Loading...
06-1052City of St. Paul RESOLUTION RATIFYING i Amended 11/15/06 (Amendment Attached) LE NO. d�"yQ.SoL � 39 Y Fi e No SEE BELOW Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Ward In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J0612A1 (8270) Summary abatement (property clean-up) at 962 Bayard on August 17, 2006. LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 11-01-06 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 rati£ied. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the said assessment be and it is hereby determined to be payable in One equal installments. Yeas Nays Absent Benanav � Bostrom � xarris � Helgen � Lantry � Montqomery � Thune � � � Adopted by Council: Date ���jS�a��G Adoption Certified by Council Secretary �� �.. • -• •�� s. - � •. : � �r� � O(v-�65� November 15, 2006 City Council Action Minutes Page 9 39. Resolurion Ratifying Assessment — 06-1052 — In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses far suinrnary abatement (property cleanup) at 962 Bayard Avenue on August 17, 2006. (J0612A1) (Laid over from November 1) (GS 3�34252) (Legislative Hearing Officer's recommendation is forthcoming; reduce the assessment from a total of �386 to a total of $300 and spread the pavments over five (5) vears.) Adopted as amended (per the recommendation of the Legislative Hearing Officer) Yeas — 6 Nays — 0 City of St. Paul Real Estate Division Dept. o£ Technology 6 Management Sern.COUNCIL FILE N0. Ql �f�J�� REPORT OE OF Fi1e No. SEE BELOW Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Ward In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J0612A1 (8270) Summary abatement (property clean-up) at 962 Bayard on August 17, 2006. I,AID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 11-01-06 TO 21-15-06. 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 of the above improvement, viz: Total costs Parks Admin Fee Charge-Code Enforcement Real Estate Service Charge TOTAL EXPENDITURES Charge To Net Assessment $554.00 $ $ 50.00 $ 20.00 $624.00 $624.00 Said Valuation and Assessment Engineer further reports that he has assessed and levied the total amount as above ascertained, to-wit: the sum of $624.00 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 hereof, is the said assessment as completed by him, and which is herewith submitted to the Council for such action thereon as may be considered proper. � Val �� n Assess ent Engineer Dated TI 3 % 6 � Green Sheet Green Sheet ���� �� DeparhnenNofficekouncil: Date initiat PW — r�liowo�s a3-t�ov-0s ConfactPerson 8 Phone: Juan Oritr 266-8864 Must Be on Couneil Agenda by (Date): Doc. Type: OlHER (DOESMf FITANY CA E-DocumentRequirett: Y DoeumentContact: KimRobireon Confact Phone: 2668856 Green Sheet NO: 3034252��1! ��D b,� /oS� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet i J-- l�= D1� . � � 2 rk y Assign Number For Roufing Order Total # of S re P ages _(C lip NI L for S Action Requested: At Councii's request on 11-1-06 Tlus item was laid over to 11-IS-06, snuunary abatement (property clean-up) at 962 Bayazd on August 17, 2006. File No. J0612A1. itlations: Appro�e (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee CiHI Senice Commission Personal Serviee Contraets 1. Flas khis person/firtn e�er w«ked under a contract for this department? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirtn e�er been a city employee? - Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirtn possess a skili not nortnally possessed by a(ry current city employee? Yes No ExpWin all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Inkiating Problem, Issues, Opportunily (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Proper[y owners or renteis create a health Lazard at various times throughout the City of Saint Paul when theu property is not kept up. The City is requued by Ciry code to clean up the property and chazge the property owner for the cost of the clean up. _ Advanta5les IfApproved: Cost recovery programs to recover elcpenses for sumruary abatements, gass cutting, towing of abandoned vehicles, demolitions, gazbage hauling and boardiugs-up. Disadvantages IFApproved: None Disadvanqges If NotApproved: If Council does not approve these charges, general fund would be required to pay the assessment. TotalAmountof 624 Trensaction: Fundinq Source: Activity Number: Financial lnformation: (Expiain) 1 property owner will be notified of Yhe public hearing and chazges. �. {. t ��. a: < � _ �:(', '� � (1i CostlRevenue Budgeted: November 3, 200610:48 AM Page 1 N W � � d LA a � a � � N m � � � Q 0 N 0 � � n N N ,o , �m � q�o i H 1 O 1 1 I N�c E � c� i p,' i i i W � r1 LL � N i O i w' � m w i cu i � N � � .