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, May 17, 2022

9:00 AM

Room 330 City Hall & Court House or Remote

9:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 22-175

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2229

DOSWELL AVENUE. (File No. J2222A, Assessment No. 228524)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Continue PH to October 12, 2022 and if no same or similar violations reduce

assessment from $322 to $161.

Josh Taulbee, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order to remove snow

and ice issued February 2, 2022 with a compliance date of February 5. Rechecked on

February 7 and found in noncompliance. Parks performed the abatement on February

8 for a total assessment of $322.

Moermond: and in reviewing the video it looked like it was shoveled narrowly down the

middle but not the entire width of the sidewalk. Why are you appealing today?

Taulbee: I did get the notice. We do struggle with this being a high traffic sidewalk so

when conditions are the way they were last year people walk to the U of M very early. It

gets compacted. I did get the notice and it was too cold to use the salt. I did chip away

with ice. The notice didn’t say it needed to be cleared from grass line to grass line. I

did clear a path, which the video shows. They said they widened the path in the video.

Moermond: I have some climate data I look at and it looks like we had four inches of

snow between January 22 and 24, then negligible snow through mid-February. So this

originated the preceding month.

Taulbee: we were getting light snow that barely registered but it gets compacted

immediately with the foot traffic.

Moermond: the ice on the edges is significant in depth, it clearly hadn’t been done for a

long period. I get it was cold in February. The last week of January was warmer, salt

would have worked. Before the orders were written and some days after. I do notice

that you don’t have a history of orders on the property. This is work that the City did.

The order itself does say full length and width of sidewalk and sidewalk ramp. Width is

grass to grass.

Taulbee: ok. I did make a good effort to clear. I remember this was more difficult. I

always make a point to get out and clear it, but it froze rock solid and I was out for

hours chipping at ice before the work order came in.

Moermond: I understand. I see a .3 and a .3 snowfall, maybe half an inch which

doesn’t account for depth of the ice.

Taulbee: probably not for the edges. It is a wide sidewalk. Again, I’ve been here 8

years and this was a very unusual winter. I remember it well. I agree the edges were

thicker because I wasn’t getting it edge to edge each time. I did clear the middle to the

best of my ability with the equipment available.

Moermond: I think they go down the middle since the rest isn’t available. The City did

do work and I want to give you credit for your good history. Right now you have a Public

Hearing scheduled June 22. I’m going to push it to October 12 and if there are no

same or similar violations I’ll recommend this is cut in half. The City does deserve

some recompense for the work it did clearing the sidewalk

Taulbee: absolutely. That sounds very fair.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-190

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1010

EDGERTON STREET. (File No. VB2208, Assessment No. 228807)

(Amend to reduce)

Yang

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $2,284 to $571.

Matthew Heiman, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: this is the annual Vacant Building fee

applied prospectively. It went into the program in November of 2019. The anniversary

date this past year a waiver was given by the inspector for 30 days and it wasn’t signed

off so it went to assessment. Total proposed assessment of $2,284. The project was

closed four and a half months after that anniversary date.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Heiman: as I stated in my email, first I’m asking if it can be prorated. I was hoping to

be done with the project by January 1 but I wasn’t able to meet that deadline. I am

hoping to get it prorated because I don’t want to pay $2,000 for a building that isn’t

vacant that whole time. There is no burden on the City anymore.

Moermond: you spent about four and a half months out of 12 in the program. You did

get a small waiver and you didn’t finish. I’m going to recommend one-fourth the fee

down to $571. If you are looking for more you can ask the Council and testify to them.

But I’ll recommend that proration.

Referred to the City Council due back on 5/18/2022

RLH TA 22-189

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1654

EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. J2208B, Assessment No. 228107)

(Legislative Hearing on May 17, 2022)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment and make payable over four years.

Linda Sullivan, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: we have two assessments on the agenda and then I want to talk to you

about some other things going on at your property and see if we can do a little problem

solving. The first item is a boarding assessment from December. [Moermond gives

background of appeals process]

Staff report by Joe Yannarelly: according to the police report they responded to an

attempted burglary on Monday December 27, 2021 at 8:54 p.m. They found the

dwelling open to entry and called in a contractor to secure on an emergency basis with

metal fasteners. Total proposed assessment of $532.

Moermond: you are appealing the cost of this securing, what are you looking for?

Sullivan: I feel like I’m being punished because someone robbed my house. There

were 2 girls and they were both caught. One had several warrants. The one was told to

come back on a Tuesday but she never showed up. The other was set to have bail

with these warrants against her and they have never seen her either. They were let

loose. I’m getting punished and they should be charged, not me. I heard from the

police officers say my yard was bad. I had six people clean my yard immaculately in

October, all of a sudden I’m getting these fees. They said they secured the building

yet squatters got in afterwards, so how secure could it be? they opened it up like a can

of tuna. I was in the hospital for 52 days and then sent to a rehab center and am now

learning to walk. There were times I worked 3 jobs to keep the house and I’ve tried to

make it look good from the outside. New windows, roof, siding, chimney. Now I get all

these bills, it isn’t fair. The squatters arrested 2 weeks ago should be charged some of

these too. My yard was clean.

Moermond: let’s take this one at a time. You have one assessment for securing the

house and one for cleaning up the yard. So the securing after the robbery. You’re

saying they should be held accountable; I don’t think you’re wrong. The City can’t do

that. It would be your responsibility to seek restitution for the cost of that. Or maybe

your insurance company.

Sullivan: I was unconscious and my insurance was coming due. I wasn’t able to pay

those bills and I had to put a freeze on everything because the robbers kept going

after everything. They spent 3 months’ worth of social security. They bounced six

checks. They changed my address and my number so they could get my social

security directly. What about the judge who let this girl go with all these warrants? The

judge should be responsible personally. I think this is really unfair. I am going to

address the City Council about putting vacant properties on mine. It is an open

invitation to these people.

