06-1051City of St. Paul
RESOLUTION RATIFYING ASSESSMENT
Au�ended 11/15/06
Amendment AttachPd:
COUNCIL FILE N0. DIo
By {
File No. SEE BELO
Assessment No. SEE BELOW
Voting
Ward In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses £or
i
J0604E3 (8263) Summary abatement for the excessive consumption of inspection
services for property code violations billed during the time period £rom April 12 to
May 12, 2006.
r.nTD OVER BY COUNCII, ON 10-18-06 TO 11-15-06.
A public hearing having been had upon the assessment for the above
improvement, and said assessment having been further considered by the Council, and
having been considered finally satisfactory, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the said assessment be and the same is hereby in all respects
ratified.
RESOLVED FURTHER, That the said assessment be and it is hereby determined to
be payable in One equal installments.
Yeas Nays Absent
Benanav �
Bostrom �
Aarris �/
Helgen �/
Lantry �/
Montgomery f/
Thune ��
0
Adopted by Council: Date ��//S��!/�/
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: —L
Approved
By: �
�1 –�- Ob
D [�-�05 J
November 15, 2006 City Council Action Minutes
.,._,
38. Resolution Ratifying Assessment — 06-1051 — In the matter of the assessment of
benefits, cost and expenses for summary abatement for excessive consumption of
inspection services for property code violarions billed from April 12 to May 12,
2006 (70604E3). (Laid over from October 18) (GS3034Q34) (Legislative
Hearing Officer's recommendation is forthcoming;
948 Euclid Street - lavin� over to the January 17, 2007 Public Hearin�s; and
281 Lafond Avenue - approve the assessmentJ
Adopted as amended (per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing
Officer) Yeas — 6 Nays — 0
City of St. Paul
Real Estate Division
Dept_ of Technology � Management Serv.COUNCIL FILE N0. �� — /0���
REPORT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT File No. SEE BELOW
Assessment No. SEE BELOW
Voting
Ward In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for
J0604E3 (8263) Summary abatement for the excessive consumption of inspection
services for property code violations billed during the time period from April 12 to
May 12, 2006.
LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 10-18-06 TO 11-15-06.
To the Council of the City of St. Paul
The Valuation and Assessment Engineer hereby reports to the Council the
following as a statement of the expenditures necessarily incurred for and in
connection with the making o£ the above improvement, viz:
Total costs
Parks Admin
Charge-Code
Real Estate
Fee
Enforcement
Service Charge
$225.00
S
$
$ 40.00
$265.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Charge To
Net Assessment
$265.00
Said Valuation and Assessment Engineer further reports that he has assessed and
levied the total amount as above ascertained, to-wit: the sum o£ $265.00 upon each
and every lot, part or parcel of land deemed benefitted by the said improvement, and
in the case of each lot, part or parcel of land in accordance with the benefits
conferred thereon; that the said assessment has been completed, and that hereto
attached, identified by the signature of the said Valuation and Assessment Engineer,
and made a part hereot, is the said assessment as completed by him, and which is
herewith submitted to the Council for such action thereon m e �sidered
proper. �
Dated �b ��d ' �
�aluatio an As ess ent Engineer
OG /oSl �
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet
�L��. l�t�C — ��. /�� c�11 �� `. b�P
Depar6nenHoffieelwunci4• �atetnitiated:
PW �bv�wo� �-0�� Green Sheet NO: 3034034 1��
Contact Person & Phone:
Juan Ori�lT' At
266�a864 �� ��•,
Must�e on Council qqenda by
Doe.Type: OiHER (DOESNTPRANY CA
E-0oeumentRequired: Y
Doeument Contact: IGm Robinson
Confack Phone: 266-8856
�
Assign
Number
For
Routing
Order
Tofal # M Signature Pages _(Clip All Locations for Signature)
�� u . „
. . -
InitiaVDate
�
Aetion Requested:
At Council's request on 10-18-06 this item was laid over to I 1-IS-06, summary abatement for the excessive consumprion of inspecrion
services for properry code violations billed during the time period from April 12 to May 12, 2006. File No. 70604E3
idations: Appro�e (A) or Reject (R):
Planning Commission
CIB Committee
Ci�.il Senice Commissiai
Following QuesGons:
1. Has this persorJfirtn e�er wodced under a cwdract for this departmeM?
Yes Np
2. Has this personlfirm e�er been a ciry empioyee?
Yes No
3. Does this person/firtn possess a skill not nqmally possessed by arry
curtent city empioyee?
