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  
651-266-8585  
Thursday, April 21, 2022  
9:00 AM  
Remote  
9:00 a.m. Hearings  
Special Tax Assessments  
1
RLH TA 22-152  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 755  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE WEST. (File No. CG2104A3-1, Assessment No.  
210117)  
Thao  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Elsie Mayard appeared via phone  
Moermond: you have two appealed special assessments for garbage hauling  
Mayard: everything is going to the court. No one listens to me about the garbage. I  
have false bills and am ignored and discriminated against. No one listens to what I  
have to say including you. We have to go to court with this matter. I’ve been treated  
unfairly. I’m not sure what you’re talking about but it’s a big problem. That’s why we are  
going to court with this thing. Someone will explain how they discriminate against me.  
You ignore me and treat me differently than any other person. Whatever is going on, I  
don’t know. This is piled up very big. You know what you did. So I have my case in  
court and you’re going to be a part of it. you’ll be a defendant on why you cause me  
hardship and discriminate against me. This is not fair how you treat me. We’ll go from  
there, ok?  
Moermond: I do take a different position and don’t believe I have—  
Mayard: oh you know. You ignore me. I even go to court and you ignore me. It has  
been going on a long time. All you want to do is charge me, charge me, charge me.  
You ignore me and tell the Council not to do anything. Chris Swanson, no one wants to  
bother. Good luck in court. You can explain the racism going on in St. Paul.  
Moermond: can I confirm you don’t want a hearing this morning?  
Mayard: what hearing? You charge me $900 in assessments falsely doing this to me.  
This is very stressful. We have had several meetings. You ignore everything I say to  
you. Do you understand what I’m saying? You charge me $900 in assessments and I  
have no idea why I’m paying. You say I have no right to know. The garbage thing you  
charge whatever you wanted to.  
Moermond: you filed an appeal for the assessment of third and fourth quarter bills for  
garbage service of 2021. If you don’t want to have a hearing that is fine, but it was that  
appeal that triggered this phone call.  
Mayard: you’re confusing me. This has been piling up. Charging me $900 assessment  
for garbage. I have no rights and you do whatever you want to me. I don’t know what  
you’re charging me for. You never let me ask questions. You ignore everything I tell  
you. Everything is black and white on paper. I have no idea what is going on right now.  
There’s so much piled up. I do not know what you charge me and what is going on.  
You charge whatever I want and say I have no right to know [anything]. Listen, I don’t  
know what service you provide to me, you say I have no right to know.  
Moermond: you filed the appeal and if you’d prefer to handle this in a different way  
that’s fine with me.  
Mayard: yeah we’ll do it a different way. Yeah, you say I have no right to know anything.  
All those assessments to my property taxes. You say I have no right to know  
[anything]. Intentionally to cause me hardship. That’s’ what they are doing. We have a  
law and no one above it. Thanks. [hangs up]  
Moermond: unfortunately we weren’t able to do a staff report explaining the charges.  
Being unable to do the hearing and since I’m not hearing a reason for reduction, I  
recommend approval of the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
2
RLH TA 22-153  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 755  
MINNEHAHA AVENUE WEST. (File No. CG2201A2, Assessment No.  
220101)  
Thao  
Sponsors:  
Approve the assessment.  
Elsie Mayard appeared via phone  
Moermond: you have two appealed special assessments for garbage hauling  
Mayard: everything is going to the court. No one listens to me about the garbage. I  
have false bills and am ignored and discriminated against. No one listens to what I  
have to say including you. We have to go to court with this matter. I’ve been treated  
unfairly. I’m not sure what you’re talking about but it’s a big problem. That’s why we are  
going to court with this thing. Someone will explain how they discriminate against me.  
You ignore me and treat me differently than any other person. Whatever is going on, I  
don’t know. This is piled up very big. You know what you did. So I have my case in  
court and you’re going to be a part of it. you’ll be a defendant on why you cause me  
hardship and discriminate against me. This is not fair how you treat me. We’ll go from  
there, ok?  
Moermond: I do take a different position and don’t believe I have—  
Mayard: oh you know. You ignore me. I even go to court and you ignore me. It has  
been going on a long time. All you want to do is charge me, charge me, charge me.  
You ignore me and tell the Council not to do anything. Chris Swanson, no one wants to  
bother. Good luck in court. You can explain the racism going on in St. Paul.  
Moermond: can I confirm you don’t want a hearing this morning?  