Moermond: with all due respect, the sign indicating it is a Vacant Building didn’t go up

until April 22 which is four months after this incident. It isn’t relevant for this

assessment, though it may be moving forward. I hear you saying you are frustrated

with the Court system and your insurance had a problem since you didn’t make the

payment. I assume they cancelled your policy for nonpayment?

Sullivan: yes.

Moermond: did you check with the Minnesota insurance division or seek legal counsel?

I think you could get it reinstated due to your medical condition. I have heard of that

happening. I don’t know if you’ve explored that but that may be in your interest. We can

help you get contacts with those offices and see what can be done with your

insurance. Was your medical insurance paid?

Sullivan: Medicare paid a majority of that and they put me on Minnesota insurance

beyond that because I didn’t have insurance before. I’ve been healthy my whole life.

They didn’t cover anything I needed so why bother? I don’t mind the boarding but I do

mind the cleaning up of my yard. That shouldn’t be my responsibility.

Moermond: let’s finish the boarding. It is the police officers responsibly to make sure it

is not open to entry. Traditionally people file with their insurance company for losses

including this one. For this assessment I’m going recommend approval. We have a

couple of assessments now and some down the line. Would it be useful to have them

divided over a number of years?

Sullivan: yes, but they supposedly secured it but squatters still got in.

Moermond: Mr. Yannarelly, can you explain what you did in this case?

Yannarelly: I go and make sure the contractor does what they said they do. Just

securing the door won’t make it foolproof of someone getting in again. As. Ms.

Moermond said this wasn’t even a Vacant Building for 3 more months.

Sullivan: the police told me it was considered vacant in early January.

Moermond: it was, but there was no sign until early April. How long were you gone from

the property?

Sullivan: I was at my mother’s house, which was robbed first, to clean it out and sell it.

Her house was robbed first and then they came to my house.

Moermond: the same people?

Sullivan: yes, the same people.

Moermond: how long were you out of the property on Edmund?

Sullivan: I was there on the 27 and 28 October when I passed out and was there until

October 31 passed out. Then I went to the hospital.

Moermond: have you been back since then?

Sullivan: I haven’t because I can’t walk. I do have stage 4 cancer so I’m trying to get

everything situated. I am having problems because the cops call Ramsey County and

want me to sell both houses and move into an apartment or assisted living. I said no. I

thought about putting my house up to rent for the SuperBowl. I didn’t do it.

Moermond: the police report in December said it was completely trashed and the

garbage in your house was waist high throughout. Your house has been completely

trashed inside, which translates to the mess in the yard. I get you didn’t do it. This is a

big problem. That isn’t going to do well over the summer. It could devalue your house.

Rotting garbage is a terrible problem.

Sullivan: I understand the people who robbed my mom’s house and then came to mine

lived in the house for a month.

Moermond: and they weren’t being considerate about removing their garbage. It sounds

like you have good friends, do you have someone to help you get this cleaned out? It

sounds like it is beyond your control to deal with it and I’m concerned moving forward

that was once a lovely house is about to crash in value and not leave any equity. Do

you want to take steps to prevent it from getting worse?

Sullivan: I have asked people and they said they would give me a ride and when I call

them they won’t do it. They put my belongings in my car and stole it, and then the City

sold it January 13. Now I don’t have a car. I know I’m going to clean out that house

even if I have to do it alone.

Moermond: normally when I a house is this bad a crew has to go in and get several

dumpsters. It would take me personally weeks to get through that stuff, with a sound

body. Mr. Yannarelly, can you touch on the scope of this?

Yannarelly: it is tragic under these circumstances. She won’t recognize her place after

people have lived there illegally for months.

Sullivan: I want to go see what is gone first. I don’t want anyone in the house.

Yannarelly: right now it is being monitored by the Vacant Building inspector and the

police. They’ve secured it 3 additional times in the last 3 weeks. It is being secured.

Moermond: I have an idea Ms. Sullivan, but it would require your permission and the ok

from Vacant Building staff. What if you give permission for staff to go in and shoot a

video of what is going on? That would give you peace of mind about where things are at

exactly. Would you prefer a friend to do it?

Sullivan: I think I’m going to have someone take me there myself.

Moermond: you’ll have trouble navigating in the house. They wrote that in December.

The house has been broken into multiple times since then. I can only imagine its

worse now. Sit with those facts. The securing for December I will recommend approval

and divided it over four years.

Referred to the City Council due back on 5/18/2022

RLH TA 22-191

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1654

EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. J2218A, Assessment No. 228518)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $450 to $350 and make payable over 4 years.

Linda Sullivan, owner, appeared via phone

Moermond: next we have the cleanup of the exterior of the yard.

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order issued by

Kedrowski to remove of trash bags and contents, full barrel of trash and

miscellaneous household items and debris from year yard and deck. Orders issued

December 28, 2021 with a compliance date of February 4. Rechecked on January 5

and Parks performed the abatement on January 11, 2022. Total assessment of $450

[Moermond reviews the videos]

Sullivan: what kind of furniture was outside?

Moermond: I don’t see furniture except for an outside sort of bench on the deck as well

as a grill, which they left.

Sullivan: wrought iron?

Moermond: it appears that way. The rest of the yard did have some trash and a plastic

barrel with trash throughout the yard. Some target bags.

Sullivan: that seems overinflating the price.

Moermond: it isn’t cheap to send a crew out and they do charge everything they

possibly can. I heard you and are there other Summary Abatement Orders on the

yard?

Sullivan: yes, there is $1,812.

Moermond: the crew did go but it wasn’t the biggest cleanup. What are your plans for

maintaining the property?

Sullivan: that’s the problem. I had the name of the guy who cleans up in my purse and

they stole my purse. I’ve worked hard to keep and maintain this house. It is all gone in

a minute. The cop is trying to tell me they hired someone to clean out the house and

I’m going somewhere else to live. I said no I’m not. This woman called last week and I

said look I’ve been independent since I was 19. I just paid my taxes yesterday. My

computer is gone.

