Loading...
06-436City of St. Paul RESOLUTION RATIFYING ASSESSMENT Voting Ward In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J0504E1 (8181) Summary abatement £or the excessive consumption of Inspection services for Property Code violations at 698 Bedford Billed on July 13, 2005. LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 4-5-06 TO 5-3-06 3� 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 � Harris �/ Helgen � Lantry � Montgomery � Thune � � U Adopted by Council: Date� Adoption Certified by Council Secretary BY � �/.(/l��oa��vsr7� Approved b ay r: Date J—� BY: 1� �( l.li�.�����-o"��i�g' Assessment No. SEE BELOW c� O� -�3b City of St. Paul Real Estate Division Dept. of Tech_nology & Management Serv.COUNCIL FILE N0. REPORT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSNIENT File No. SEE BELOW Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Ward In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J0504E1 (8181) Summary abatement for the excessive consumption of Inspection services for Property Code violations at 698 Bedford Bi11ed on July 13, 2005. LAID OVER BY COUNCIL ON 4-5-06 TO 5-3-06 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 $50.00 Charge-Code Enforcement $ Real Estate Service Charge $20.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES Charge To Net Assessment $70.00 $70.00 Said Valuation and Assessment Engineer further reports that he has assessed and levied the total amount as above ascertained, to-wit: the sum of $70.00 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. Dated / �u�� � � �� � Green Sheet Green Sheet Depar6nentlotfieeleouncil: Dabe Inifiat P�l�/ — Public Works '11 /1PR-06 �Contact Person & P one: ��, °"� J � Must Be on Councl Agenda by /�.a�, 3 - r?!� ContradType: OT-0TIiER (DOESNT FRANY CAlEGORI� � ' Green Sheet NO: 3030375 Departrnent SeMToPerson A55ign 1 Eri -' Number ?`�'� 2 z -` For ,.y�,.��a :_ ' �:3 Routing �� Order � � F�� �, "- . � Total # of Signalure Pages _(Clip All Locations for SignaWreJ AcGon Requested: - At Council's request on 4-5-06 this item was laid over to 5-3-06. Snmmary abatement for the consump of inspec services for property at 698 Bedford. File No. J0504E1. idations: Appro�e (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CB Committee CiHI Senice Commission _ �_ �3_ ��, cf- 0�-�3� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �� i�-!\-O�Q t. Has this persorJfirtn e�er worked under a cont2ct for this departmeM? Yes No 2. Flas this persodfirtn e�er �en a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this persoNfirm possess a skill not namaily possessed by afry cuReM city emqoyee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and altaeh to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Property owners or renters create a health ha�ard at various times throughout the City of Saint Paul when their property is not kept up. The Ciry is required by City code to clean up the properry and charge the properry owner for the cost of the clean up. Advantas7es If Approved: Cost recovery progams to recover expenses for sumuiary abatemenu, grass cutting, towing of abandoned velricles, demolitions, gazbage hauling and boazdings-up. Disadvantages IFApproved: None Disadvantapes If Not Approved: . If Council does not approve these chazges, general fund would be requiied to pay the assessment. ��w�wnounsor $70 Transaetio�: Funding Souroe: Activ'ity Number. Finaneial Information: (ExpWin) I properiy,owner will be nofified of the public hearing and charges. CosVRevenue Budgeted: v ./° April 11, 2P06 9:27 AM Page 1 N W � Q a m a R a w C� Q � � � •i ro � E E � m a 0 O 0 .�i 0 � in �o Dio H i O � 1 fl E�N a� WiN a�N o� a � o+ a�rv i N � M 1 VJ 1 0000 II C E � o 0 0 o n c z� . . . . n b 0000nc O � �nvrv}N n r � i t/? +? 