Mayard: what hearing? You charge me $900 in assessments falsely doing this to me.  
This is very stressful. We have had several meetings. You ignore everything I say to  
you. Do you understand what I’m saying? You charge me $900 in assessments and I  
have no idea why I’m paying. You say I have no right to know. The garbage thing you  
charge whatever you wanted to.  
Moermond: you filed an appeal for the assessment of third and fourth quarter bills for  
garbage service of 2021. If you don’t want to have a hearing that is fine, but it was that  
appeal that triggered this phone call.  
Mayard: you’re confusing me. This has been piling up. Charging me $900 assessment  
for garbage. I have no rights and you do whatever you want to me. I don’t know what  
you’re charging me for. You never let me ask questions. You ignore everything I tell  
you. Everything is black and white on paper. I have no idea what is going on right now.  
There’s so much piled up. I do not know what you charge me and what is going on.  
You charge whatever I want and say I have no right to know [anything]. Listen, I don’t  
know what service you provide to me, you say I have no right to know.  
Moermond: you filed the appeal and if you’d prefer to handle this in a different way  
that’s fine with me.  
Mayard: yeah we’ll do it a different way. Yeah, you say I have no right to know anything.  
All those assessments to my property taxes. You say I have no right to know  
[anything]. Intentionally to cause me hardship. That’s’ what they are doing. We have a  
law and no one above it. Thanks. [hangs up]  
Moermond: unfortunately we weren’t able to do a staff report explaining the charges.  
Being unable to do the hearing and since I’m not hearing a reason for reduction, I  
recommend approval of the assessment.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
3
RLH TA 22-154  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1187  
MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. CG2201A1, Assessment No.  
220100)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: the property owner stated they had paid their Quarter 4,  
2021 invoice. Hauler records show they did make a payment of $189.77 which was  
applied to the Quarter 4 invoice however it didn’t include the late fees, hence the  
assessment. The hauler has asked we remove the assessment.  
Moermond: and the hauler will be responsible for that?  
Pillsbury: yes.  
Moermond: perfect, so recommended.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
4
RLH TA 22-159  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1690  
ORANGE AVENUE EAST. (File No. CG2201A2, Assessment No.  
220101)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: the property owner stated they purchased in October of  
2021 and paid their portion of the Quarter 4 invoice. They purchased October 25, 2021.  
Hauler did not receive payment from the current property owner the current owner was  
billed from October 25 to March 31, 2022. Since the hauler could not provide us  
information on why the current property owner was assessed for Quarter 4, 2021 staff  
recommends removing.  
Moermond: again, the hauler picks up the cost?  
Pillsbury: yes.  
Moermond: great, so recommended.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
5
RLH TA 22-135  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 666  
ORLEANS STREET. (File No. CG2201A1, Assessment No. 220100)  
Noecker  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: the property owner stated they already paid Republic for  
Quarter 4, 2021. Hauler records show they didn’t make a payment during this service  
period, but they did submit a vacancy hold from July 15, 2021 to November 30, 2021  
and they were credited for this time period. However the hauler is requesting the  
assessment be removed as a courtesy  
Moermond: again, hauler is picking up the tab, so recommended.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
10:00 a.m. Hearings  
RLH TA 22-155  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 790  
6
GERANIUM AVENUE EAST. (File No. CG2201A2, Assessment No.  
220101)  
Yang  
Sponsors:  
Reduce assessment from $109.06 to $64.39.  
Louis, language line interpreter, appeared via phone  
Francisco Ochoa, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
[Louis was disconnected, Language Line called back, different interpreter appeared]  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: property owner is appealing because they stated they  
broken their arm in December 2021 and were unable to work so they would like the  
assessment removed. The Citywide policy is that all residential properties with up to  
four units, including rental homes and town homes, are required to have a garbage cart  
and receive garbage service for each dwelling unit. As garbage service was provided  
from October - December 2021, staff recommends approving the assessment. Staff  
would also like to note that the property owner is currently paying for a 64-gallon cart  
and has the ability to reduce their service level to a 35-gallon cart with every other  
week pick up.  
Ochoa: May 15 I will have another surgery, and I’ve already had 3. I had one in October  
or November of last year and one 15 days ago, and I don’t have income.  
Moermond: I can help in a couple of ways; I can’t make the assessment go away. But  
we can talk about how assessments work and decrease this one.  