Moermond: who are you working with at the County?

Sullivan: one was Lauren and someone else called me yesterday. I said I don’t want

your services; I want to do it on my own. I didn’t ask for this. I was given you. Then the

cop told me you’re on the 3rd floor and that is senior living. I was told if I moved up

here I could get physical therapy. I’ve been here 5 weeks and I haven’t seen a physical

therapist yet.

Yannarelly: there is a large abatement of $1,000 a few weeks ago. Mattresses and

appliance fees.

Moermond: this house that was your asset and dream is no longer an asset. It has

become a liability. If it takes you a couple more months know that it will deteriorate

more. I’ve been doing this a long time and this isn’t promising situation. I think you

need to do a list of pros and cons and figure out the best course for you. That may

involve talking to people you trust, financial advisors, real estate professional, lawyers.

Now is the time to do that. I recognize this isn’t the biggest cleanup but I’m not seeing

its being maintained. I will recommend reducing this out of the goodness out of my

heart down to $350 over 5 years. You have other assessments moving forward

including a Vacant Building fee. There were 2 letters that would have gone out to that

effect. Mr. Yannarelly, where were those letters directed and for how much?

Yannarelly: it is around $2,500.

Moermond: it is for monitoring the property. You have what we call a problem property.

And your letters got returned.

Sullivan: Southview Acres in West St. Paul is where I’m living now.

Moermond: we’ll get you a copy of this paperwork.

Sullivan: my computer was stolen and they unlocked those accounts. AOL won’t open

my account.

Moermond: we will send it via mail then. So there’s that fee, plus that large cleanup and

3 additional boardings. This I getting to be a critical situation. I hate to see you go

from a dollhouse to a net zero value to you. The sooner you act the less damage that

will continue to occur. I hear you want to be back and deal with it on your own. I need

you to think that through. I’m guessing you talked to Lauren Ross?

Sullivan: I don’t know.

Moermond: we’ll confirm and see. I do wish you well, we will be talking again.

Sullivan: they told me I couldn’t go in because it was secured.

Moermond: it is your property and you can enter it. You need to make sure it is secure

when you leave.

Sullivan: and they charge me per month?

Moermond: it is a yearly fee. I do have a history of prorating the fee if it is out of the

Vacant Building program. But that’s a future conversation we should be having.

Sullivan: I know the plumbing needs to be done.

Moermond: we don’t have time to discuss those details but don’t make any

assumptions. Your house has been completely trashed. There will be a lot more to do

then when you left in October. I’m sorry to give you that news.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/8/2022

RLH TA 22-179

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2118

HENDON AVENUE. (File No. J2222A, Assessment No. 228524)

Jalali

Sponsors:

Continue PH to October 12, 2022. If no same or similar violations, reduce assessment

from $322 to $161.

Mary Ann Lerner, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: Summary Abatement Order issued to

remove snow and ice February 2, rechecked February 9 and found in noncompliance.

Parks performed the abatement February 10 for a total proposed assessment of $322.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Lerner: my husband was out of the country and I wasn’t opening our mail that was

addressed to him. If I would have seen the first letter I would have been more mindful.

There is so much ice this winter. I always tried. I was out there in the morning and

afternoons. We have a retaining wall so the sun doesn’t melt the snow on that side. I

laid pet friendly ice stuff. It was a rough winter. I am a runner and I was running the

streets because all the sidewalks were bad. We haven’t had this happen in 20 years. I

was thrown that they would come and do this.

Moermond: two letters went out; one went to your husband and one went to occupant.

Lerner: anything that says City I just put in his pile. He pays the bills. If I would have

seen it I would have been out there the best I could. It is hard to get the ice. We have

been here 20 years.

Moermond: the four inches of snow fell between January 22 and 24 and this letter went

out February 2. By the time the crew arrived February 10 it had been a long time since

significant snowfall to have the ice gone. The photograph shows the sidewalks down

the way are all cleared it just is yours that isn’t.

Lerner: they are cleared down that way, but yeah you’re right. They don’t have that

retaining wall. The others melt quicker.

Moermond: I did see that the other side was cleared. The City did do work. The

notification did get to your house, two letters.

Lerner: you understand why I didn’t open it.

Moermond: and that’s a thing within your house, it was not that you weren’t legally

notified.

Lerner: did you see how the blue stuff they dumped damaged my grass. Will that grow

back?

Moermond: I don’t know. It tends to. I don’t see any previous problems at this property

but I do see the City did do work here. I’ll recommend this matter is continued to

October 12, 2022 and if there are no same or similar kinds of problems I’ll recommend

it is reduced from $322 to $161.

Lerner: that seems fair. We just hauled tons of leaves. We’re in the garden club.

Moermond: I wish you a good rest of the day.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-194

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 598

ORANGE AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2222A, Assessment No. 228524)

Yang

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Ann Kuthart, owner, appeared via phone

Adam Kuthart, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Joe Yannarelly: January 31, 2022 a Summary Abatement

Order was issued to remove the fridge, radiator, and tires from rear of yard by the alley.

It was rechecked February 4, found in noncompliance and work order was issued.

Parks did the abatement February 7. There is a note the inspector spoke with the

owners and the work order was being sent. Total proposed assessment of $482.

Moermond: why are you appealing today?

Ann Kuthart: the fridge had been dumped in the alley and Adam called the City to

report the dumping January 31. That same day it was in the middle of the alley. We left

for Washington for a funeral. The letter came while we were gone. We did talk to the

inspector and he was kind enough to say the team was coming out and asked if we

could move it. We said we were in Seattle. There was no way we could move it off of

the alley or into our garage. He said you can appeal.

Moermond: where was the fridge when you originally called it in?

Ann Kuthart: the middle of the alley.

Moermond: who moved it to the side?

Ann Kuthart: someone else moved it. There are 2 alleys along our property, we don’t

use that alley. A neighbor must have.

Moermond: I’m going to recommend the Council delete the assessment. It sounds like

it was in the public right-of-way and was moved by someone for safety purposes.

