Call the meeting of the Saint Paul City Council to order. Roll call, please. Johnson. Here. Jost. Here. Kim. Here. Yang. Here. Bowie. Here. Coleman. Here. Council president Naker. Here. Seven present. No one absent. Welcome, everyone, to our Saint Paul City Council meeting. We invite everyone to join us in standing for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Just before we begin our, meeting today,
I wanna take a moment to acknowledge that our community has once again been wracked by the horror of gun violence, twice in two days during a week that should have been full of the joy of starting school and is now full of heartbreak. Our hearts are going out to the families, to the victims and with gratitude to the first responders who are on scene, including some from our own police department. So I'm hoping we can all take a moment of silence in their honor. Thank you very much. I also want to welcome our new Councilmember. Councilmember Molly Coleman was just sworn in this morning. We're thrilled to have you,
and excited for all the good work that we're going to do together. Welcome. Consent agenda items four through 13 are before you for your consideration. Is there anything to be taken for separate consideration? I will note that this consent agenda includes appointing our new council member Coleman to a variety of exciting boards and commissions. And we're so grateful that you joined us to be part of those boards and commissions. All right. I will take a motion from, Ms. Coleman to approve the consent agenda. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. No one opposed. The consent agenda is adopted. Item 14 is final adoption of ordinance 20 five-four,
amending title four of the administrative code to add chapter 92, titled tree preservation for city sponsored projects. So this is, before us for final adoption, this was laid over from February. The unfortunate news is that we are not ready for final adoption of an amended ordinance yet. But the good news is that a lot of work has been going on over the last six months, and we are close to the point of having an amended ordinance and, before us for a new public hearing and final adoption. So I am pleased to invite up Director Rodriguez, Director Kershaw and I believe we have yes,
and Bridget Ailes after them. Director Rodriguez and Kershaw, I want to thank you both so much for all the hard work that you and your teams and your consultants have been putting into this project. Excited to hear from you about the work that's been done over the last six months. And then we'll hear from Ms. Ailes, who's a representative of our public input group that has been working on this, and we're so grateful for her service as well. So I'll turn it over to you both. Council President, members of the Council, welcome, member, Council Member Coleman. As the Council President said, we've been working for a number of months on what a tree preservation ordinance would
look like. There's draft language that had been put together. What we're trying to do in this is balance, the the need to preserve trees, which is the whole goal, with the impacts that that has on projects and and the complexities that come along with that. So the progress to date, there's an internal team that's been working on it. Are you okay if I go? Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. If you like these words, they're Andy's. We already heard from him before. This is the right one earlier today. Group, that involves people from both parks and recreation and specifically the project side in public works that are involved in the daily work of this.
There have been meetings internally to work through a number of issues and frame out what the key components are. I'll talk about those. So there have been a number of sessions. We've engaged Third Horizon Consulting, who's two people we've worked with extensively, includes a past, public works director, Stacy Becker and Lindsay Alexander. They've been working, to help facilitate this process. There's also, as the council president said, been a public engagement activity taking place at the same time. There have been sessions going along with that. The core things that we're looking at in this are tree surveys,
meaning defining, you know, in a project area how what are what is there at any initial time. Preservation plans, setting conditions for removal, for replacement and protection accommodations. How do those, specific parameters get met? Construction protections, one of the most important things that can be done in tree preservation is during a construction process that the right procedures, best practices are followed to preserve the trees that are there. And we've got numerous examples of things that have worked well in that context and
things that haven't worked well. So, making sure that that happens. How do we engage the public in understanding on a project you know, the various phases of design, what the implications might be? And then how do we build in flexibility in this? That there is no each project, each tree really, you know, has unique circumstances. So how do we build in flexibility? We are balancing in this, you know, the need, for tree preservation, obviously, with, infrastructure. One of the things I hope that we will be doing much more in the coming years is sidewalk repair and maintenance expanded work in that regard.
And it's usually in most cases sometimes it comes up in reconstructions or often it comes up in reconstructions. A lot of the sidewalk issues council member Bui, I know we've talked about Linden Park, in your area. Most of those really severe sidewalk impacts are the results of tree heaves, council president, in Irvine Park. So we want to make sure that the the plans we have to make the city accessible and mobile go along with our plans to have a, you know, a mature, tree canopy for all of those, reasons. Defining responsibilities so that it's clear who makes decisions at what points and how do
the various actors here involved, work with each other. We may need to do some training with contractors in this process so that they understand, and it's not through negligence, that they are not doing what they should be doing. Figuring out what enforcement looks like for these situations, creating replacements and mitigation plans for this, and building trust and transparency into the process. You know, we're living in a in a situation right now where a lot of, this very question, is very important to the public. It's very important to staff and to all of you elected officials. So how do we make sure that that is,
that we're building trust and transparency into that process? We do, in terms of timeline, I know that the goal as the council president has expressed would be to have this done this year to bring this through the parks commission. I believe they've got a monthly meeting and we can talk more about that. So there, for example, would be a November meeting, the November. We want to make sure it goes back out to the public, the group that's been meeting. And so we anticipate that we'll be able to meet that end of year schedule. Our goal is to have a draft of revisions to the ordinance in September,
early October. The details of this really matter. There are consequences for budget. There are consequences legally for the city. There are consequences on projects that will be happening soon. So we wanna be careful that we're, you know, transparent with you about our goals in this. And, the things it's it's almost like a construction project. You have a timeline and a goal, and then weather happens or unforeseen circumstances. But our goal is to meet the timeline that you've asked from, for us, council president. Thanks so much, director Kershaw. Director Riegas, you're welcome to What he said.
