No preview available
10-369City of St. Paul �ENDED 4/07/2010 RESOLUTION RATIFYING ASSESSMENT COUNCIL FILE NO. 6 ,3 � By File No. SEE BELO W Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Wazd In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J0908C 1(108863) demolition of vacant buildings during October, 2009 at 1384 Asbury St. LAID OVER TO 03l16/10 LEG HEARING AND 04l07/10 PUBLIC HEARING ��j A public hearing having been had upon the assessment for the above improvement, and said assessment having been fixrther 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 rafified. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the said assessment be and it is hereby determined to be payable�n-0ae equ�l over five (5) years. Yeas Nays Absent Bostrom ✓ Carter ,/ Harris ,/ Helgen f Lantry ,i Stark ✓ Thune ✓ 7 � d Adopted by Council: Date '`�//���v?��G Adoption Certified by Council Secretary : Approved by �or: Date `�( l �/ � �`l _ : City of St. Paul Real Estate Division Dept. of Technology & Management Serv. COUNCIL FILE NO. /e-� �f REPORT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT FileNo. SEE BELOW Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Wazd In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J0908C1 (108863) demolition of vacant buildings during October, 2009 at 1384 Asbury St. LAID OVER TO 03/16/10 LEG HEARING AND 04/07/10 PUBLIC HEARING 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: Tota1 costs DSI Admin Fee Parks Admin Fee Charge-Code Enforcement Real Estate Seroice Charge Attorney Fees $11,056.26 $ 50.00 $ ►1 11 TOTAL EXPENDITiJRES Charge To Net Assessment $11,126.26 $11,126.26 Said Valuation and Assessment Engineer further reports that he has assessed and levied the total amount as above ascertained, to-wit: the sum of $11,126.26 upon each and every lot, part or pazcel 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 V aluation 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 onsi ered proper. Dated �' U /'�� ���.�,(�P/ aluation and Assessment Engineer Lb- LN- .�- � Green Sheet Green Sheet �� io �a �� � � �o Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet 1/�_� i.� � CV �u. I Department/Office/Council: Date Inkiated: FS -FinancialServices o9�20,o Green Sheet NO: 3101656 Contact Person & Pho e• Deoartrnent Sent To Pereon InitiallDate Lynn Moser � � 0 ivanciai Services L n Moser Z66�8$$1 1 oanc�l M Erickson ASSign 2 - Cluk Ci Clerk Must Be on Council AgefMa by (DSte): Number P For Routing Doc. Type:O (DOESNT FITANY Order CATEGOR`n E-Doeument Required: Y Doeument Co�act: wm Ranweiler Contad Phone: 266-8856 Total # of Signatur¢ Pages _(Ciip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: At Council's request this item was laid over to 3/16/10 LEG HF.,AR and 4/7/10 PUBLIC HEARING; demoltion of vacant buildings duning Oct, 2009 at 1384 Asbury St. File No. J0908C3 Recommendafions: Approve (A) or Reject (R): personal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following Questions: Planning Commission 1. Has fhis person/firtn ever worked under a contract for this departrnent? CIBCommittee Yes No ` Civil Service Commission 2. Has this persoNfirm ever been a cily employee? Yes No 3. Does ihis person/firtn possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain aIl yes answere on uparete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, 4ssues, Opportunity (Who, WhaR �en, Where, Why): Property owners or renters create a health hazard at various rimes throughout the City of Saint Paul when their property is not kept up. The City is required by City code to clean up the property and charge the property owner for the clean up. Advanfages If Approved: Cost recovery programs to recover expenses for summary abatement, grass cutting, towing of abandoned vehicles, demottions, garbage hauling, vacant bldg fees and boazding-up. � Disadvantages It Approved: None Disadvantages If Not Approved: If Council does not approve these chazges, general fund wouid be requ'aed to pay the assessment. Total Amount of $ � � � 26.26 Transaction: CosURevenue Budgeted: Funding Source: AcGvity Number. Financial Information: � (Explain) � property owner will be notified of the public hearing and chazges. March 9, 2070 1:43 PM Page t March 2, 2010 Legislative Hearing Minutes � D 2�� Page 11 J J0908C Demolition of vacant buildings in October 2009 1384 Asburv Street (J0908C) Mr. Yannarelly stated that he had briefly spoken to Mr. Magner prior to the hearing regarding the properry owner's concem with the demolition cost of the assessment. It was his information that Mr. Magner had indicated to the owner he attend this hearing. He said the total cost of the assessment was $11,126.26. Thomas Bain, property owner, stated that he had purchased the property from the bank on the condition by the city that he would a11ow the city to raze the building. He said there was a long history of problems with the property and the tenants/owner who had lived there. He was appealing the cost of the assessment for the demolition because he believed he could spread the payments over 10 years, which he was then informed that he could not unless he requested to do so. He also was concemed that he was being charged for a curb that was put in after a curb cut and apron had been installed and then removed. He said he could not understand why a curb cut and apron had been put in when there wasn't a driveway or a garage on the property. Mr. Yannarelly explained that new curbs and gutters had been installed in the neighborhood and the contractor had made so many mistakes, that the city has banned this contractor from doing any future work within the city. It was his understanding that the property was not assessed for the curb cut and apron that was installed and subsequently removed, but was only assessed for the installation of the new curb. He said he would need to check the file to verify the actual breakdown of costs for this assessment. On Mazch 3, 2010, Ms. Moermond conferred with Mr. Magner regarding the demolition assessment for this property. Mr. Magner indicated that Weller was the demolition contractor who did the work at the property. The apron that had been installed was removed because the building had been demolished for which there was no charge. A curb was then installed and the contractor had charged double the rate of what the city's master contract indicated could be charged to install curbing. Mr. Magner then reduced the cost of the assessment for the demolition and installation of the curb accordingly. Ms. Moermond recommended approving the assessment and spreading the payments over five yeazs. � a C. L F L S � (n � O �. O � A C O ? �i � u � Ci N �o a a d R N Q a C pp o a «� 'C ,� R � Y . x� �a d e d a m � 0 L G ti a 0. O N a M N v 0 � � I �� i� i I M I N IN IN I I I I N O O N I V^ O O = I O ff] � _ I v3 v3 N O O I � � .-� I O O O I^ O O I I I ° t � I � � �. a I � � I �9 � LL. Q I C C r� O "' i eJ � :? % 3 � � 4 � O � � O a�' -.*< �z Is lo I� I� �p �p �y� I O '� e Y Ia0 I L' .] I I 1 I i �M o � � � � � y � O � ,.�.. O � N I b�F � I 7 h � M o� z � C �» I � O G � O � � " � � � o � � � 6 N W � � � � I s ° o ��3a � F m � � + x C � � � C � Ca E ti 0 A L L L H i c m O z h 9 wG c c� : u ' C7 U �oo N O O �o 0 0 'n �n N O 6R 69 � � w C N 'O w¢ f�" � N ° �� � y O Q� W Q Q �i ::;�:� F F E-� � N b N n-I (A y � L R R E-i. .,'�',. � U U G � R X 'o � W 0.� ., o 1a��Co