Ann Kuthart: thank you so much.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

10:00 a.m. Hearings

Special Tax Assessments

RLH TA 22-157

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1492

PORTLAND AVENUE. (File No. J2219A, Assessment No. 228519)

Thao

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Clyde Cutting, owner, appeared via phone

Andrea Cutting – tried calling 11:01 am; no voicemail left

Moermond: I think we can do this without Ms. Cutting’s participation. I referred back to

the notes from the previous meeting and the number of times you reached out to

Waste Management to have them take this. We did get some records from Waste

Management and their records aren’t what I would call complete. They indicate you

called January 26 and 28 but being familiar with Waste Management service in

January 2022 I believe that there was a problem on their end, not yours, with

processing that request. It is for that reason I will recommend this assessment is

deleted.

Cutting: that sounds great. Thank you.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/8/2022

RLH TA 22-177

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 465

BRAINERD AVENUE. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No. 228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Delete the assessment.

Julio Celaya, occupant, appeared via phone

McKayla Murphy, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 26, 2022 a Summary Abatement Order

was issued to occupant as well as McKayla Murphy at this address to dispose of a

mattress and box spring from the rear of the property. Extension was given to February

16. Work was still not done. So the work was done February 18 for a total assessment

of $442. I do have a note that owner spoke with Waste Management and that was

delayed. Just a short history for overhanging vegetation.

Moermond: I see in the notes you reached out to Waste Management for bulky pickup.

What was going on?

Celaya: we have 3 item pickup for residents. May I ask, was there a notice sent for the

extension?

Moermond: original one was sent January 11. I may be able to save some time. I look

at your situation and see a couple things, first what is your garbage day?

Celaya: Thursday

Moermond: I notice that the picture City staff took January 26 shows 4 inches of snow

on top of the mattresses. That is significant to me because the snow fell right before

January 26 and there wasn’t much before that in January. I’m thinking I’m looking at

the same ones you were dealing with at the start of the month. I think that Waste

Management did receive your request and created a ticket for work to happen January

3. They closed that ticket January 6, which is your garbage day. I’m thinking they

closed it without confirming the work was done. There were some quality control issues

going on with Waste Management during that time period. Because of that I’m going to

say you made a good faith effort to address this so I’ll recommend this is deleted.

Celaya: we appreciate that.

Murphy: when it did get picked up we didn’t even realize it was the City. We thought it

was Waste Management.

Moermond: we can email you contact information for the City’s garbage hauling

program so you can reach out to address it in the future.

Celaya: I think it was widely known Waste Management was behind at that time and so

we gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Moermond: don’t give them benefit of the doubt going forward. Reach out to the City so

they know and can address performance expectations. You did your due diligence and

it wasn’t a problem with you not acting.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-192

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 8

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No.

228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Reduce the assessment from $322 to $161.

Haley Atkinson, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: February 8 2022 a notice to remove the snow

and ice from the public sidewalk was issued. We expect the sidewalks are shoveled

full width and salt and sand as needed. Total proposed assessment of $322. This did

have a narrow path, not full width. No history since 2018.

Moermond: Ms. Atkinson, why are you appealing?

Atkinson: I am appealing because I did clear after I was notified. It wasn’t feasible to

do the entire width. There is a 2 foot median between sidewalk and street and the

plows push everything on the sidewalk. All of us on Maryland have a hard time getting

it full width. It was a passable walkway that was salted. It just wasn’t the full width

because it is not feasible. It doesn’t seem like its completely equal for all

homeowners. My neighbor never cleared her pathway the entire winter and the City

never once cleared it. She didn’t do anything. The administrative fee seems

unreasonably high.

Moermond: I can tell you a couple of things. You are correct that is a narrow boulevard

between the sidewalk and Maryland which does make it more difficult to manage that.

It looks like 5 properties in your immediate vicinity had orders issued where the City

did clearing.

Atkinson: I get that, but you never cleared my next door neighbor who literally never

shoveled once. I don’t understand why it is unfair that way.

Moermond: I don’t know what happened, maybe no one complained about that one. Do

you know that address?

Atkinson: the point is I did clear mine. I don’t think it is fair. You can see on the video

they’re sanding on clear sidewalk.

[video is reviewed]

Moermond: the property to the west of you had been cleared a fair bit better than

yours.

Atkinson: she’s elderly lady who has people clear for her.

Moermond: and they did a decent job of it.

Atkinson: I’m a single female living by myself. I can only do so much.

Moermond: this is a busy thoroughfare and I need to consider children and people

getting to busses or how someone with a disability can manage. It looks pretty tricky.

It looks like there was buildup along the retaining wall. Not sure you tried to salt it at

all. It doesn’t look like you did. I say that in particular because the snow fall we are

talking about causing this ice accumulation happened between January 22 and 24

when we got 4 inches. We only had trace amounts between then and February 8, and

no additional snow before the crew show up. So 3 full weeks before the crew arrives.

There was a lot of time to work on it. If the area closer to the retaining wall was salted

you’d probably be able to break it up.

Atkinson: I was ice picking at it. I have someone who can give an affidavit who came

and helped me.

Moermond: and you did make an effort and it didn’t meet the requirements. I need to

know moving forward you change the way you manage the situation so it is more

navigable for people who need to get by. It needs to be better.

Atkinson: I’ve never had issues before. This year was just crummy.

Moermond: and it will happen again. I’m struggling because of the full 3 weeks to deal

with it. That’s plenty of time to use enough salt to clear it.

Atkinson: that was my hope, I was certainly trying.

Moermond: I’m going to recommend this is reduced by half since I believe you made a

good-faith effort. I do have sympathy that you are on Maryland. If you would like more

of a reduction there are instructions in your letter about testifying further. I’ll cut it in

half right now. $322 to $161.

Atkinson: and if I want to do anything further I write a letter?

Moermond: you can email, you can testify, in person or by phone if you sign up earlier.