As a central graduate. What I said was what he said. Yeah. No. I I don't have any additional comments. Just, appreciate the partnership of public work public works and just noting that this is a very complex, ordinance that we're trying to finalize. And, you know, it involves a variety of different folks that, have different goals, whether that's, sidewalk repair installation, versus new trees, removals, and other things. One final, I can anticipate that there will be both an ordinance, obviously, and a set of policies that that we're trying to balance, not making the ordinance so specific that if standards or procedures change that we don't
have to change the ordinance every time. So that the the ordinance preserves the things that are most important for that specific type of, you know, legislative action. And that there are policies and practices that may be behind that. And, you know, certainly counsel may approve or would approve, but that there may be a couple of different layers of documents coming out in this work. Thank you, director. And, one of the things that we talked about when we laid this over for six months was the desire to have those policies adopted in sync because the community, I think, had rightfully asked, well, if we adopt an ordinance that is only bare bones and then the policies come
later on, what are we really doing with that? So, I think that's still the intent, but I guess I want to ask that. Council president, council members, that is still the intent. I just wanted to, you know, for anybody who's watching or here, know that those that will come out simultaneously in perhaps two different document types. Thank you. Questions from my colleagues or comments, Chair Johnson? And I know we'll be most likely getting into budget cycle as we continue going forward. And I know the intent is to have this work completed or at least like this the ordinance that you're talking or referring to completed by the end of the
year. Are we and have we taken into account like what staffing on the back end would look like for it? And or are we planning proactively for that and especially from like a funding standpoint? I know that was something that came up with some of the conversations last year when we were talking about tree canopy and tree preservation. And I'm just wondering, I know you probably can't attest to the budget this year prior to the address, but because we have both departments that would be impacted by this, have you all taken that into account specifically? And is that a part of the overall,
like not only just the policies in place and the ordinances, but the people that would need to be in place to conduct that work or enforce it? Council President and Council Member Johnson, yes. And I plan to cover that heavily in my department update when the time comes next month. But just noting in order to make this ordinance as strong as possible, there is resource and investment that is needed in terms of managing capacity and the amount of projects that we'll see in the next couple of years. That's lead line replacements,
that's sidewalk replacements, road projects. All that work is going to continue in a strong form. So, we need to be able to keep up appropriately for that. I really appreciate the question, Sherry. I think it's a good it's easy to do the first step and then forget all of the maintenance and future steps that are needed. And, what I also really am grateful for in the way that you're both doing this work is the complexity that you're wrestling with now as opposed to waiting to do that on the back end, I think, really will help us be prepared for that. So thank you for the question. Other questions or comments? Ms.
Bui? Thank you, President Nicker. Thank you so much, Director Kershaw and Director Reagowitz about this ordinance. I know there's been a long time coming even before even getting on the council. I know it's been a really robust conversation in Ward 1 around the the nature of, our or the state of our tree preservation, policy that truly was, like, grassroots led and had so many partners. I just wanna just say I appreciate the strong communication across departments and with our staff and also with community members. Out of curiosity,
I know for sure, it's there, but I just, just want to know particularly what has the relationship or communication or engagement, been like with external departments, like on the state level, federal level, and county level? Because I think that also there's projects that, you know, like, come top down where just how is this ordinance going to interact with some of those, larger, federal level projects? I'll go first. It's, council president, council member Buhoe, you were reading my mind because I was thinking one of the things that we have to resolve is while all of this is well,
most of this is the city's right of way, some of it are is in our county right of way and forestry. I'll let director Rodriguez speak to that. One of the complexities that we have to work out is how does this apply to MnDOT work? You know, they're going to be doing work in a number of places. How does it apply to them? How does it apply to the county? How does it apply to other entities, which is a legal question. It's a fiscal question. But that's that's one of the complexities that we're working through. Yeah. I would just echo that statement, and it's something that we've gotten in front of city attorney's office and others for
additional forms of review. Thanks, Ms. Bui. And it's a brilliant question. I agree we have to figure that out. And actually, I will say, last night, I was at the Paine Phelan District Community Council meeting. And they're both Ramsey County and MnDOT were there to talk about street construction projects they're doing on the East Side. Both of them referenced how they were following the City of St. Paul's policies with regard to trees, which in this case may have been I don't know. I was glad to hear it. And I think it's, and I mentioned at the time that we are working on updating our tree preservation plan. So I think,
even if we don't have the formal influence legally to compel behavior from those entities, I think there is the natural desire on their part to be following our lead, if only because then they can sort of point to us as the ones who required things or didn't require things. So I thought that was a good sign. Other questions or comments? I'm not seeing any. Again, thank you both so much. It sounds like and Ms. Ailes will be coming up in a moment, but I want to just make sure this is right. We have to lay this over to a certain date. December 3 is a very busy date. We'll be adopting our budget. December 10 is the next date.
