Loading...
199615t 14 • . * Council File No. 199615 By Bernard ORIGINAL TO_ CITY CLERK T. Holland— CITY OF ST. P Resolved, That in accordance with �� the recommendations of the city'-40. �- CI Chief Engineer and the Valuation En- , OFFICE OF THE gineer the assessment for a new side - COUNCIL RES , TION— walk in the amount of $126.94, levied and assessed„a_g a i n s t_ t *= nro erty', elp PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER. DATE RES(LVED, That in accordance with the recommendations of the cityts Chief.Engineer and the Valuation Engineer the assessment for a new sidewalk in -the amount of $126.91, levied and assessed against the property owned by Russell Schulte, and others, located at 665 Case Avenue, and more particularly described as Lot 22, Block 17, Arlingtdn Hills, as set out in the assessment roll identi- fied as Levy No. k., Contract 58,M -176, District No. 3, be reduced to $42-31 for the reason that the records show that the city in- spector had declared the existing walk to be adequate and in fair condition and the owner was advised that renewal thereof was unneces- sary and was not intended; and subsequently by inadvertence and mis- take the inspector irV,'charge ordered said walk removed and a new one constructed; and for the further reason that the Valuation Engineer reports that in consideration of the existing walk having been un- necessarily removed by '?eror on the part of the city, it is his opinion that the amount':of benefits conferred upon said real estate does•not exceed the sum of $42.31 and recommends that the'amount of $84.63 by which said assessment isredueed be paid out of Charter Fiiind 31E1.. RESOLVED FURTHER,,that the prior resolution of this Council, C. F. 1995129'gnd the incorporated Assessment Roll in 'respect of the afore aid Local Improvement Assessment item, hereb are amended so as ;,to reduce the same from $126:94 to 42.31, and the -proper City officers hereby are authorized and directed %to make thEV necessary amendment in the suibject Assessment,,Frbll. r ,` c > if J Nov 1 U 1960 COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council 19— Yeas Nays DeCourcy / Nov 1 1960 Holland Approved 19 Loss In Favor A-A Peterson Mayor Rosen Against ' av is SM s.eo a T ` DUPLICATE TO PRINTER i CITY OF ST. PAUL FILE COUNCIL NO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK COUNCIL RESOLUTION — GENERAL FORM PRESENTED BY COM M N I O N ER DATE RESMVED, That in accordance with the recomendations of the City's Chief Engineer and the Valuation Engineer the assessment for aa, new sidewalk in the amount of $126.94, levied and assessed against the property owned by Russell Schulte, and others, located at 665 Qaos Avenue, and more particularly described as Lot 22, Block 17, Arlington Hills, as set out in the assessment roll identi- fied as Levy No. 4s Contract 58.,1 -176, District No. 3, be reduced to $42.31 for the reason that the records show that the city in- spector had declaared the existing walk to be adequate and in fair condition and the owner was advised that reiiivanl thereof was unneces- sary and was not intended; and subsequently by Inadvertence acd mis- take the inspector in charge ordered said walk removed and a new one constructed; and for the further reason that the Valuation Engineer reports that in consideration of the existing Walk having been un- necessarily removed by error on the part of the city, it is his opinion that the auaount of benefits conferred upon said real estate does not exceed the sum of $42-31 and recoaa ends that the amount of $84.63 by which said assessment israduced be paid out of Charter Fund 31E1.. RESOLVED FURTHER$ that the prior "revolution of this COUTIcil, C4 F- 199512 #. and the incorporated Assessment Roll in respect of the aforesaid Local Improvement Assessment item# hereby re amended so as to reduce the same from 012604 to s ;s 42 *31, and. the proper City officers hereby are authorized and directed, to make the necessary amendment in the subject Assessment Roll. COUNCILMEN Yeas Nays DeCourcy Holland Loss Peterson Rosen 's aM s -so 2 In Favor `" Against t4 v 1960 Adopted by the Council 19— N 0 10 1960 Approved 19— Mayor -���• Z� iltr GEORG M SHEPARD - �l//'` -�� �Y`'0 F� D e •' ° = ~ h �' tt • STREETA AND HIGHWAY � • O • • S A t N T 1 •!l' `� ` ,~'j M E CH „,� ENGINEERING COORDINATOR < • y K w - - "il, Capital; of Minnesota I i,i �DEPARTMENTLOF- PUBLIG WORKS!F - E V. AVERY ENGINEER - _ - 234 City, Hal Cbu e •(2 i r =`C = -; .. MILTON ROSE-N7111 ii its '11 1► ili n Ian L 311J id ..� November 3., 1960 Mr. Eltor Dehn Valuation Engineer St. Paul, Minnesota- Dear Mr. Dehn: NT OF SANITATION w. "XE; Xi.JI sJ 1.4I 1 �{ Attached please find a photo -copy of the report of Robert Simon concerning the sidewalk construction and assessment in front of 665 Case Avenue. -This particular assessment is included in those heard on Wednesday, November 2nd, namely, Contract 58 -M -176 District No. 3, Levy No. 4. You will note from Mr. Simon's report that apparently in 1958 at the time of construction, we had a definitely understanding with Mr. Schulte that no sidewalk work was needed or would be done since his tile walk was in fair condition. Subsequent to that for reasons not now apparent the walk was installed. In consideration r of these apparent facts, I recommend that appropriate action be undertaken to withdraw the assessment for 665 Case Avenue and�to charge the cost•of said sidewalk to fund 31 E -1. You will note from Mr. Simon's report that since partial repair was originally called for on the other lots which we discussed, he bell- evesthe assessment for sidewalk reconstruction is justified. Y rs very truly, P. Eugene V. Avery , Chief Engineer EVA/ j v ' Attach: cc: R. L. Wheeler G. Beckett R. Simon THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF ST. PAUL INTER - OFFICE COMMUNICATION .<J�.8 Nov. 2, 1960 Mr, Grege Beckett Local Improvement Engineer D E P A R T M E N T Re: Sidewalk assessment of Russell Schulte 665 Case Avenue Dear Grege: n M ■ This particular problem is in regard to the reconstruction of the side- walk at the above location where the original inspection indicated this lot a was to be skipped. Mr. Schulte claims that prior to the passage of this order he contacted Mr. Holmgren, Deputy Commissioner, and was promised that no work would be done abutting his property. At the time of construction_ our inspector removed this walk and replaced it with monolithic walk without giving an indicatio:, on the plat as to why thisv was done. Mr. Schulte received notice of a pending assessment ratification hearing and promptly contacted this division as to why there should be an assess- ment against his property when he was given assurance his walk would not be re -_ placed. - Under the circumstance involved and the information available to me at ° the time;I talked to Mr. Schulte and informed him that our recommendation would be for withdrawal of the assessment. I am of the opinion that if this was not done we would have been forced to do it by the Council and the in- cadent which could have taken place in the Council if Mr. Schulte had appeared ;. could have been quite embarrassing to this department. In regard to the other property in this order where the original plat in- w dicated partial repair I believe we were justified in the full reconstruction because of an existing defect. I inspected this area on October 28th. and found` that the walks we skipped and are constructed of tile are in perfect condition.a d I hope this gives you the information you need. Very trul ours, Robert G. Simon Asst. Civil Engineer RGS/mr Local Improvement Division ki