Yes No
Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and aHach to green sheet
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Property owners or renters create a health hazazd at various fimes throughout the City of Saint Paul when their property is not kept up.
The City is required by City code to clean up the propetry and chazge the ptoperty owner for the cost of the clean up.
AdvantaS�es IfApproved:
Cost recovery progruns to recover expenses for summary abatements, grass cut6ng, towing of abandoned vehicles, demolitions,
gazbage hauling and boazdings-up.
Disadvantapes IfApproved:
None
Disadvanpges ff NotApproved:
If Council does not approve these chazges, general fund would be required to pay the assessment.
TofalAmountof 265
Transaction:
Funding Source:
CosNRevenue Budgeted:
Activity Number:
Financial Infortnation:
(Explain) 2 Properiy owner will be notified of the public hearing and chazges.
October27, 20061:27PM Page 1
�
W
Q
a
�
a
�
a
�
�
E
�
N
m
a
�
�
4
0
i
N
�°,
W
0
ti
I � I �
i p I �
q � ti � O
H � O � O
1 1 1
N i r-I � N
[r I M � ti
a �
W i N i t�l �
W� N i N i
O i
rx � m � o,
a�N �N �
� �
� M � tp
� f`l � M I
1
U] 1 O O O O II O 1 O O O O II O 1
p-i i o00 o II O � O000 II O i
$ •II i •II
b� oinoo n in � o00o n o�
O i OPL}N II Ol i �f1ilYL}N II P �
� � N � � II `i I � � II � ;
,m mm �
u � n �
rx � n i n �
o � n � n �
F � n i n
U � p II
a � II II i
Cu � 11 i 11
I
(n I O O O O � O O O O I
E�0000 �0000
H I O O O O � O O O O 1
� i O O O O I O O O O �
1 ' I I
� N ri0 rl i rl OOrI t
�i I
Q 1
F �
U i
Q i
W i
i i
Wi0000 �0000 i
[_ � o 0 o O i o 0 0 o i
f� 1 O O O O 1 O O O O
C4 � �
� o inoo i o in oo i
N � l�1 h!f1 N i lfl t� �11 N
H i ri ri
Z I I
] I I
I I
I � � � I � � � I
I � � � I � � �
Ip�� 1��� I
W�VUUW iUUUW i
��7�j i��� i
i HH H¢] I H H H[i]
a � �nm�nu � mmmu
Q I(f] Clj U] H i U] U] U] H I
E�WWW7 iWWW�
O� V UUCG � UU V OS
¢�xxxw �xxxw �
w�wwwm �wwwm �
� �
�x � �
�a � a
�w � a �
� w �min � z m �
2� Om mmin � OC m i
� � •2a �u i E�C � �
w � �Ea •• u�iu�iv' � Ac ••u' i
H � U] p+ W i p W i
fk i FC • E Yk x xC FC E ti H a i
U viqE O »� ONO i
w��a�a��z�HH�°aaxz�-, �
A � w i H. a W 1
�+ i N",.�+ i [- i
H� H i-7 .7. i 0.l W N N N i t"1 W M
x� o o ammm � �n�n ao �
w � c9z�-+ma�nu�in � z.aFW.�a �
a � � F N �o �o �o � o o,�
o i �+ � o00 � cnwa• o i
a i�r�.�-l o00 � q W p� o i
�
i i
i rn i i
; N �9 l0 ;
0 o i o
i M i i
io o i m
i � ti � ti i
t+l i � N i i
a� w � o � o �° �
W� iE M
FC E 0.' q £E W i�- W�9k. '
a �� ]Q �no � x>�n�co �
� ocew �c� �
� UO�-+q�n i W q W i
�
H � (a 'I,
fk � O W� UC� i i- O�OC� �
o�aw�wz �z�waaz
�CaaN �
w � mozmz �� a`�a.+z �
z � �Nwa�w � w., mw
3 � Ha�Llm[L � FmHNa
o� o,�w� + � cnNm. + �
0 0 0 o II o
0000110
•II
o tfl o O II ln
u1rU+C II l0
rl U+ i? II N
� ���
� � � I II
zzz ii
�U�UWIi
WWWWii
�-�+ � � w ii a
m�n�un4
V1 V] U] H II E+
W W W�✓ n O
UUU(x II E
xxxwn
W W W m n E
n U
aaaanw
�C �C �C �C n h
E F F F n O
000 0iia
�
.7
W
a
a
E
a
W
X
W
0
a
w
a
a
06 ia SI
Ol� - 4u5 I
October 17, 2006 Minutes of the Legisiative Hearing
948 Euclid Avenue (J0604E)
Page 3
Mr. Robinson stated orders were issued on April 12, 2006 to remove furniture, refuse, tires and
an inoperable vehicle from the property with a compliance date of April 17, 2006. The property
was re-inspected on April 17, Apri125, May 10 and June 10, 2006. The excessive consumprion
charge was being assessed against the property for the three multiple re-inspections.