And after that, we're very much towards the end of the year. So I would like to lay this over to December 10. Does that sound good to you both for the amend? Okay. We will plan to do that. Thank you both so much again, for your efforts. And with that, miss Ailes, welcome up. My legislative aide, Megan Jekett, has been facilitating a group of, interested advocates, stakeholders, representatives of a number of different community groups with lots of different opinions on the question of tree preservation. And this was in direct response to the information we got during our public hearing in February where folks said, you know what? This is a really big deal,
and we don't want you just making this decision lightly without a lot of input from community. And so we said, let's pause and get that input. And you and your fellow members, the PIG, public input group, lovingly called PIG, as Jekyll says, Saint Paul loves pigs, have been really working diligently on this. And I know we'll continue to do so when we see a draft of the ordinance. So I just wanted to give you a couple minutes to speak to that process. And thank you again. Yes. I timed this, and it is just under two minutes. And I do wanna say we do recognize the complexity that they had spoken about in terms of the this goes into my this is extra from the two minutes,
but that goes into the, various jurisdictions that did come up in terms of complexities and how to work that out. But, first of all, my name is Bridget Allen Alice like Alice in Wonderland. Sorry. I am here on behalf of the, tree preservation group, which brought together neighbors, advocates, technical experts, to strengthen Saint Paul's approach to protecting urban trees. Between the five meetings thus far, between the actual meetings actual meetings and the work that we've had, you know, we put in at least a hundred hours, if not more. And, frankly, we look forward to putting in more hours as well.
At the end of this meeting, and I'll just say it now too, what we're here to say is all eight of us would really like to continue to be a part of the policy portion of this. So there's gonna be an ordinance of policy, not all of us that would probably be too unwieldy, but maybe one or two of our group, all eight of us, and we're all very different in terms of way we approach this, think that this would be a good idea. No matter who it is, we'd like to have one or two people there. So I did wanna thank Centimeters Maker for initiating this group.
And as a personal note, allowing me to be in a lot of different groups, which I really appreciate. I also want to really recognize, Megan Jekka, because, she really set the tone for collaboration. And all her background work and planning really made it possible for our really diverse group to be well informed and have very open and candid dialogues about which way we think that this should go. So we reviewed three policies from various parts of the nation. And if you really want to read a restrictive policy,
read Denver's policy. They control for everything. But, from Denver to even from folks, places around here, we reviewed those. Our work, was really guided by the fact that the trees are really so precious in the lungs of our city, and they are really for all of us, which is why it's so important to to maintain them and to preserve them. Our work was guided by equity, transparency and practical implementation. We know this has to be practical. We focused on building an ordinance or we hope to build an ordinance that protects
trees while balancing ecological health, community needs, and development, you know, realities. But really, our consistent themes were the need for clear, enforceable language, and not a lot of ambiguity, not a lot of room. We kept calling it the wiggle room, not a lot of that. So that was really important to us, which brings me to, my final request. Because our group was so passionate about this, just to be a part of that policy making would be really important to us.
So, again, I'll leave it at that. Thank you. It's been a lot of fun, and we're gonna have some more work to do, and we're looking forward to that. It's been a just a great joy, a great group of people. Thank you. Miss Alice, thank you so much. I'm so sorry for mispronouncing your name. I won't do it again. I've I've been in that boat. And I I really I think it says a lot about you, that you've done a hundred hours plus of work. And you're saying, please, we'd like to do more work on this. So The group. Yes. But still. But still. So thank you. Really appreciate it. Okay. So with that,
if there's no further discussion, thanks to my colleagues for entertaining that update rather than final adoption. I'm going to move a layover of this item till December 10. Is there any discussion of that motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. No one opposed. The ordinance is laid over to December 10. Now item 15 is final adoption of ordinance 20 five-forty five, changing one block of Margaret Street from Arcade Street and East Seventh Street from a one way street westbound to a two way street in accordance with chapter 147 of
the legislative code. This is before us for final adoption. I would look to Ms. Johnson if there's any comments or a motion. Just overall, really thankful to all of the staff that have kind of worked to prioritize this, what seems on the broader scale of small street change. But in our community, just being able to be included in the process is really important. And so I do appreciate the work that has went into it and the staff report and, just being able to be being able to consider this actual street and the street change. So with that, I don't have any other comments, and I'd move approval.
Sounds good. Miss Johnson moves approval. Any discussion of that motion? Seeing nope. Miss Yang. Sorry. Thank you. I just wanted to make a quick comment that I'm also supportive of this too. In BB about like ten years ago, when I started organizing, I was always at the Eastside Enterprise Center and questioned why is this one block here a one way. And so I think that this is a really positive change and also there's a lot of logic behind it, too. It will definitely create more flow to the new product here. So I'm very supportive of it.