Ochoa: I understand but I don’t have money to pay for anything, that’s why I was  
looking for help. I’ve had issues since the pandemic started. I caught the Coronavirus.  
Moermond: what level of service does he have now?  
Pillsbury: the January through March assessment is for $64.39 so it is less than what  
a 65 gallon cart would be. I cannot confirm what size he does have without confirming  
with the hauler.  
Moermond: do you have a cart that is the same size as recycling cart or smaller?  
Ochoa: it’s a little bit smaller.  
Moermond: perfect. What I’m looking at today is an assessment for $109.06. Because  
you decreased your cart size, I’m going to decrease this to that smaller cart amount,  
down to $64.39. A $40 savings. I can tell you that these assessments, the fourth  
quarter of last year and first quarter of this year upcoming, those would show up on the  
2023 tax bill. So you aren’t looking at that as something that needs to be paid now.  
Ochoa: as I was saying, I don’t have income and I can’t do anything until I am better.  
Moermond: do you have a mortgage and pay your taxes through our mortgage, or pay  
them on their own?  
Ochoa: I pay it on my own.  
Moermond: your first half bill is coming due in May of over $1,000, you need to contact  
the property tax office if you will have trouble paying that.  
Ochoa: I’ve been paying more than $2,000 for my taxes, the garbage isn’t supposed to  
be charging that much because I’ve been paying my taxes every year.  
Moermond: understood. The charge for service is different from your property taxes,  
but if it goes unpaid it goes to special assessment and can be added to next year’s tax  
bill.  
Ochoa: I don’t owe money.  
Moermond: no, no, you do pay your taxes on time. I just wanted to explain that’s where  
this was going. I didn’t mean to cause alarm.  
Ochoa: ok. What am I supposed to do? Should I pay something or what because I  
don’t have income now.  
Moermond: my recommendation is that you do not pay the hauling bill and let it go to  
the property taxes for next year so it is delayed to a point where you have better health  
and income. If you do think you’ll have trouble paying this year’s taxes, and I don’t have  
any information on that, I was going to give you the tax number to reach out to them.  
Ochoa: that is what I’m saying. I’m asking for help. What am I supposed to do?  
Moermond: you can reach the property tax office at 651-666-2000.  
Ochoa: ok.  
Moermond: if you will have trouble paying your first half taxes May 16, you should talk  
to them. I’m not sure what recourses they have.  
Ochoa: I still don’t do my property taxes.  
Moermond: I don’t understand.  
Ochoa: I’m telling you I haven’t done my taxes for this year.  
Moermond: right, they aren’t due yet. If you like I can have someone reach out to you  
directly with resources.  
Ochoa: yes, please.  
Moermond: I’ll have them call you. Hopefully they have helpful information. I can only  
discuss your garbage service, which I realize is a drop in the bucket with all you are  
dealing with.  
Ochoa: that would be helpful.  
Moermond: I’ll have them call you.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
7
RLH TA 22-156  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 884  
MOUND STREET. (File No. CG2201A3, Assessment No. 220102)  
Prince  
Sponsors:  
Reduce assessment from $79.36 to $59.23.  
Larry Hall, owner, appeared via phone  
[Moermond gives background of appeals process]  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: property owner stated they don’t want to use the service  
so they shouldn’t have to pay. Staff comments are that under citywide garbage service,  
all residential properties with up to four units, including rental homes and town homes,  
are required to have a garbage cart and receive garbage service for each dwelling unit.  
Property owners must provide garbage service for all occupied dwellings. There is no  
option to opt out of the citywide garbage service. The property owner is responsible for  
the outstanding charge as service as provided. This is for q 4, 2022 for a cost of  
$79.36  
Moermond: why are you appealing Mr. Hall?  
Hall: my wife died September 18; a short time previous to that we got this new service.  
That situation yes, we did have garbage. However, she passed away and I am not a  
cook, and I would have coffee and PB toast for many months. I dropped 70 lbs. That’s  
how I was living. There was no garbage to be hauled, no matter what. None. Zero. I  
stopped doing it. There was no reason to be connected to the City doing the work they  
do, lifting an empty barrel for garbage when there was no garbage. My wife was 88  
years old when she died, and I’m going on 81. There is no reason for me to be told you  
must pay for something that doesn’t exist. That shouldn’t be done to anyone. If you  
want to look at it differently than a lawyer, it is fraudulent. There is nothing to take. I’ve  
had this discussion with the sanitary people when I suggested the lawyers get together  
and change the rules because there are plenty of people like this. they shouldn’t be  
charged for something that can’t be done. It isn’t right. The rule of law can’t be twisted  
into something else. That’s not right. Period. I have lived here for 40 years. I wasn’t a  
cook, my wife was. Now she’s gone. There is no garbage. Finally I had some nice  
talks with the sanitary people. I said listen, there is no reason for the contract to exist  
for people who don’t have garbage. She said maybe in another year we’ll talk about it.  