You can also leave a voicemail.

Atkinson: ok.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-178

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 16

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No.

228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Layover to LH June 7, 2022 at 10 am (unable to reach PO).

Voicemail left at 11:36 am for Tillman: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council calling you about your appealed assessment for 16 East Maryland. We’ll try

you back within the half hour.

Voicemail left at 12:22 pm for Tillman: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council trying to reach you about your appealed assessment for 16 Maryland. We’ve

been unable to reach you to discuss this assessment. I’ll continue this to June 7

between 10 and 11:30 am. We’ll confirm this by email.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/7/2022

RLH TA 22-193

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 20

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No.

228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $322 to $161. Continue PH to October 12, 2022 and if no

same or similar violations further reduce from $161 to $50.

Maren Machles, owner, appeared via phone

Abrahm Neuser appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: February 8, 2022 there was a notice to remove

snow and ice from sidewalk which went to owners and occupant. Compliance date of

February 11, work was not done when it was rechecked. A wheelchair could not get

down the sidewalk. Work was done February 15 for a total assessment of $322. No

history at the property and Maryland is difficult to deal with snow removal.

Neuser: one would be a request for leniency the sidewalk was partially clear. I

understand I didn’t get it to the edge of the walkway but that was due to the fact the

sides were covered in ice which I couldn’t move without a plow. I tried to lessen it by

salting it to eventually remove it. it hadn’t melted enough at that point. Also as can be

seen in the video the work crew did use some sort of plow to remove it which shows it

couldn’t reasonably be removed without use of machinery which I don’t have access

too. I also wanted to point we were charged for a full hour of work which I don’t believe

was the case given the fact the sidewalk is only 25 feet long and they used a plow to

clear the walk.

Moermond: on the second point they charge a minimum of one hour. You wouldn’t be

charged for a portion of an hour. That’s including time to deploy the crew and drive

back. I know it is not the time there. I get it, you are on Maryland and it is tight there

as far as the throw from the plows. You do deal with more snow and ice than others.

I’m sympathetic with that situation. All the same you do own on Maryland and that

happens on a busy street. I think the work you did was okay, not great. Trying to

navigate with a disability on the way to the bus stop would be hard. There were a

number of properties in a row there with issues. On balance there haven’t been any

issues with your property. I’ll recommend to the Council that if you have no same or

similar violations between now and October 12 I’ll recommend this is reduced to $50. If

there is a violation I’ll recommend it is reduced by half, down to $161.

Neuser: that sounds more than fair. Thanks so much.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-176

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 38

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No.

228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $322 to $161. Continue PH to October 12, 2022 and if no

same or similar violations further reduce from $161 to $50.

Sandra Mom Lou, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lis Martin: this was a Summary Abatement Order for snow

and ice issued on February 8, 2022, compliance date of February 11, 2022, rechecked

February 11 and the work was done by Parks on February 15, 2022. Total proposed

assessment of $322.

Moermond: why are you appealing?

Lou: the City sent me a letter and I cleaned the snow. It was wide enough for walking.

Moermond: the problem ended up being the path wasn’t wide enough. I do see you

made an effort and it is cleared down the middle. It would be hard for someone with a

disability or a wheelchair to make it down that. I need to say, you made an effort which

is great and I recognize managing the sidewalk on Maryland is challenging. I know

plows push a lot of snow on the sidewalk and I’m sympathetic to that. You have a good

record at your property of taking care of things. You made some effort ton this. I need

to also be aware it wasn’t for free the City did this. So balancing those things I’ll say I’ll

look at this again October 12. If there are no problems between now and October 12,

like the lawn not being mowed and trash is picked up, I’ll recommend it is reduced to

$50. If there is an issue, I’ll cut it in half down to $161.

Lou: okay, I appreciate it.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-183

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 237

MARYLAND AVENUE EAST. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No.

228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

Chi Nang Ly Bliatia, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process[

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: February 8, 2022 orders were sent to remove

snow and ice to an address in Roseville and White Bear lake. It was rechecked

February 11, 2022. The work was done by park February 15. No returned mail. Total

assessment of $322.

Moermond: why are you appealing today?

Bliatia: usually the tenants take care of the property. When I talked to them they said

they took care of it. Turns out they didn’t take care of it.

Moermond: it doesn’t look like any effort was made to deal with this. Orders were sent

February 8 but it was from four inches of snow from January 22 to 24. Nothing between

then and February 8 so it had already been there a couple of weeks. Negligence

before then. The photographs don’t show any action by the tenant. I’m wondering why

the taxpayers at large should be paying for the shoveling at this property.

Blitia: what do you mean?

Moermond: the taxpayer pays for the crew to do the shoveling. Is it your responsibility

as the property owner to do it or is it everyone else’s?

Bliatia: it is my property. I should be more on top of it.

Moermond: if your tenants don’t do it it is between you and them. It is your private

arrangement. If they don’t do it, it is wise for you to do it. I can’t see where the City

should be taking responsibility. I’ll recommend approval of this assessment.

Bliatia: that’s fine. I was just trying to reduce it since they can’t afford it.

Moermond: that’s something to work out with them. I don’t know your legal

arrangement. It isn’t a public responsibility it is a private responsibility.

Bliatia: it is just kind of expensive.

Moermond: you are right, it isn’t cheap to send a crew out to do it. I do wish you well.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-188

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1805

SAINT CLAIR AVENUE. (File No. J2225A, Assessment No. 228527)

Tolbert

Sponsors:

Approve the assessment.

David Kvavasknik, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: September 15, 2021 we issued a Summary

Abatement Order for a very large branch obstructing the 14 foot clearance in the

right-of-way. Inspector Kedrowski spoke with the property owner and they were having

trouble finding someone to do the work. It was done December 14, 2021. No history at

the property. Total proposed assessment of $1,362.

Moermond: and 90 days before the work was ordered and done by the City. Why are

you appealing?