Thanks, Ms. Yang. All right. Any further discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. No one opposed. The ordinance is adopted. Item 16 is first reading of ordinance 20 five-forty eight, amending chapter 130 of the legislative code procedure for vacating streets and other public grounds. Alright. This is a first reading of an ordinance that was deemed to not need, discussion at policy session, so it's coming straight to us for first reading. But we will have a staff report from mister Engelbrecht, so come on up. Thanks for being here. Thanks for inviting me, Council President and Council Members.
Bruce Engelbrecht from the Office of Financial Services, Real Estate Section. Item 16 is a proposed amendment to Chapter 130 of the city's legislative code that governs the vacation of city right of way. A vacation is when city releases or extinguishes its easement rights in streets and alleys that were often platted long ago but were never opened and improved by the city or were improved but then were later no longer needed. The purpose of this amendment is to make the vacation process work better for property
owners and city staff who administer the vacations. It does not create any new laws or legal requirements beyond what's already in the ordinance. Let me offer just a brief summary of the vacation process. It generally starts with a petition from owners whose properties adjoin the part of city right away that they want to have vacated. The petition is submitted to the city clerk and the processing is done by our real estate staff. We first verify that it includes all the required information then we ask departments to
indicate whether they support the vacation without condition, support it with conditions or oppose it. We also reach out to public and private utilities to ask if they can release their easement rights or if they want to retain their rights. Once we have all the responses we document them in a city council resolution for consideration at a public hearing following notice to the petitioner interested parties and the general public. If the council adopts the resolution by at least a five vote majority,
the vacation is approved. But it does not take effect until the petitioner later agrees in writing to comply with the conditions of the vacation and pay the administrative fee. At that point, the vacation is effective and a certified copy of the Resolution county then redraws the boundaries of the abutting properties to incorporate the vacated right of way into those properties. The process I just described is not affected by the proposed amendment. What the amendment does is a couple of things.
First, it clarifies, simplifies and updates the text and removes repetitive and antiquated language. Second and most important, it allows the review process to move forward a little more efficiently rather than stalling while we wait for responses from the utilities. If they don't respond in a timely manner, the city can determine whether or not to retain or release their easement rights. But we don't do it willy nilly. If we find the utility has facilities in the right of way like a power line or a gas pipe or communication line,
we absolutely retain the easement. And if a utility is a franchisee with the city, we also retain the easement per the advice of our city attorney's office. Otherwise, it's released. Utilities can retain their easement rights even if they don't have facilities since they may want to install facilities there in the future. But they have to tell us that in a timely manner or they lose that opportunity. This more efficient process benefits property owners and developers who generally want the vacation completed
as quickly as possible at least within the sixty days currently specified in the ordinance. It should be noted that the ordinance still allows the city to rescind the vacation after becoming effective if the petitioner fails to comply with vacation conditions that the petitioner agreed to. For example, removing a fence or maybe conveying a little access easement to a neighboring property or some other kind of detail like that. That's kind of the end of my comments. I do have, as you may have noticed in the legislature file,
I have a few attachments. One is a section by section summary of the proposed changes. Another spells out the impacts of the changes on participants in the vacation process. And the third explains a little more what a right of way vacation is all about. So thanks for your time and I would answer any questions you might have. Great. Thank you very much. Any questions? It doesn't look like it. So it sounds like we are making this more streamlined by basically saying you have a limited amount of time to tell us if you're a utility and you don't have any facilities and you want to retain your easement.
And after that, we're moving forward regardless, so we're not holding the business owner or the resident hostage to waiting indefinitely for that. That's correct. And by the way, we did reach out to the utilities and to city departments to ask if they had any questions or concerns about our changes to the ordinance. And we received no replies, so we'll take that as we're fine with it. And if you don't reply to our question about whether or not you have a question about the ordinance in a certain amount of time, we're moving forward also. Okay. Thank you so much. This will be before us for public hearing next week.
Great. Thank you. This brings us to the public hearing section of our agenda. Just before we read the next item, a reminder to folks that if you're here to speak on a public hearing item, when your item is called out, please come to the front of the room, stand between the two microphones. You'll have two minutes. Please start by saying your name, where you're coming from, and whether or not you graduated from Central High School. Just kidding. That last part is just a joke. And then you'll have two minutes. And then when you're done, please make sure to sign in at either side, on the sign in sheets. And I just wanna note on the last item that the ordinance is laid over
to September 3 for second reading public hearing. Item 17 is resolution public hearing 25 dash 168 approving the request of Energy Park Utility Company to amend rates. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Coleman to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, no one opposed. The public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. Item 18 is resolution public hearing 20 five-one 177, approving the application of nativity of our Lord Catholic Parish School for nativity county fair
event on Friday, September 12, Saturday the thirteenth, and Sunday the fourteenth for sound level variance in order to present live amplified sound at the Nativity of Our Lord Catholic Parish School, 1900 Wellesley Avenue. This is a public hearing, and it looks like you're here to testify. I am. Welcome. Thank you so much. I'm Michael Reif. I'm on the steering committee of the, Nativity County Fair. Council president, council members, just wanna speak here in, support of our application for sound variance. It's the fifty first year of the Nativity County Fair. Those who've had, the opportunity to be there in in the past to know that this is more
than just a parish fair. It really is for the whole community. We'd invite all of you that can make it to come join us, just to briefly address some of the, comments I know the council received. There will be no fireworks this year. We're also not planning on twenty continuous hours of, music. The application includes things, for mass, for example, outdoor mass on Sunday morning. Also have kids' talent shows, things like that. So, we'd encourage, the council to, to approve of our application and thank everyone for their time. Thanks also for your comments about enunciation school. Our thoughts go out to that community today.
