02-978Return copy to:
Real Estate Division(lai)
140 CiTy Hall
CITY
Presented By
Referred To
NESOTA
Committee: Date
��
� WHEI2EAS, on August 28, 2002, the City Council of the City of Saint Pau] adopted Council File #02-785, said
2 Resolution being the Ratification of Assessments for the Boazding up of vacant buildings during the month of
s April, 2002 (Pile No. J0204B, Assessment No. 0947), and
a
s
6
�
s
9
io
tt
tz
73
14
IS
16
17
is
19
zo
WHEREAS, the property at 53 King Street East, being described as:
The west 38 feet ofLot 6, and the west 38 feet ofthe south 23 feet ofLot 7, Block 107, West St Paul
Blocks 100 through 171, etc., Ramsey County, Minnesota,
with the property identification number of 08-28-22-23-0077 was assessed an amoimt of $95.00 for a canceled
call to service at said property, and
WHEREAS, the Code Bnforcement policy is to pay the contractor for canceled calls per the City contract and
not to assess the owner due to the fact that no work was completed, and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer has recommended that the assessment be deleted,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the amount of the assessment for this property be deleted, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the reduction of $95.00 be funded by the Exempt Assessment Fund.
q ��
Conncil File # Q�,_g�y
Green Sheet # 111673
., ' b1� 11 p
T.M.S./REAL ESTATE DIVISION Date: September 25, 2002 Green Sheet Number: 111673
Contac[ Person and Phoye Number � �` 2 DEPARTMEN7 DIIiECTOR 4 C17'Y COUNCII,
� (/i
PeteTWhite��� /,� 266-8850 . h , 1 crrrni � crrrccEiuc
�;
°"�'"'.` �� � BUDGET DIRECTOR OFFICE OF FINANCIAL SVCS
Mos[ be on Coancil Agenda by: '�"°^�'°,
.. 3 MAYOR(ORASSISTANT) REpLESTATEDIVISION
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES I (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
ACTION REQUESTED: -
Approve a Council Resolution to delete the amount of the assessment from the property at
53 King Street East
RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVE (A) OR REJECT (R) pERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:
1. Has the persoo/firm ever worked under a contract for [his department? YES NO
rinn��ccomrnss�on A srn�r
2. Has this peraon/6rm ever been a Ci[y empl0yee? YFS NO
CMLSEAVICECODfMISSION � ��
� �r�kC-,R?G?'- -,
_ �
3. Does this person/firm possess a sltill not normally possessed by any YES NO
currentCityem¢Loyee? .. , ., rn�e,
CIBCOMMITI"EE � , . .,
^ Ex tain at1 YES answers on a se arate sheet a»d attach.
SUPPOATS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTNE?
COUNCIL 2 . DISTRICT PLANNING COUNCIL 3
ARD S
INiTTATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why?):
It has been determined that the property at 53 King Street East was charged for a service cali
that was canceled. No work was done at the property.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
Assessment would be deleted. �EP `� '� 2QQ2
DLSADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED: ��� �����l1��
Amount deleted would have to be funded by the City's Exempt Assessment Fund.
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED:
Property owner would be assessed for work not done, contrary to Code Enforcement policy.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TR.�NSACTION: $9S.00 � BUDGETED (CIRCLE ON� YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE: �i XQIDpt E1SS0SSI178Lt �'llll(IS ACTNITY NUMBER: GL OOI-O9OSI-OS�{2
FINANCIAL INFORMATIOt�': (F,XPLAIN)
�
Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
September 5, 2002
TO: Roxanna Flink
FROM: Steve Magner
SUBJECT: Assessment 0947 File J0204B for 53 King Street East
The assessment of $95.00 for 53 King Street East should not have been sent to
your office. The originai cost of $50.00 was paid to the contractor far a canceled
call for service to 53 King Street East from the St. Paul Fire Department. The
Code Enforcement policy on this issue is to pay the contractor per the City
contract, but not to assess the owner, due to the fact that no work was completed.
Please use this memo as official notice to cancel the assessment and send a
resolution to the City Council per our conversation of 9-3-02. Thank you for your
help.
oZ-9�1 t'
SM:jk