Kvavasnik: I always thought that if a branch was hanging over the property line it was

their responsibility. I was also aware of the lawsuit with the City and I wondered if this

fell within that.

Moermond: your tree created a nuisance in the public right-of-way. The tree originates

on your property. That overgrown into the right-of-way. That is a use of the City’s police

powers. With respect to the lawsuit there were specific types of charges included in the

right-of-way assessment, like mill and overlay, it didn’t include a branch as a result of

this type of order. You can certainly appeal that. But it wasn’t a service provided under

that assessment. The City is no longer charging for those services, you are correct. It

will be transferred to general property taxes. So we have a charge of $1,362 to bring

that tree to a place where it isn’t blocking passage. It is your tree growing from your

property. I look at tree assessments as part of what I do and in terms of assessments

the cost of $1,200 for a branch that size does seems to be more or less market rate.

Did you have any bids during those months?

Kvavasknik: I had difficulty finding anyone to come out and look. I think there was an

assumption it was a City issue rather than a personal property issue. I also question

whether it was less than 14 feet. I don’t know if anyone actually measured it. I don’t

disagree that the price is fair, I just disagree it was our responsibility to do it. You

make a good point about it being a nuisance condition.

Moermond: I’m also wondering if you disagreed with it constituting a nuisance you didn’t

appeal that September abatement order. That would have been the time to discuss it

actually being a nuisance and talk about timelines.

Kvavasknik: I had a significant case of Covid in September and my wife was in the

hospital.

Moermond: the items from last week’s agenda that were pulled were item 22 through

24. Is this your home?

Kvavasknik: it is a rental property.

Moermond: I can divide this over a couple of years if that is useful. I can go up to 5

years. There is a nominal interest rate. Usually between 3.5 and 4%. If you testify

before Council and they disagree with you, would you like me to still recommend

payments are divided?

Kvavasknik: I don’t want to pay interest.

Moermond: I’ll leave as is then. If you want to testify you can do so.

Kvavasknik: I’d be curious to know, talking about trees impeding the right-of-way and

mill and overlay are all improvements for transit and roads. I’d be curious why trees

aren’t included.

Moermond: well this isn’t a City tree. This is your tree.

Kvavasknik: I’m just simply saying when a tree impedes a neighboring property owner’s

job to do it.

Moermond: and you can definitely pose that to the Council. My read is your property

generated the nuisance condition. The City issued the order which went un-appealed.

The City did the removal of the branch. That’s what I’m looking at. They may look at it

differently. That’s your next stop.

Kvavasknik: I believe not having trees as part of the lawsuit it should possibly be

added. Xcel doesn’t charge for tree trimming. You have the right to remove it as a

nuisance condition. It’s a question of whether people are responsible for trees

overstepping into the right of way.

Moermond: everything you have said is of record and will go before Council and you are

welcome to testify to them as well.

Kvavasknik: thank you ma’am.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH TA 22-184

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 532

SHERBURNE AVENUE. (File No. J2219A, Assessment No. 228519)

Thao

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $478 to $239. Continue PH to October 12, 2022 and if no

same or similar violations further reduce from $239 to $50.

My Dung Thi Nguyen, owner, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: January 6, 2022 we issued a Summary

Abatement Order to remove a couch from the vacant lot by the alley. Compliance date

of January 13, a work order was sent and the work was done January 19, 2022. No

mail returned. Total assessment of $478. There is a history here, garbage January 4,

2022, no work order. August 29, 2019 for a vehicle. No work order there.

Moermond: I was looking at the photos and trying to figure out which side of the

property it was on. I was guessing the 536 side. It does look like dumping to me.

Nguyen: I bought that land a couple of years ago and I went on vacation when I

received the letter, so I talked to someone at the City.

Moermond: there is some snow on top of the couch and not much snow fell in

December. A little January. I think the couch was definitely there for a while. There is

no question there was dumping. You were out of town?

Nguyen: I went on vacation.

Moermond: the City did send legal notice about the problem and they did sent a crew

out there. On the other side, I see in the time you’ve owned the property you’ve had a

couple orders but you’ve taken care of things. I’m not surprised since it’s a vacant lot

in that location. I’d like to create an incentive for you to not have a problems this

summer. On June 8 and I’m going to ask them to continue the hearing to October 12

and if nothing happens between now and then I’ll ask them to reduce it to $50. The

grass needs to be mowed, things need to be picked up, keep things in good order. If

something does happen between now and October 12 I’ll recommend it is reduced by

half, down to $239.

Nguyen: the money? Can you talk about that?

Moermond: we can send you an email about it.

Nguyen: that would be good.

Moermond: so right now I’ll recommend it is cut in half, $478 down to $239. If there are

no problems between now and October 12 I’ll recommend it is reduced further to $50.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/8/2022

RLH TA 22-186

Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 850

UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No.

228525)

Thao

Sponsors:

Reduce assessment from $322 to $161. Continue PH to October 12, 2022 and if no

same or similar violations delete the assessment.

Dan Tran, interpreter, appeared

Dianna Dong Thi Bui and Winston Tuan Nguyen, owners, appeared

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

Staff report by Supervisor Lisa Martin: a snow letter was sent February 8, 2022 to

owner and occupant at 850 University Avenue West. Reinspection date was February

11, it was not shoveled full width and packed with ice on recheck. WE did a sent a

crew out and the work was done February 16 2022 for a total proposed assessment of

$322.

[before and after videos are shown]

Lisa: no mail returned. Some history. We do have a lot of issues on this block of

University with people not shoveling full width and not salting and sanding.

Moermond: I have the statement and photos submitted that show it was a lot clearer

than when orders were originally written.

[photos from appellant shown]

Winston: these were taken March 6.

Moermond: so almost a month after the City crew was there. When I look at your

situation here is what I think. I think you go the orders and you made a good faith

effort to widen the area. I also think that on University as with other very busy streets

with narrow areas between street and sidewalk the plows push over a lot of snow so

you may need to shovel more. I would like if in the future there was more effort made

to widen the area and use salt and sand to help loosen it. I know this is a busy

thoroughfare. It is busy for pedestrians and it is important they can pass safely and it

is wheelchair assessable.

