn’t do the third week because you guys had already come. That

was the week he would have come. I can give you the first receipt.

Moermond: sure. Reply to the email from Mai Vang.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/15/2024

Special Tax Assessments-Rolls

Ratifying the assessment for Collection of Vacant Building Registration

fees billed during June 20, 2023 to April 22, 2024. (File No. VB2502,

Assessment No. 258801)

RLH AR 24-86

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Securing and/or Emergency Boarding

services during May 2024. (File No. J2502B, Assessment No. 258101)

RLH AR 24-87

RLH AR 24-88

RLH AR 24-89

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Demolition services from January to June

2024. (File No. J2501C, Assessment No. 252000)

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Demolition services from February to

March 2024 (C.D.B.G. Funds). (File No. J2502C, Assessment No.

252001)

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Fire Certificate of Occupancy fees billed

during April 26 to May 23, 2024. (File No. CRT2502, Assessment No.

258201)

RLH AR 24-90

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Excessive Use of Inspection or

Abatement services billed during March 22 to April 19, 2024. (File No.

J2502E, Assessment No. 258301)

RLH AR 24-91

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Graffiti Removal services during April 3 to

June 11, 2024. (File No. J2502P, Assessment No. 258401)

RLH AR 24-92

RLH AR 24-93

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

Ratifying the assessment for Towing of Abandoned Vehicle(s) services

during January to May 2024. (File No. J2501V, Assessment No.

258000)

Sponsors:

Jalali

Referred to the City Council due back on 1/22/2025

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH SAO 24-69 Making finding on the appealed of Edward Albrecht to a nuisance

abatement ordered for 1529 GRANTHAM STREET in Council File

RLH SAO 24-52.

Sponsors:

Jalali

The nuisance(s) are abated and the matter resolved.

No one appeared

Moermond: we’d granted the appeal on the tall grass and weeds. Allowed the toolbox

and a few other items to remail. Gave an October 1 deadline for the balance.

Martin: so his findings cover the remaining items?

Moermond: yes.

Supervisor Martin: Mr. Kedrowski says everything is done.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/9/2024

Correction Orders

RLH CO 24-8

Appeal of Thomas Nelson & Ranettia Alexander-Nelson to a

Correction Notice at 493 VAN BUREN AVENUE.

Sponsors:

Bowie

Recommendation forthcoming.

Thomas Nelson & Ranettia Alexander- Nelson appeared via phone

Moermond: following up on our previous conversation. We got background on the

site plan that was a approved and rejected in rapid succession. Looking at the

situation, what I’ll say is you need to reapply with a corrected site plan and look for

that variance to have the parking where you have it now. There simply isn’t a City

record to say it has been approved. What I am going to propose to the Council is a

November 1 deadline for vehicles to be moved, and if you have filed a site plan we

will work with staff to figure out how long it will take to review and adjust the deadline

accordingly. Without having that filed we’ll have a November 1 deadline, Making

finding November 5 and Council Public Hearing 6. Actually, we’ll have the Council

Public Hearing November 6, give you a November 15 deadline.

Thomas Nelson: the original plan said I didn’t have rocks down before and that wasn’t

so.

Moermond: what they said in the letter on May 2 that went to you said there was an

error in the description of the yellow highlighted area on the site plan and their take

was that it was existing gravel, and after reviewing the 2017 aerial photo showed it

covered in grass not gravel.

Thomas Nelson: but it was gravel. The photos show rocks were down there in 2017.

Moermond: I don’t think it did, no. I can look again.

Thomas Nelson: it shows class 5 rock.

Moermond: I have 2020 and 2022 showing grass.

Ranettia Alexander Nelson: that’s what I’m saying, if you were to just drive by, it

doesn’t matter if its green. We had trouble keeping it up going in and out of town. It

grew through the rocks. Yaya Diatta said it looked like there was gravel under there.

He saw the gravel in between the weeds. It wasn’t grass, it was weeds.

Thomas Nelson: the 2017 photo shows yellow rock, got complaints, so we redid the

whole thing in gray rock.

Ranettia Alexander Nelson: it wasn’t our decision, it was what we were told.

