Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Building Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Paul council reviews multiple vacant-building fee appeals; some assessments reduced, others laid over
Summary
The City Council heard several appeals to vacant-building assessments and took mixed actions: it approved amendments reducing or stretching payment terms for some cases and laid others over for more information or future hearings.
The St. Paul City Council on April 2 heard a series of legislative-hearing appeals over special tax assessments tied to the city’s vacant-building program and took mixed actions: the council approved amendments that changed payment terms or reduced bills in two cases, and laid other appeals over for further review.
Council consideration covered multiple properties that had been enrolled in the city’s vacant-building program. Legislative Hearing Officer Marsha Mormont presented the department recommendations and the council heard owners and representatives by phone and in person. Councilmembers divided between enforcing the assessment schedule and giving owners more time or relief when the record showed active permitting or special circumstances.
The council adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation with amendments in two matters. For RLHTA-204-335 (property at 586 Burgess Street) the council voted to ratify the special assessment but amended the payment schedule to allow the owner to pay over seven years (motion by Councilmember Buie; recorded vote in favor 7, 1 opposed). For RLHTA-25-118 (property at 759 Charles Avenue) the hearing officer recommended a reduced assessment amount from the full fee to $1,964 based on Department of Safety and Inspections representations; after testimony from the property owner on the phone the council approved the assessment as reduced and amended the payment schedule to allow up to five years to pay the balance (motion carried 7–1).
Other appealed assessments were postponed for more information or future council review. The council laid over RLHTA-205-115 (686 Edmond Avenue, assessment $5,077) to September 10 after extended discussion about whether work in progress could change the outcome. Two other appeals — RLHTA-205-120 (120 Leighton Place) and RLHTA-205-576 (1141 University Avenue West) — were laid over to the April 16 meeting to permit additional follow-up with applicants and to confirm permit and inspection records.
Legislative hearing officer Mormont repeatedly told the council that the vacant-building fee is intended to incentivize prompt rehabilitation and is generally applied for a 12-month period; her office recommended reductions only in cases with documented, exceptional circumstances or demonstrated representations from other city departments. Councilmembers asked staff about options for prorating or extending payment terms and in several cases exercised their authority to divide payments over multiple years. Councilmember Buie offered to have her office connect constituents with available resources to support renovation work.
The council also closed and adopted the hearing officer’s recommendations en masse for the remaining legislative-hearing items (items 28–54) after public comment, with a recorded vote of 7–1 to adopt those recommendations as amended.
What happened next: specific appeals were handled differently depending on the property, the sequence of inspections and permits, and representations by the Department of Safety and Inspections. Where work remained clearly incomplete, several councilmembers said they were reluctant to waive entire fees. Where owners presented evidence of timely efforts or city representations that affected the schedule, the council was more willing to reduce or extend payments.
The council directed the legislative hearing office and the assessments office to craft clearer guidance on payment time periods for assessments so future appeals would be decided with a written policy that reflects state law and local practice.