So thank you. Thank you very much. And don't forget to sign in. Appreciate you coming out to tell us more about the event and to respond to some of those public comments as well. That's really appreciated. Anyone else here to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Joost to close the public hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? And Ms. Jost. And we haven't adopted yet. I just Okay. Perfect. Oh, you just closed the public hearing. Great. Thank you, Council President Naker. I just want to just uplift this event also. It's a great event, and it really is for for the entire community. It's a fair in the parking lot at at nativity,
church and school, and there's lots of rides and games and activities for the kids. It's something that, our family looks forward to every year. And so definitely encourage everyone everyone to come out. Thanks, Miss Jost. Take that as a motion for approval. Yes. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, no one opposed. The resolution is adopted. Item 19 is resolution public hearing 20 five-one 179, approving the application of Lumen Christi Catholic Community for sound level variance in order to
present amplify sound at the Lumen Christi Catholic Community Black Party event on Saturday, September 6 at 1668 Montreal Avenue. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from Ms. Jost to close the public hearing and approve. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed and the resolution is adopted. Legislative hearing consent agenda items 20 through 30 are before you for your consideration. Welcome, Ms. Mormon. Thank you, Council President. Could item number 26 be read into the record,
please? Item 26 is RLHTA 25 dash three forty four. Amending council file RLHAR 24 dash 25 to reduce the assessment collection of vacant building registration fees billed during April 5 to 10/20/2023 at 1350 Hague Avenue. Miss Mormon. Council president, council members, this item was laid over from several weeks ago in order that council member Buoy could be present. The council did give instruction to me at that time to summarize the record,
and the timing of events, that led to this vacant building fee, and that summary is in front of you. All of the items in that summary are from the public record that's already been published. There's nothing new. There's copies here for the public as well. You will note that you also have added to your record a letter from Union Park District Council. They also provide a time line of events. I would say the time line is consistent with the record in front of you. There's commentary that I can talk about when I'm done with the time line that
does differ from how I would, represent to the council. The first thing, and we talked about this last time, is this went into the vacant building program in the late twenty teens. So what there was a demolition on the property. There were two buildings there. One was demolished. The other, an accessory structure, classified as a warehouse use, remained. That building goes into the vacant building program. In 2022, a couple of permits, weren't pulled for work being done. It got written up for not having permits. No activity happened at the property until it sold.
It sold, actually, in May 2023 on a contract for deed to the appellants, that is, the contract for deed is balloon payment is next July for $250,000 So they're looking at that part of the transaction. Because it's a contract for deed, I don't know if there were any kind of different disclosures required in that transaction, which will become relevant in a moment. When that they purchased it in reviewing the notes, there was comment that as soon as it was purchased, they were receiving letters about the vacant building program.
No letters were found that would have been given in May, June, July, or August. The first letter would have been sent in the month of September. It was addressed to the current owners. It was the annual registration as a vacant building and including the $5,000 fee. It clearly articulated that if it were to be appealed, what the process was for doing that. The following month, the bill not having been paid, a warning letter was sent out giving an additional two weeks to pay that vacant building fee. It went unpaid. The same, by the way, proviso about appealing it is in that letter explicitly.
Because it went unpaid, the Department of Safety and Inspections referred it to the real estate office to be processed as a tax assessment. That happened at the December. Now what I think might have happened, because here we are in December, I think this is when the communication is getting to be tricky between the owners and the Department of Safety and Inspection. So I would say listen for for how that goes back and forth. The owners indicate that in the fall of the year, they were working with the department to get the permits pulled, to talk to them about what the requirements were to get out of the program.
They were, told that changing it from being a warehouse to being a donut shop was a significant change in use and did require it to be reviewed. I'm the word fails me, but there it is a change in use requiring a building permit review to make sure that it's compliant with the codes that will apply to a donut shop as opposed to simply warehousing items. The all the rec or all the, items needed to make that determination were submitted in February. The the building came out of the vacant building program in March.
We're still in 2024. The vacant building fee, we're halfway into the year now. It's gone now exactly in front of city council. So we are looking at the conversations with DSI, the nitty gritty conversations happening, and the appellant indicates there was also conversation happening about, well, do I owe my vacant building fee? Do I owe a vacant building fee? I believe that what might have been happening is that they were referencing the vacant building fee which had been assessed, which they had to bill in their pocket for.
I think that the Department of Safety and Inspections heard, will you have a vacant building fee in the future? Because the record in front of them shows no vacant building fee. It's already gone. It's taken care of. Their books are closed until next year. So there may have been something there. In terms of saying there was no vacant building fee due in owing, and that being attributable to staff in your record, there are two emails from staff, who were referenced, Clint Zane and Robert Humphrey, who say that they did not indicate that the vacant building fee would be in
any way forgiven. I would, as I did last time, point out that there were four opportunities for appeal of the assessment that's in front of you, and none of those were taken advantage of. There's the vacant building registration, the warning letter on the registration, the assessment itself, and then the invoice. The actual bill for more than $5,000 goes out, and that is appealable to district court. So there were a number of opportunities built in, to the process to slowly, carefully consider this matter. What we have, following that up is out of the vacant building program in March.