Moermond: I continue to rely on the professional opinion of those who do the plan

review. I will give it one more look. They had a firm opinion that it wasn’t. One last

look and give you another set of information and do my due diligence even more. I’m

being honest about what I saw, but I will look one more time.

Thomas Nelson: on 2017 there was walk. It wasn’t as much because they

complained about the amount. They wanted it repaved with more rock. That’s why

the complete thing was done in 2018 with class 5. 2017 letter saying we had to add

more rock.

Ranettia Alexander Nelson: if someone wants to come out, we can show them. It

wasn’t grass it was weeds.

Thomas Nelson: look at 2017, he took a magic marker and darkened off the rock he

didn’t want to see there was rock there. Someone at Council sent us one photo

showing an L shaped rock area that was darkened out.

Ranettia Alexander Nelson: we did what we were asked to do and it was costly. To

remove those rocks is going to cost even more.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/23/2024

RLH CO 24-10

Appeal of Jerry Brashier to a Correction Notice at 511 MINNEHAHA

AVENUE EAST.

Sponsors:

Noecker

Layover to LH October 8, 2024 at 11 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 12:33 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about your appeal for a cargo container at 511 Minnehaha Avenue East. We’ll try

you again on October 8. Your appeal form does say you were coming in person, and

we haven’t seen you. We’re happy to call you October 8, or you can come.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/8/2024

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

Appeal of Lee Yang, Yangs Invest LLC, to a Vacant Building

Registration Fee Warning Letter at 933 BEECH STREET.

RLH VBR 24-61

Sponsors:

Johnson

Recommendation forthcoming pending LHO discussion with Building Official.

Lee Yang, Yangs Invest, LLC, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: this property had a fire January 16, 2024. A

Vacant Building Category 1 file was opened by Inspector Hoffman. A few tall grass

and weeds issues, 6/24 and August 5. We also had a complaint about it being open

to trespass September 16. Other than that, it has been ok. The Vacant Building

registration form was sent out on time, but it was returned to our office a month later

by US mail. Ms. Sheffer then resent and the appellant filled it out requesting the

90-day fire waiver. That was given March 19, 2024 which took them through June 27,

2024 where Mr. Magner gave another 90 days on the Vacant Building fire fee. It is my

understanding we are here today to discuss the Vacant Building fee that is now due

as of September 17, 2024.

Moermond: Mr. Dornfeld, the record shows the fire occurred in January, if a 90-day

waiver was issued wouldn’t the 90 days begin then, which goes to April rather than

being issued in March, which essentially gave a 5-month waiver.

Dornfeld: I have no authority or opinion when it comes to the Vacant Building fee.

That would be a Ms. Sheffer, Mr. Magner or Mr. Hoban question. I have no say in the

fee whatsoever.

Moermond: let’s do a follow up email on those calculations. There are no initials

attached to the June 27 custom waiver. Was Clint doing the waiver?

Dornfeld: Mr. Magner is normally the one in charge of any waivers. Ms. Sheffer

enters all the waivers. If it went from Clint Zane, it had to go to Ms. Sheffer and

whether or not she included Mr. Magner I don’t know. But she does all the waivers.

Moermond: so we have 9 months’ worth of waivers. Mr. Yang, tell me about what is

going on.

Yang: thank you. The reason I came is because I shouldn’t have the fee because I

pulled 2 permits, one in 2023. They told me I had 90 days to do it. It isn’t easy, we

have to go through insurance, they do an investigation. It is $200,000 damage. I

pulled a permit and my inspector was there and he finaled my framing 7/10/24 and

everything was good. Why do I still have a Vacant Building fee [holds up building

permit] it should have gone back to this so I could continue working. I already made

corrections on stuff I already did; it should go back to my building permit so I could

get my Certificate of Occupancy. I feel like it isn’t right for me to pay that Vacant

Building fee.

Moermond: there are a lot of open permits here. A couple are finaled. Most remain

open, most have had rough in inspections.

Yang: we had to redo everything after the fire. My subs had to pull permits; it is like a

new building.

Moermond: there are 3 building permits open. Whether or not a building is in the

Vacant Building program isn’t connected to whether it has permits pulled or not. It is

connected to the fact that it meets the definition of a Vacant Building. In your case, it

is considered uninhabitable until those permits are finaled. That hasn’t happened yet.

