Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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