We can change the ordinance in 10 minutes. It would help a lot of people when they’re  
up in ages. 15 minutes during a lunch our it can be over with. That’s the way the rule of  
law works. The other thing that came up, which is sickening, they talk about taking  
your property away. We’ve owned this house for 40 years. Then we have this bill for not  
using the service. The lawyers need to wake up and think about the elderly people that  
have been retired for 30 years. Anyone who can think straight knows this. I told them if  
you’re going to send me bills for garbage that doesn’t exist, you are doing it wrong. It  
has to be changed in certain instances. If my wife was still alive, we used it. there are  
things you can’t crate. An ordinance is similar to the rule of law. It is simple, just  
change it. let it go when there is nothing to take. I told them to take the can. It is my  
property. They are trespassing. I talked with them. You can’t make everyone a soldier.  
That’s military. I lived in Japan for six years. this isn’t a foreign country like  
communists in China. They need to get their rule of law changed for the people paying  
taxes. It is that simple. No arguments, fights, anything. Put taxes against their house?  
That is not what people go to war for to defend this country. I’m not a kid. I’ve been  
around long time.  
Moermond: first, let me express my condolences for the loss of your wife. That is a  
difficult life circumstance. Your comments are correct in so far as the contract and  
ordinance need to be reviewed and that is something happening right now and receiving  
community comments for circumstances like yours. Right now we’re about three-fifths  
of the way through the 5 year contract. That current contract requires every  
single-family home through four-plex must be in the program. In cases like yours, I  
have a practice to decrease the amount of bill to lowest level of service. Right now you  
have every week 35 gallon pickup. We could get it down a bit, which I realize isn’t  
addressing your real want which is being out of the program. That’s the best I can do,  
and I can do it for this assessment and moving forward. I think you have comments for  
the Council, but that is what I can offer at the moment.  
Hall: the organization doing the pickup has eliminated a lot of money they have had  
before. But it requires me around $60. I spoke to the lady a year ago on the phone.  
Why don’t you set something up like once a month a certain day and they can pay like  
that? Or every two months. Something to put in the barrel. Frankly, some of the people  
don’t have any at all. It should be zero.  
Moermond: I appreciate your comments and I think you are speaking for a lot of  
people we hear from who don’t generate much garbage and want alternative solutions.  
You aren’t alone in that. We are in this situation now for a bit longer. Your comments  
will be pointed out the Councilmembers. I wish we could fix this over lunch, but it has  
to wait until the next contract. Ms. Pillsbury, what is the charge for every other week?  
Pillsbury: $59.23.  
Moermond: let’s go ahead and ill decrease this down to $59.23. Moving forward confirm  
we have the lowest level of service.  
Hall: I have a bill now for $59 now.  
Moermond: that’s the lowest we can get it now but hopefully in the future—  
Hall: this is my property; I want you to remove the barrel from my property and if you do  
it again I’ll sue you for transgression. It is against the law to not take it. I wasn’t really  
angry when I talked to him. I have the right end of the law, if you don’t take the barrel  
I’ll go after you. That makes it going in both direction. That’s a half and half type thing.  
Moermond: you can certainly pursue the legal avenues you think are right for you. My  
recommendation will be to decrease this assessment in the amount I just said. How  
you want to litigate is up to you.  
Hall: the attorneys that did this are not following the rule of law. That needs to be  
thought about seriously. They have a habit of doing that. Paying for something you are  
not able to do because there is not garbage.  
Moermond: thank you sir. Enjoy the nice weather today.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
8
RLH TA 22-158  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1605  
WESTERN AVENUE NORTH. (File No. CG2201A2, Assessment No.  