Winston: we are both over 80. We always clear well. As you said, the plows come by

and it looks like we didn’t do anything. We come back and clear again. Other years

the City billed us we didn’t contest and pay it and this year we think we are old and we

don’t have good income. I’m an old soldier who fought for the United States and I know

I have the responsibility to keep our house clear so we don’t get the citation again.

When I got it I showed her and I called the officer many times. Please, I’m doing it and

please give us some time. We will shovel. I went out and used the chisel and tried to

get the ice up for 2 hours and only got 2 yards.

Moermond: Ms. Martin said the whole block got orders.

Winston: if there’s any way you can help us senior citizens? We work hard every year

and just couldn’t fight the snow.

Moermond: it looks like in 2020 and 2021 there were a couple orders on the property

and I’d like to see no orders written. Lawn is mowed, things are picked up, walk is

shoveled. Now through October 12 if that is the case I’ll recommend this is deleted. I

think you made a good faith effort to address it. If there are violations I’ll recommend it

is reduced by half. We can also email you the information for the district Council in

your area. They may have snow shoveling services as well. I want to help you so it

won’t be as bad for you next winter.

Winston: yes, we will look into this. I would like your advice on how to keep the

property free and clear to keep from getting citation so we can follow the rules.

Moermond: sure, I would think in your location you probably get a lot of restaurant

trash people throw, so make sure that gets picked up. The other thing is make sure

the yard is mowed.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

Special Tax Assessments-ROLLS

RLH AR 22-48

Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean up services during

February 1 to 14, 2022. (File No. J2222A, Assessment No. 228524)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH AR 22-49

Ratifying the assessments for Property Clean up services during

February 14 to 28, 2022. (File No. J2223A, Assessment No. 228525)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH AR 22-50

Ratifying the assessments for Equipment and Labor for Clean Up

services during January 2022. (File No. J2224A, Assessment No.

228526)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

RLH AR 22-51

Ratifying the assessments for Tree Trimming services during December

2021 at 1805 SAINT CLAIR AVENUE. (File No. J2225A, Assessment

No. 228527)

Brendmoen

Sponsors:

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/22/2022

11:00 a.m. Hearings

Summary & Vehicle Abatement Orders

RLH SAO 22-16

Appeal of Brad House to a Summary Abatement Order at 2285

ROCKWOOD AVENUE.

Tolbert

Sponsors:

Layover to LH May 24, 2022 at 11 am.

Moermond: we are laying this over for another week so we can get better answers form

USPS and talk to Public Works and did a site visit to that location to see how the

properties were affected.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/24/2022

RLH SAO 22-15

Appeal of Judith Salaba to a Summary Abatement Order at 2291

ROCKWOOD AVENUE.

Tolbert

Sponsors:

Layover to LH May 24, 2022 at 11 am.

Moermond: we are laying this over for another week so we can get better answers form

USPS and talk to Public Works and did a site visit to that location to see how the

properties were affected.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 5/24/2022

Correction Orders

RLH CO 22-2

Appeal of Eva Stites to a Correction Order and Appointment Letter at

1099 GERANIUM AVENUE EAST.

Yang

Sponsors:

Grant to September 1, 2022 for compliance. Compliance can be achieved by 1)

disconnecting utilities to upper level or 2) open interior access between upper and

lower levels, conditioned upon the upper level remaining unoccupied until compliance is

achieved.

Voicemail for Eva Stites at 12:38 PM: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council calling. We’ll try you back in 10 minutes.

Voicemail for Eva Stites at 1:08 pm: this is Marcia Moermond from St. Paul City

Council calling you again. We have had such difficulty getting ahold of you, I’m going

to issue a written recommendation to the City Council which you will get late this week.

You can of course look for a different from Council if you aren’t satisfied with that

recommendation.

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/8/2022

Making Finding on Nuisance Abatements

RLH SAO 22-17

Making finding on the appealed nuisance abatement ordered for 653

REANEY AVENUE in Council File RLH VO 22-13.

Yang

Sponsors:

The nuisance is abated and matter resolved.

Linda Konicek, tenant, appeared

Voicemail for Finch, property owner, left at 12:47 p.m.: this is Marcia Moermond from

St. Paul City Council calling you about 653 Reaney following up about the cleanup of

the yard. We’ll send you a follow up email on the results. Linda Konicek is present.

Moermond: the purpose of this hearing is whether the yard was cleaned up on deadline.

Konicek: is that both parcels?

Moermond: it is one parcel on the map. The Summary Abatement Order indicates to

remove the scrap wood, air conditioning unit, awning, miscellaneous debris. Just those

items and just a correction notice for the vehicles. So just talking about the cleanup of

the yard. The deadline was May16. You had an inspector there, what is the update on

that?

Staff update by Supervisor Lisa Martin: he said the majority of the items are cleaned

up but there are more things added. A new Summary Abatement Order will likely be

issued. A snowmobile, piece of awning left, but a majority of items were resolved.

Moermond: so items listed in the Summary Abatement Order were addressed and now

there are new items.

Martin: yes.

Moermond: so because those exterior items have been cleaned up I’ll recommend the

Council find the nuisance condition that did exist was abated. If another Summary

Abatement Order comes forward it is a separate issue. Tomorrow the resolution in

front of Council will say its abated and the matter resolved. This piece on the agenda

is done, Ms. Konicek.

Konicek: and if something crops up again someone has to contact the City again?

Moermond: if there are continued problems there will be additional orders.

Konicek: it keeps happening. I appreciate that. One other quick question on the permit

thing. Is there any way I can get the inspections for the boiler and the electric outlet

not in my unit are happening?

Moermond: I don’t have that information. I would contact the owner.

Konicek: he’s not very communicative.

Moermond: sorry about that.

