Saint Paul council lays over cluster of Ashland Avenue rent‑stabilization appeals after residents cite habitability problems

The Saint Paul City Council on Wednesday agreed to lay over eight related rent‑stabilization appeals tied to three buildings on Ashland Avenue until Sept. 17 after tenants and their attorneys said the apartments still show habitability problems and after staff and the landlord described recent repairs.

Housing Justice Center attorney Abby Hansen told the council that the rent increases under appeal included a 28% increase for some units and that tenants had documented mold, broken windows, holes in floors and foundation cracks. "The rent increase here is 28%," Hansen said, adding that residents had submitted photos, videos and declarations and that many of the alleged problems “are still present.”

The Housing and Redevelopment Authority and city staff had previously reviewed applications from the building owner asking to exceed Saint Paul’s 3% annual cap on rent increases; Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) staff recommended allowing exceptions based on the owner’s submitted operating‑cost and tax increases. Tenants appealed those determinations under the city’s rent‑stabilization ordinance, citing habitability and substantial deterioration provisions in the law.

City legislative hearing officer Marsha Mormont summarized the record for the council and said inspectors relied in part on fire certificate of occupancy ratings already on file for the buildings (one A rating, one B and one C). Mormont noted that staff had not re‑inspected some buildings on the regular cycle because of staffing limits and that after concerns surfaced in the legislative hearing process, DSI carried out a site inspection on Sept. 4. "The city inspection last week did not identify deficiencies in [some] units," Mormont said, while also acknowledging the inspector had noted items for correction including a condemned exterior stair (which the inspector characterized as not a mandatory exit) and unit‑level repair orders for walls, ceilings and electrical clearances.

Tenants who testified described continued safety and maintenance concerns. Tenant Chloe Cable said tenants had discovered concealed electrical hazards and ungrounded outlets and told the council: "It is on the owners and city inspectors to know and execute these standards." Samuel Perkins, another tenant, described the increase as “staggering” and urged the council to honor the intent of the 2021 voter‑approved policy limiting large year‑to‑year rent shocks: “Can anyone with a straight face say that a single year rent increase of 28.5% … is consistent with that?”

The landlord’s representatives — Scott Day, who said he is managing the properties for his ill mother, and attorney Bill Griffith — told the council they had addressed the most pressing safety items over recent weeks and planned continued repairs. Day said the family was seeking the increases because property taxes, insurance and energy costs had risen and because rents had lagged for years. "We have to increase the rent," Day said. Griffith said he toured the properties and that major safety items had been fixed or stabilized, and urged the council to accept the record showing the buildings were habitable.

Council members debated two separate lines of concern: whether DSI and the hearing officer had conducted adequate, timely inspections and whether the ordinance’s habitability and “substantial deterioration” standards had been applied consistently before the initial determination to allow the rent increases. Several council members said they were uncomfortable deciding the appeals without more time to review the Sept. 4 inspection results and the late submissions that arrived on the day of the meeting.

Vice President Kim and others urged caution about reopening the public record; city attorneys advised that DSI could submit additional information without re‑opening the hearing. After discussion the council voted to close the public hearings and lay items 33, 34, 36, 37, 39 and 40 over to Sept. 17 for final action. Item 35 (Unit 6 at 938 Ashland) was withdrawn by the appellant. For Item 38 (Unit 10 at 942 Ashland) the council found the appellant had moved out and dismissed that appeal; the motion to dismiss that appeal passed with a split vote.

What happens next

The council directed that the record remain closed for today so members could review the Sept. 4 inspection report and the late materials. The items are scheduled for final council action at the Sept. 17 meeting. Council members and staff repeatedly noted the difference between the quasi‑judicial role of reviewing the record and separate remedial avenues for tenants (DSI code enforcement, rent escrow or tenant remedy actions) and urged tenants to continue filing formal complaints with DSI if conditions persist.

Votes at a glance (items 33–40) - Item 33 (934 Ashland, Unit 1): Motion to close public hearing and lay over to Sept. 17 — motion adopted. (Outcome: laid over to Sept. 17.) - Item 34 (934 Ashland, Unit 2): Motion to close public hearing and lay over to Sept. 17 — motion adopted. (Outcome: laid over to Sept. 17.) - Item 35 (938 Ashland, Unit 6): Appeal withdrawn by appellant. (Outcome: withdrawn.) - Item 36 (942 Ashland, Unit 8): Motion to close public hearing and lay over to Sept. 17 — motion adopted. (Outcome: laid over to Sept. 17.) - Item 37 (942 Ashland, Unit 9): Motion to close public hearing and lay over to Sept. 17 — motion adopted. (Outcome: laid over to Sept. 17.) - Item 38 (942 Ashland, Unit 10): Appellant moved out; council adopted hearing officer recommendation to dismiss/deny appeal. (Outcome: appeal dismissed/denied; roll call reported 5 in favor, 1 opposed.) - Item 39 (942 Ashland, Unit 11): Motion to close public hearing and lay over to Sept. 17 — motion adopted. (Outcome: laid over to Sept. 17.) - Item 40 (942 Ashland, Unit 12): Motion to close public hearing and lay over to Sept. 17 — motion adopted. (Outcome: laid over to Sept. 17.)

Ending

Council members said they wanted to ensure DSI’s inspection findings and the ordinance’s standards were applied consistently before issuing final rulings. The Sept. 17 agenda will include the remaining Ashland Avenue appeals for final action.