Howard Johnson, property owner, stated he had not received the notices as he had just purchased
the property in January, 2006 on a Contract for Deed. He was notified by the previous owner,
Otis Courtney, of the norice he had received from the City to clean up the property. Mr.
Robinson confumed that the notice had been sent to the previous owners, Chad and Lori
Christensen, Otis Courtney and Crystal Meyers.
Ms. Moermond questioned Mr. Johnson whether he had registered the Contract for Deed with
Ramsey County. Mr. Johnson responded he had not.
Ms. Moermond stated it was incumbent on the buyer to register the Contract for Deed, which did
require a filing fee, with the County which was why he did not receive the notices. Mr. Howard
stated that he did not have the money at this time to pay the filing fee to register the deed and
suggested he likely would not have funds available to him until after the beginning of November.
Ms. Moermond recommended giving Mr. Johnson until November 9, 2006 to register the
Contract for Deed with Ramsey Counry. If he did so, she would recommend deleting the
assessment. If he failed to do so, she would recommend approving the assessment. She
recommended laying this matter over to the November 1 S public hearing.
On November 14, 2006, the Legislative Hearing Officer reviewed all the information concerning
this property and determined that proper legal notification was given to the property owner.
Therefore, she recommended approving the assessment.
October 3, 2006 Minutes of the Legislative Hearing
281 Lafond Avenue (J0604E)
�.�- �� �
Page 6
Mr. Betz stated orders were issued on January 25, 2006 to repair a large hole in the gazage door
with a compliance date of May 1, 2006. The property was re-inspected on May 5, 2006 and the
work had not been done. A notice was sent to the property owner that a re-inspection would be
conducted and if the work had not been done, a$75 excessive consumprion fee would be
assessed. The property was re-inspection on August 10, 2006, the work had not been done so the
$75 fee was assessed. Another order was issued stating that the property would be re-inspected
on September 15, 2006, however, they had not yet re-inspected the property.
Stephanie Hinton, property owner, stated she had talked to the inspector, Paula Seely, concerning
the work order that was issued on repairing the gazage door and her financial difficulty to make
the required repair . She had received bids in the amount of $300 to $400 to replace the panels.
She was disabled, a single mom and did not have the fmances to make this repair at the time the
orders were issued. There was a recent shooting in her neighborhood and three bullets shot out
windows in her house and garage. She received a bid in the amount of $548 to repair the
windows and did not have the ability to afford those repairs either. She did have the finances to
repair the gaxage door, however, she requested she not be charged the excessive consumption
fees.
Ms. Moermond asked whether the garage had been repaired and if not, when Ms. Hinton
expected the repairs could be done. Ms. Hinton responded that the garage had not been repaired,
however, she expected the parts could be ordered within approximately two weeks after she
contacted the contractor.
Ms. Moermond stated that if the work were done within one month, she would recommend the
Council reduce the assessment to $50. If the work was not completed by that time, she would
recommend the Council approve the entire assessment.
This matter was laid over to the November 15 City Councii Public Hearing.
On November 13, 2006, 7ohn Betz, NHPI, contacted the Legislative Hearing Officer and
informed her that the garage door had not been repaired. Ms. Moermond recommends approving
the assessment in the amount of $70.00