Referred to the City Council due back on 5/25/2022

1:00 p.m. Hearings

Vacant Building Registrations

RLH VBR 22-24

Appeal of Brett Jackels, Havenbrook Homes, to a Vacant Building

Registration Notice plus Revocation of Fire Certificate of Occupancy and

Order to Vacate at 1457 PACIFIC STREET.

Prince

Sponsors:

Layover to LH June 7, 2022 at 1 pm for further discussion. Upstairs room to be

inspected before June 7.

Brett Jackels, o/b/o HavenBrook Homes, appeared via phone

[Moermond gives background of appeals process]

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

inspection of a single-family home by Inspector Thomas. First appointment letter went

out one year ago today. First appointment was a no entry. We had correction orders in

August in 2021. A couple more no entries. Pending revocation since October 20, 2021.

Building was revoked its Certificate of Occupancy on March 30, 2022. There were a

few items that needed to be taken care of. Inspector Thomas went out at Mr. Jackel’s

request and abated all the items with the exception of a stairway to the second floor

which looks like it was originally attic access. Tall rise and short run, not even 2 feet

wide.

Moermond: I see that he is saying it can’t be used for sleeping because of the

stairway, but I don’t see orders related to ceiling height. I would normally expect that. I

would hate for us to deal with the stairs only to be left with a ceiling that is still

noncompliant. I would want that clarified, to make sure the resolution is correct.

Shaff: I had inspector Thomas to take pictures today. There is a stairway on the side

of the house looking back to 2003 in the records we can’t find a permit for and an

exterior door. Based on the height of that door it would be hard to believe the roof and

ceiling is high enough, which means 7 feet is over half the door area. The interior stairs

were old attic stairway.

Moermond: Mr. Dornfeld you had an inspector go out and check it out. What were your

findings?

Staff report by Supervisor Matt Dornfeld: we opened a Category 1 Vacant Building file

per that fire referral April 6, 2022. At the time of inspection there was some household

items and junk that was sent a Summary Abatement Order for and the property owner

was in compliance soon after. Inspector Hoffman states it appears vacant and placard

is on the front door. We do have tall grass and weeds and some retaining wall

materials and junk in the driveway that needs to be improved in the coming days.

There is a building permit on file for the retaining wall from July 2021.

Moermond: Mr. Jackels, why are you appealing?

Jackels: I guess we are looking to appeal the stairway issue of noncompliance. As

long as we’ve owned it it has had that Certificate of Occupancy license and we’re

confused what would have changed between last time it was inspected and now

because that upstairs bedroom space has been that way for many years. we’re

confused why there is a chance in compliance when its been finished for a while. As

far as the deck and door, I can look into the building permit. I believe it was there

when we purchased so I’ll have to dig into those files on my end. I don’t have an answer

now. I’m looking to have this final item abated and the Certificate of Occupancy

reinstated. We’ve had renter there for 8 to 10 years. I don’t see how anything changed

in that time. Or if the option to seal off the interior access door and remove the deck.

We’d prefer to not do that. Our overall intention is to divest it from our portfolio and

retain the Certificate of Occupancy status and clean up the yard.

Moermond: how long have you owned it?

Jackels: I’m not 100 percent. I’m not in the office now. I know there’s been a renter

there for 8 years. I don’t know if we bought it occupied or we owned it that long. I would

have to confirm.

Moermond: was the upstairs used for sleeping purposes with the current tenant?

Shaff: no. There are some beds put there but the tenant said they don’t use them

because the wife cant navigate the stairs.

Moermond: I will say a past code issue that wasn’t called out doesn’t mean it can’t be

called out now. I’m still very curious about the ceiling height issue. I don’t want the

stairway problem solved only to have you get another set of orders on ceiling height.

That is concerning as well as smoke detectors and carbons and their locations. I

would like someone to look over the space. It is a Category 1 Vacant Building so that’s

positive for any real estate transaction but I can see how you’d want to be clear on the

number of legal bedrooms. How soon can staff get out there?

Shaff: we can get out there before June 7.

Moermond: could you work with the Certificate of Occupancy team to allow access for

that upper level to be evaluated?

Jackels: sure. We aren’t in real rush. We don’t plan on having anyone occupy until this

is resolved. I can work with Inspector Shaff on that.

Shaff: I’ll refer you back to Inspector Thomas after I brief him.

Moermond: I just want to draw you attention to 3 things. Two will be in orders from the

Vacant Building team about the tall grass and weeds and material in the driveway need

to be abated.

Dornfeld: I think there’s a chance Hoffman sent something out on the grass this

morning, not sure though. For sure by tomorrow morning.

Moermond: and the other thing is I assume you would like to talk about the Vacant

Building fee itself as well. That is definitely in play right now. I’d like to continue that

conversation as we develop a plan of action. My initial take on this is if it’s a Category

1 it can “chill out” for a while and be revisited. But I want to wait until we have complete

information and lock everything in together. It also depends on how quickly you can

turn the process over. I’m concerned the Vacant Building staff have already identified 3

items as far as maintenance. It isn’t the City’s job to tell you how to manage your

property. That doesn’t weigh in your favor so I put that out there.

Jackels: the schedule put a pause on the property entirely. Now we have a procedure

I’ll get the crew back out there.

Moermond: what pause was put on the lawn?

Jackels: it was vacant so I paused all activity on the home.

Moermond: better open that back up.

Laid Over to the Legislative Hearings due back on 6/7/2022

1:30 p.m. Hearings

Orders To Vacate - Fire Certificate of Occupancy

RLH VO 22-15

Appeal of Jasmine Parker to a Revocation of Fire Certificate of

Occupancy and Order to Vacate at 394 HOPE STREET.

Prince

Sponsors:

Grant the appeal noting the property is in compliance as of May 18, 2022.

Moermond: this item is going to be continued for one week because there is an

inspection tomorrow on the building permit open. We’ll do a one week layover to

hopefully resolve this.

[Update: C of O was approved 5/18/22]

Referred to the City Council due back on 6/8/2022