220101)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: the property owner stated they had a hold and shouldn’t  
have to pay. Current hauler records show that the first contact with the property  
regarding a temporary service hold was in February 2022. Based on the inquiry, the  
service hold was back dated to January 1, 2022. The property owner stated that they  
originally reached out to the hauler in November 2021 and was able to provide  
documentation of an email from the hauler that was sent on November 24, 2021and  
included instructions on how to request a temporary service hold as well as the  
temporary service hold form. The property owner stated that they filled out the  
temporary service hold form and mailed it back to hauler. The form appears to not  
have been applied as city records show that the property owner submitted an inquiry to  
the city on February 1, 2022 to find out why the temporary service hold had not been  
applied to the account. As a response to the inquiry, the hauler stated that customer  
service representative had found the application for the temporary service hold after  
speaking to the property owner and had applied the temporary service hold to be  
effective as of January 1, 2022. Based on the fact that there does appear to have been  
a delay in applying the temporary service hold, staff recommends removing the  
assessment.  
Moermond: so recommended.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
9
RLH TA 22-117  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 574  
WHEELOCK PARKWAY EAST (File No. CG2104A2-1, Assessment No.  
220104)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Delete the assessment.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: this is for quarter 3, 2021. The property owner appealed  
because it was for the previous property owner’s account. They purchased April 1,  
2021. May 9, 2021 they set up a new account. The CSR did this but didn’t cancel the  
account for the previous property owner. Therefore both accounts were billed for  
Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 of 2021. Since the current property owner paid their Quarter 3,  
2021 invoice in full on August 16, 2021 the assessed amount represents the amount  
invoiced to the previous property owner's account, plus three additional late fees. We  
recommend removal of this assessment since the property owner was double billed.  
Moermond: not good, recommend deletion. That has been communicated to the  
property owner?  
Pillsbury: yes.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
10  
RLH TA 22-119  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 574  
WHEELOCK PARKWAY EAST. (File No. CG2201A1, Assessment No.  
220100)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Reduce assessment from $232.76 to $101.20.  
No one appeared  
Staff report by Clare Pillsbury: they stated they sent a money order to the hauler or the  
City. When they spoke to Waste Management they were told they hadn’t received this  
payment. The property owner believes it may have been sent to the City. Both City and  
hauler records shows that there were no payments made for the Quarter 4 invoice and  
assessment. There was a money gram that was purchased by the property owner in  
the amount of $242.38 on November 8, 2021. After calling the MoneyGram customer  
service line, staff confirmed that the MoneyGram was never cashed. However, it  
appears as though the property owner was incorrectly assessed during this time period.  
The current property owner purchased the property on April 1, 2021 and on May 9, 2021  
called the hauler to set up a new account. The CSR did this but did not cancel the  
account for the previous property owner. Therefore both accounts were billed for  
Quarter 3 and Quarter 4 2021. Since the Quarter 4 2021 assessment includes the  
invoices for both accounts, staff recommends reducing the assessment to $116.38.  
This would be for original invoiced amount of $101.20 as well as three late fees.  
Moermond: MoneyGram was purchased November 8. So if the bill would have been  
paid November 9, there would be one late fee attached?  
Pillsbury: yes.  
Moermond: I’m going to recommend it is reduced to $101.20 because there was  
confusion and a good faith effort by the property owner to pay in a timely fashion.  
Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022  
11:00 a.m. Hearings  
11  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 559  
CASE AVENUE. (File No. CG2104A3-1, Assessment No. 220103)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH May 3 at 3 pm. Unable to reach PO.  
Voicemail left at 11:17 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling  
you about your appealed special tax assessment for 559 Case. We’ll try you back in  
about 5 minutes.  
Voicemail left at 11:23 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling  
you again about your appealed tax assessment for 559 Case. At this point I would say  
we would need to talk to you before your hearing May 25. One last chance since we  
had the wrong number last time. We’ll try calling you on Tuesday, May 3 between 3 and  
4 pm to talk about this.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/3/2022  
12  
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 559  
CASE AVENUE. (File No. CG2201A3, Assessment No. 220102)  
Brendmoen  
Sponsors:  
Layover to LH May 3 at 3 pm. Unable to reach PO.  
Voicemail left at 11:17 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling  
you about your appealed special tax assessment for 559 Case. We’ll try you back in  
about 5 minutes.  
Voicemail left at 11:23 am: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City Council calling  
you again about your appealed tax assessment for 559 Case. At this point I would say  
we would need to talk to you before your hearing May 25. One last chance since we  
had the wrong number last time. We’ll try calling you on Tuesday, May 3 between 3 and  
4 pm to talk about this.  
Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/3/2022