Already, it's been assessed for a full vacant building fee. And that is, by the way, back in 2024, not in 2025. What happens in 2025 is that the property tax bill arrives for the spring payment. And there's a surprise that that $5,000 that was assessed last year actually shows up on the bill for 2025, which, of course, it does. That is when the Department of Safety and Inspections, council member Bowie's office, and later our office received communication from the owners that the assessment was there, and they believed that it should be deleted in its entirety because they understood from
the Department of Safety and Inspections that it wouldn't be there. Again, there is a difference of opinion about that. The communication you received from Union Park District Council talks about responsibility for disclosure of what's required to get out of the vacant building program and even that this is in the vacant building program. The letters, all of the registration letters and the assessment letters and so on do describe that if you have questions about this, here's what you need to do. It says here for a category two registered vacant building, you need certificate of code compliance before reoccupancy.
These things are stated. If it is not clear, then there is a resource there. If the resource is not helpful, there is an appeal mechanism in place to gather that clarity. Another thing that the district council, spoke to was the responsibility for disclosure, as I said. To be to be blunt, caveat emptor. When you are in the process of buying a property and there is not a disclosure about a circumstance like this, that is the situation between the seller and the buyer. It having been sold on a contract for deed,
I would say, I have no business making any comments about that. It may or may not have played a role in what the disclosures needed to be. But if there was or wasn't, I don't know. The seller is reported to have told the buyer by their testimony that the vacant building fee for the last year had been paid. The other, comment that I wanted to point out has to do with, let's see here. I this is me. I think we've covered the, the questions from Union Park.
I feel like there's a couple of items that we could explore to be answered still. I don't think it's necessary, but I will point out that we do not have access to the Stamp and Amanda systems so that if you were looking for a precise permit history, I cannot provide that right now. I don't think for our purposes it's relevant, but you may want to see it for your own sakes. I also, don't have documentation of conversations with the individual inspectors. There's notes in the system sometimes. I do have emails and summaries, and all of that's system sometimes.
I do have emails and summaries and all of that's in your record because this record was created prior to the cyber attack. There were reported to be emails between staff or excuse me, text messages between staff and the owners. Those haven't been forthcoming. I have not been able to review them to provide any comments to you on that. I'm left with, two thoughts looking at this assessment. The first thought is that I think it's likely that there was misunderstanding in the question being posed and the question being answered and that that is in all likelihood
in good faith. However, the number of notices and the opportunities to resolve the misunderstanding are many. The second comment I want to share is that I believe at this juncture, there is a question of equity that is before you as well, having to do with how this building is treated looking back in time with how other buildings are looked at, you know, back in time. As I indicated before, I did not find an error in the city record. What I'm recommending to you is to reduce this by half to reflect that it was in the vacant building program for approximately half of the year build twenty three,
twenty four. That's what's before you. And, I can be quiet now. Thanks. Thanks, Ms. Mormon. I'm wondering if there are any questions. Otherwise, this is a public hearing. Ms. Gulley? I do have some questions. Go ahead. Thank you so much, Rushmoreland, particularly, for just walking through this. And, also, I do wanna just say I appreciate the council laying this over for, giving me some time to just review. This is very complex, very complicated. And as, Mormon had mentioned, particularly, we also are receiving public comments. I had a chance to read over Union Depot Union Depot,
excuse me, Union Park Judicial Council, their letter. And, also had a chance to review the, public hearing from some weeks ago and just go through, all the different steps in the meeting notes. I do have some questions, particularly around the process, because, from my time on the council, although this is a complex situation, it's not pretty unique in the sense of, it seems like, when there's a transaction that takes place. Although we aren't the facilitators of that transaction, we don't have any jurisdiction around what is disclosed, particularly with the assessments.
But it does seems like there is, an issue particularly of alerting other systems. When there is a permit, request, there is not a clarity, particularly around if this building's existing in the, vacant building program or not. With that said, my questions particularly are more so around the process. So is there a requirement, of, getting out of the vacant building program that requires you to, like, fully pay your bill? Or could you have outstanding balance of what still also be completed and out of the vacant building program? The two are not connected.
Okay. The, point to being able to pull the permits is the city's goal is the same as the owners, to get the work done as quickly as possible, because vacant building fee can go to assessment, there's an assurance on behalf of the public that the bill will be paid. So just for clarity, so if someone owns the building, they are, requesting a permit, Are they made aware that there is a existing vacant building fee? Are those, like, totally different, like, processes? Because I'm just wondering, from your point around just, like,
the timeline, it seems like the owners, they've been pretty successful with, you know, getting the permits and doing all the work that needs to be done to get the building in compliance. But it seems like they weren't alert or, understanding that there was still existing bills. So I'm just wondering, are is that the same the the the process that you're going through to receive the permits, is that the same, team that will alert you of, unpaid bill? They are not the team that's responsible for that. The vacant building division within the Department of Safety and Inspections administers the vacant building
program. The, building officials team, they're the ones who review building permits, applications for change in use, and so on. So those are distinct groups of staff. Clint Zane heads up the team of the building inspectors who do the vacant buildings, and so that would have been by default who they were working with and also who the, email is from indicating the conversation about the fee. Perfect. Thank you. So it seems like the people they were talking with were the building officials, not the people who were part of the vacant building team? That's what's in the record.