-i e 1 V) � O O O!i O 1 � � 0 0 0 11 0 � I ��D O O II l0 i � i ri �fl N If W� n [nt� II n � «+ n �r � n � cC n O � n i U � ii � � � II � G� i II � 1 I U] I 000 � E1 � 000 I H � O O O ; Z I O O O 7 i . . . i i � N ti a�� � � �M � � � U� i � i � W i � i i Wi000 F�000 i cc i o00 d r i .-i o o i E � in N � H i i � 1 1 I I 1 f 1 � I 1 1 ' I 1 1 � a � � wu i �H � w��� ��a°u � � � � a�xw � � UU i F � x "✓ � eC � � W W � w�mam � � � �aw � � � � i �aa � � a � o�H � H � U] q i E. � z �o i a oa� ..o � ��H w�� x� o H�� v � z.+ o� � �n �o z�� W �riH m� C] � H O W o i � H a �n � H� wm� w����aa� a � zN�+ N � o �o� ..+� a�x�Fs a �.+ o � � �z3a o� � � ' � � � � e� i o� i ti i W M � � O � 1 o m� w� N °; ?+ � rl O W •• i 2 � W.i>[�. a� � � �a�a`� � o � �s`�+aaz � a�c�w� W� O W rl Ll � W i H w�t z� 7. � U N io W � 3 � NioE+rnw � O � > rncn� t � 000 000 woo .1 It1 N M Vlt? � 0 0 � (1 m •W W ii W U] C7 II � � � ii woxn rjUU II rxw iia av�«a W H II E x>no � U a n H wwn mcLmnH � � � ii h OOOiia F E H I I w � a w a a N a w x W 0 � a W U a N vb �osa� �-�o5z NIINIJTES OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ORDERS TO REMOVE/REPAIIt, CONDEMNATIONS, ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS, ABATEMENT ORDERS, RENTAL REVOCATION CERTIFICATES Tuesday, November 14 2006 Room 330 Ciry Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd. West Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing dfficer The hearing was cailed to order at 10:05 a.m. STAFF PRESENT: John Betz, Neighborhood Housing and Property Improvement (NFII'I), and Steve Magner, NHPI, Past Summary Abatement Appeals: 962 Bavard Avenue (J0612A) Ms. Moermond stated the properiy owner had appeared at the public hearing on November 1 and had not attended the Legislarive Hearing on October 17. The matter was refened back for a Legislative Hearing with a pubiic hearing date of November 25. Mr. Betz stated the property was inspected due to notification from the Fire Department that tUere had been a 6re at this properiy. The property was inspected and orders were issued on August 8, 2006 to remove discarded furniture and fire debris and to cut tall grass and weeds with a compliance date of August 14, 2006. The properiy was re-inspected on August 15, 2006 and the work had not been done. A work order was sent to the Parks Department wha did the work on August 17, 2006. According to the file, the property owner had cut the tall grass and weeds. He presented a video showing the removal of the discarded couches as well as lumber and other debris from the fire to the garage. Victoria Dahl, property owner, stated she had received the order to clean up the property as well as the notice for the hearings on the assessment however she had not opened them as she assumed it was correspondence from her son's school. She explained that the fire to her garage was the result_ of azson which happened on July 28, 2006. She had contacted her insurance company and the adjuster inspected the garage on July 30. He instructed her to wait to do anything unril she heard back from them however, they failed to contact her. The couch had been put out by the garage prior to the fire as her nephew had planned to take it. When the fire occun•ed, she was in the process of planning a move to Arizona and had placed all of her belongings she was going to take in the garage. Everything was destroyed and now she could not afford ro move. She did not believe she should be responsible for the assessment. Ms. Moerniond stated that proper legal notification had been sent to the property owner and she had failed to open the notices. Therefore, she recommended reducing the assessment from a total of $386 to a total of $300 and spread the payments over five (5) years.