Those sign offs are what matter and what gets you out of the Vacant Building

program. I’m in a difficult position, through no fault of yours, that the Department of

Safety & Inspections has issued 9 months of waivers on the Vacant Building

registration fee. This fee covers mid-January 2024 through mid-January 2025. It was

waived through September, meaning if you got it done before then no fee would have

applied. Otherwise, the fee comes into play. Many people are able to have insurance

pay these fees. That is the way it happens for a lot of these. Because of where the

permits are at and the fee has been waived for so long. My practice is never to have

Council waive the fee more than 90 days, max six months. That’s my hard line. I’m

really left with no options; the Department took those away. I have to recommend

approval of it. That is based on how much of the year you’ve been in the Vacant

Building program. If you don’t pay it, when it comes forward as an assessment onto

the property taxes, which is also appealable. It can be made payable over a number

of years.

Yang: I thought the Vacant Building status only counted for existing buildings. This is

a new building, it just got on fire. I didn’t look at City code so I didn’t know the law.

Moermond: Mr. Dornfeld, I’m guessing this doesn’t happen often, that there’s a fire in

a structure that didn’t have a Certificate of Occupancy already. This was a new build.

Dornfeld: this is extremely unfortunate and rare, but my opinion would be that is why

you saw the extended waivers from the Department.

Moermond: which is different than dealing with it above board. What I’m going to look

at in your situation is, it seems to me, it hinges on “Vacant Building: a building or

portion of a building which is”. At what point does it become a building versus

something under construction? I think that comes from the MN State Building Code.

I’m going to look into that. I’ll then have a recommendation taking that into

consideration for the Council. If it is a building, then yes you’d be in the Vacant

Building program. If you aren’t a building when the fire happened, then no, you don’t

belong. I hear your argument that you don’t originally have that Certificate of

Occupancy so you aren’t. We’ll follow up with an email with that recommendation.

Referred to the City Council due back on 10/23/2024

RLH VBR 24-62 Appeal of Dinh Thong to a Vacant Building Registration Notice at 899

BURR STREET.

Sponsors:

Kim

Layover to LH October 8, 2024 at 1 pm (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 1:49 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling

you about your appeal for 899 Burr Street. We’ll try back in a little bit and hopefully

catch you.

Tried calling at 2:32 pm and voicemailbox was full.

Moermond: let’s lay this over for a week.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/8/2024

RLH VBR 24-59 Appeal of Zoltan Pusenyak to a Vacant Building Registration Notice

and Code Compliance Inspection Letter at 1024 MINNEHAHA

AVENUE EAST.

Sponsors:

Johnson

Layover to LH Tuesday, October 22 at 1 pm for further discussion after October 14

Fire Inspection at 1 pm.

Zoltan Pusenyak, owner, appeared via phone

Romisha Jones, tenant, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Leanna Shaff: this started as a referral that the windows

were broken. That was March 20, 2024. Inspector went there March 21. Orders

issued. Spoke to the Responsible Party. April 22 there were more broken panes and

it was partially boarded. No repairs to garage and windows, other than boarding. The

inspector spoke to Responsible Party or owner about work on garage. July 1 the

inspector left a Voicemail for the Responsible Party concerning long-term

noncompliance. They added additional exterior items. July 8 I left a Voicemail for the

property owner, didn’t receive any calls back. July 10 we transferred the orders to

Fire Certificate of Occupancy to do an early Certificate of Occupancy. August 21 the

property owner was present for the inspection. Had no interior access to the dwelling.

September 4 the property owner again was present, not a whole lot had been done

from the orders. The property owner had asked for more time, but it was explained

due to the long-term noncompliance and notifications that we were going to take

enforcement action with the building. We sent it to Vacant Buildings.

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 2 Vacant Building

September 5, 2024 per Inspector Hesse he notes the house appeared occupied. He

went back September 12 and noted again it was occupied and sent orders to vacate.

September 19 notes house appears occupied and sent another letter.

Moermond: Ms. Shaff, is there a date in here on when it should be vacated because

the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked?

Shaff: the August 21 letter says reinspection September 4, 2024 at 11 am or the

property vacated by August 31, 2024.