Okay. And then my last question, and we can, also go to the public hearing, is about the title company disclosure. Has the owners, shared, like, in their title company or their deed that there was an assessment, because, I mean, giving the contract for deed, there's, you know, different versions of how that transaction could take place. I'm just wondering I don't see in the records, but is there any, like, submission of, like, their deed that shows that there's been a comprehensive review of whatever assessments was assigned to this property before purchasing it?
The only information I have is that the owner disclosed that the seller said that they paid the vacant building assessment for the previous year. I don't have access to any disclosures from that from the closing. Okay. So, just on record, it sounds like there was, some attention brought to assessment, but that seller had shared that it was paid. So they are aware of there was an assessment there. Their knowledge is that it was already paid, but we have we don't have any records of that being paid by the previous
seller. I do not. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for miss Worman? Otherwise, let's go to the public hearing. Thank you, miss Worman. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here here to speak on this item? If you are, come on up and just stand between the two microphones, and each of you will have two minutes. You can combine them if you want or take them separately. Make sure to start with your name and where you're coming from. Welcome. You can sign in at the end. Hey. What's up, guys? How are you? I'm Bradley Taylor. Yes, ma'am. Hey. I'm Ashley Taylor, the other owner. Yeah. Nice to meet you. Okay. Alright. So, yeah, just just going over what she just covered with everything.
We did receive several letters multiple times in 2023 and 2024. We did call every single time that we we received a letter for a small business owner. As you can imagine, over $5,000 is quite a big bill, so we would not leave that unattended or ignore the latter letter. We called the DSI office multiple times asking about the letter, what we could do, what action we needed to take on our side. We got through to Clint Zane, Nathan Broom, Matt Dornfeld, and had multiple conversations about these letters. We even read the title,
read through the letter of what it was. So I guess I am confused about the, miscommunication about what the letter was. We felt like we were pretty clear on the phone of what the letter was and asking what steps we should take going forward. If we had known that we could appeal, we absolutely would have done so. So just felt like we didn't have the proper direction going forward, of of how we should handle the situation. So, we called multiple times. Every time we called, they said that it was a mistake, that we should ignore the letter. So that's what we did. Again, it was still a little little concerning that we kept receiving the letter,
but we were told to ignore it. It seemed like they were confused every time we called and thought that there was a house still on the property. We explained every time that we called, there is not a house on the property. That was demolished several years ago prior to us even owning it. So it sounds like the inspectors hadn't even come out to the build or to the, location and weren't really aware of what was happening there. So I understand that is, probably offered some confusion that they weren't fully aware of of what was happening at the property. And, also to reiterate too, when we did receive the first initial letter,
I did text, I believe, Nathan Brown about the clarification on what the letter that I did receive where he then referred me to Clint Zane. From there, when I finally got in touch with Clint Zane, I was able to contact and ask them exactly what it was, and I was actually pinpointed due to the confusion of there being a house on the property in another building. And then, for whatever reason, them being able to demolish one building and keep the others of a wholehearted demolish really screwed up their system. But because of that, he told me not to worry about it. So with that in mind and proceeding,
I thought all was well until inspected a call from him as the progress of it, was being worked on. Great. Thank you very much. Is there anything else you'd like to add? No. Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. You can sign in. And, is there anyone else here to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll take a motion from miss Buie to close the public hearing. Hearing. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor. No one opposed. The public hearing is closed. Ms. Buie. Thank you, counsel president. I just have one last question for, Mormon. Can you share with the reducing it or the reduction,
excuse me, to have for the assessment, where does that, result to? Is that February or is can you, like, share, like, what the if we were to pass the recommendation, how much would that assessment be? If you can indulge me for a moment, I'll pull up the worksheet. The original assessment was for $5,075 My recommendation is a reduction to $2,537 Okay. Well, I guess for for this, I, you know, I strongly believe that, you know, definitely, there's a there's a cost to be paid when there is confusion around the records
and clarity lack of clarity, particularly around our systems and totally understanding that, you know, with DSI, we've been working really, hard, and staff's been working hard to clarify these processes and having a more transparent, process. I do want to at least lay over, just to give more time, particularly to lay this item over in two weeks. Some of the things that the, owners had mentioned particularly around, like, the emails, the texts, the phone calls, like, Mormon had mentioned, we are able to track the emails, but it is,
pretty difficult. And I want to make sure that we have adequate time. The property's owners have adequate time to share, those text messages, phone calls, just have that on record in terms of documentation around their efforts. So, in that, so that kinda saves time, honestly, for this item. So I'm just gonna ask for a two week layover. As you can reopen the public hearing, submit additional records of this. But enough well, we could close the public hearing. Yeah. I think Yeah. So sorry. We were just sidebaring. So we did close the public hearing. So there wouldn't be an opportunity for additional public testimony or submissions unless you wanted
to reopen the public hearing. But the two week layover to get that information from staff would be Okay. Not be a problem. Well, I guess I should ask, Mormon, would that if even though we, closed the public hearing, it seems like if there's, like, additional information that they can share directly with you, does the public, does it has to have an open public hearing for them to, share information with you or with your team? Mister President, Maker, counsel I I would ask the city clerk, did the public hearing just close? Yeah. The public hearing did close. Yes.