11 U. il � II a � II o � n E � n V � ii Q � II W � II I Cn 1 OOOO [-� i 0000 H � O O O O � 1 O O O O I fi O O r 1 a� o� H� U � a� w� � w�0000 F�0000 FC � o000 a � . . . . I O N O O H� N 1� 1 t 1 N H � rl � � I 1 waa �zza W �C i W W W W z �»> � HHH[V a�mmwu O�mmmH EiWWW> � �XKW wiWWWm rn O � W M H � lp E � �o a � z •• � ��p w a�ti H� ��� z'� W i (� N N Q 1 Q [i] N 1� a Q m a � a w � �,�aN a�a� � o�a �� a .+F. a �a� o � � � � C9 c �z �o � ; H N O x � � a' C7 a o W i ,-t � � �F.iC W x a � �n � o i W ut q F i�OEW� O� W q.7 W 2 a � r w� amz 3�xmE�w o � u�om+. � � i 1 1 � � i I i i i � i i � � 1 I i � � � � � � i � � i � � � 0000 ,t o O O O O II O • �� • 0000 II O f111?thN 11 t� vz vr u v} n u n n I� aaa n �� � �� .ti n 000 ii U V U W n 7 y � w 11 .+N�w n a U1 U1 Ul U �I � mmmi+ u H V UU�0.' II H xxxw�� WWCdrn uF aaaaiiw rjrlFCr.� n 7 EHFEIIO 0000��a H N F H n a � a w V� a E a � W x w 0 N a W u � a .a ��o� ��3b LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2006 :�-�e��3b b�-��� Page same tune, it needs to be investigated as to whether the property is homesteaded. She will tallc to the landlord about responsibility of the tax assessments and her concems about where the notices went to. She is hoping that making Mr. Palmer awaze of this will lighten the load of the tenants. Laid over summary abatement, rescheduled from 4-4-06 (scheduled for City Council on 4-19-06): Rescheduled from 4-4-06 (scheduled for City Council on 4-19-06): J0504E Excessive Consumpfion of Inspection Services at 698 Bedford Street JOSOSE Excessive Consumpfion of Inspecfion Services at 1139 Beech Street JOSOSE Excessive Consumption of Inspecfion Services at 740 Blair Avenue 0601T Removal of diseased trees at 734 BradleY Street JOSOSE Excessive Consumption of Inspection Services at 1122 Edmund Avenue JOSOSE Excessive Consumption of Inspection Services at 369 Maenolia Avenue East JOSOSE Excessive Consumption of Inspection Services at 708 Simon Avenue JOSOSE Eacessive Consumption of Inspection Services at 410 Vir¢inia Street JOSOSE Excessive Consumption of Inspection Services at 576 White Bear Avenue North � 698 Bedford Street, Excessive Consumption of Inspection Services (J0504E) $70 Ms. Moermond recommends approval of the assessment because an appellant did not appear. 369 Ma�nolia Avenue East, Excessive Consumpfion of Inspection Services (JOSOSE), $95 John Betz reported that orders were mailed on 4-20-OS for missing windows and repair trim paint with a compliance date of 5-19-05. There were reinspections on 7-6-OS and 9-2-OS with $50 and $75 excessive consumption bills for noncompliant reinspections. Michael Chapman, owner, appeared and stated the City said he had a vehicle in his driveway, and Mr. Chapman took care of that. Then, the inspector came back and said that there was peeling on the window frame, trim on the garage, five windows were needed for the porch. She gave him about a month to get it all down. He called and explained that he could not get it done in that time. Then, she gave him until August, and he called her and said he still could not get it done. He primed and painted about 14 windows plus a doorway. He called the inspector in November and told her the windows had to be special ordered. He did not have the money to get all five windows done. He installed them in the middle of winter. He is compliant with what they want. Time and money is a problem. Ms. Moermond asked is there any record of contacts. Mr. Betz responded the property owner did call. The $75 was due to an inspection on 9-2-05. A notice was issued that they aze assessed. The owner called and talked to the inspector. On 9-19-05, the owner called about financial difficulty and two more extension were granted. On 1-27-06, the work was done. There has no other history at this property. Ms. Moermond recommends deleting the assessment.