Pusenyak: I feel like I complied. I put up the boards on the windows. I don’t have

evidence, but I felt like I complied with the orders. Even in August I did work on the

house even though the inspector said I did not. I cut all the brush and worked as

much as I could. There were only like 2 items left. I haven’t gone up to the roof yet.

Garage wasn’t painted yet, but I was working on the soffits so I could paint them the

same day. I feel like I was working on it.

Claudia (wife of Pusenyak): one of the ladies say they left, and I don’t know what kind

of message that was on July 8. We didn’t receive that message, probably because

we were outside of the Country. We were gone all of July. When we came back from

our travel we started to work on all of these deficiencies. We didn’t know it was two

departments, Fire Certificate of Occupancy and Vacant Buildings. We were confused

about that.

Moermond: the basis of your appeal is you trimmed the bushes, you boarded the

window of the garage, you were working on it and were gone the month of July. Is

that the sum of it?

Pusenyak: pretty much. I got the first letter in March. I just didn’t understand the point

about the garage. We left the country in July

Moermond: it doesn’t appear you appealed any of these orders.

Pusenyak: I didn’t know I could.

Moermond: Ms. Jones, why are you appealing?

Jones: I’ve lived here 11 years. We haven’t had inspectors come out like this ever

over some bushes. I don’t know if he’s picking on us because we’re people of color or

what. I only have one son, he’s 12, who lives here. They busted the windows using

the basketball hoop. I tried to fix it with plastic, but it keeps coming down. Zoltan cut

everything down and replaced the window with a board that looks nicer. They say we

have to be out in 5 days. Where can we go? Who would put a family out now,

homelessness is on the rise. If you’re working with Zoltan you should let the renter

know what is going on too. Better communication, he’s the owner but you have real

life people living there. Can I stay, or do we need to move ASAP? He’s been working

diligently on the house. I’m livid right now. Some trees don’t make it uninhabitable. It

is all little cosmetic things. This is insane to me.

Moermond: we have the most recent letter with the inspection September 4. Mr.

Pusenyak, do you have that?

Pusenyak: yes, with 20 items? We finished them all.

Jones: he fixed all of it, put up smoke detectors. Everything has been done. The trees

were done before the fourth.

Moermond: the first thought I have is it sounds like there wasn’t communication or

agreement between owner and inspector about original orders and the interactions in

March through May. It got continued to be a full Certificate of Occupancy issue in

July. You were out of the Country. The next appointment was in August, you were

there. The property owner was there but the tenant didn’t allow access. September

there was access but no action. I guess I’m in a place where I’d like to see this fixed,

at the same time it is frustrating it had to come to this place to get it dealt with. I’d like

to see another bite at the apple, if we can get you out of the Vacant Building program

I’m all for that. When you say you finish things Mr. Pusenyak, in particular with the

driveway. That may be longer-term, also the hardwired smoke detector. Those are

dealt with as well?

Pusenyak: I asked the tenant not to park in the back for now, just in front of the

garage. The smoke detector was working.

Moermond: Ms. Shaff, item one can you explain more?

Shaff: the smoke alarm in the bedroom was missing. The inspector made the

decision, typically we’re back within 24 hours, but because there was a hardwired

one outside the bedroom it wasn’t 24 hours. Requirements have changed over the

years; additional smoke alarms are required. That smoke alarm needs to be

replaced.

Moermond: that sounds like an easy fix. Let’s get an inspector out there to see if we

can’t get this signed off on. I know Fire Certificate of Occupancy is short staffed, can

you get someone out in two to three weeks.

Shaff: given the allegations against the inspector I will go with. We could do this

Monday October 14 at 1 pm.

Pusenyak: yes, that works. To clarify about the smoke detector, one was missing and

that is being found. The tenant found it.

Shaff: we’ll check that when we come out. If it is over 10 years old it is expired, so

double check it.

Pusenyak: some of this stuff is just ridiculous.

Moermond: so we have that. We have an inspection set. We’ll talk on the 22nd and if

you have your Certificate of Occupancy reinstated we’ll be set.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 10/22/2024

RLH VBR 24-60 Appeal of Romisha Jones, Tenant, to a Vacant Building Registration

Notice and Code Compliance Inspection Letter at 1024 MINNEHAHA