Then, what the counsel does in these cases is to accept the information, add it to the record, but not allow additional commentary. The commentary could come in a form of writing and be attached to your record so that it is, you know, of notice for everybody, but, you would receive no more verbal testimony. Yeah. I and I think the goal of, of of this is more so for them to be able to enter, their like, what they mentioned, like their text messages, phone calls, anything of of of relevancy, particularly around their attempts. Because I think that's something that is not presented,
not on record. Yeah. It was not being presented. So, if we could just give that time. So, no, we can still close the public hearing, but anything that they would want on record. And I, you know, I look to our attorneys to help us translate that into, I mean, it sounds like you wanna keep the public hearing all the time. I think it sounds like, from Ms. Mormon, we can just close the public hearing and not accept more verbal testimony, but allow additional documents to be submitted to Ms. Mormon, if Yes. Yes. So I think that's the motion. Okay. Discussion on the motion. I will just say I will support the layover.
However, to me, it seems like this is a case of miscommunication but not error. Even if there was confusion on the part of the property owner or what they heard from DSI, the fact remains that the building was vacant during those six months. And so, it would be unfortunate if they had heard something different, and I think we should rectify that and figure out how that miscommunication occurred. But if the building was vacant for those six months, then the vacant building fee needs to be paid regardless of what they heard or didn't hear. So I think they're two separate issues in my mind. And when we come back, that would be how I would be evaluating what we hear.
But I will support the layover to get that additional information. Other discussion of the motion? Chair Johnson? Yeah. I think as a point of clarification, just because I think this has been laid over prior as well, how long do we have to decide on this? Council President Nager, Council Member Johnson, this is an assessment that has already been certified and placed on the 2025 property tax bill. What that means is whatever the council's decision is does result in a refund to the property owner. It is not anymore connected to the taxing process.
So this is definitely opening up last year's books. And as such, there's different you know, time percentage as much as possible. And then for clarification, is what's on the books for last year, the $5,075 assessment, or is it the $2,537 assessment? The they were assessed for 5,000 last year. That's what's in the bill. I'm gonna I I think that just as you laid this over, and I think as we're considering it, and even just some of the feedback, I don't know if that changes my opinion either way, personally, but, just kind of looking into the space of how we address certain things.
Like, I know we've had some communication things that have come up in the past, as well as we've been evaluating some of these pieces. But I, this seems kind of more standard of we have a vacant building process, we have a vacant building fee process, assessment process for that, and it falls within that as long as this is a vacant property. So I'm not necessarily knowing whether or not that those facts necessarily change or warrant a refund. But, so that I'll also be taking that into consideration, I think, on this matter. But I think it's just the further we get along we keep laying this over,
the further it gets into, like, other assessments, other things we have to do. So that's just something to note. But, I don't know. So I'll be voting no against your layover today, but that's the reason why. Okay. And just for clarity, I just wanna make sure because you're you're not in support of the refund or the half reduction. You're in support of them receiving the entire 5,000 assessment of keeping that assessment. Laid over. I'm just going to vote no to that. But the reason is because I think we should move forward on this matter. We've laid it over quite a we've laid it over before. And then coming back to it,
I just think as we continue to lay this matter over, the further it'll get into the having to go back further into some of the property assessments that have already been done. Okay. Is there further discussion of the motion to layover for two weeks? All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed? Aye. Six in favor, one opposed being Councilmember Johnson. The resolution is laid over to September 10. Is there anything else for separate consideration, Ms. Mormont? Not to my knowledge, Council President. Okay. We will hold a public hearing on the balance of the legislative hearing items.
So if you're here for any of the legislative hearing items 20 to 30, this is your public hearing. Come on up. All right. Not seeing anyone. So I'll take a motion from Ms. Coleman to close the public hearing and approve all the items as amended by the legislative hearing officer. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Seven in favor, no and opposed. The public hearings are closed and the consent agenda is adopted as amended, which brings us to the end of our agenda and our favorite time of the week. Good news from the awards. Miss Yang. Thanks, Council President. I'd like to share about movie night over at Phelan Beach.
There will be a showing of Jumanji, and this will take place on Friday. You look thrilled it goes through the evening. It's this Friday, August 29, 7PM. There will be, don't forget a blanket or a lawn chair for a viewing. There will be food available for purchase from Sweet Dairy. Oh, sounds great. Love that movie. Other good news from around the wards or other people's wards or Justin Turner. Alright. Not seeing any. Thanks, everyone, for a great meeting. We are adjourned.