Loading...
10-651City of St. Paul RESOLUTION RATIFYING ASSESSMENT COUNCIL FILE NO. l� ll��/ �� � BY �=-t.� � �,��_ d File No. SEE BELOW Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Wazd In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for �a J1004A1 (108912) properry clean-up on private properry at 96 Manitoba Ave on February 12, 2010. LAID OVER TO 06/15/10 LEG HEARING AND 06/16/10 PUBLIC HEAIZING A public hearing having been had upon the assessment for the above unprovement, and said assessment having been fiu�ther 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 a11 respects ratified. RESOLVED FURTHER, That the said assessment be and it is hereby determined to be payable in One equal installments. Requested b De en of: Fin id l Se vices By: Approved by th of ' cial Se '� By: NA Approved b City Attom n By: Y� � ��GC I/ � • t�� Adopted by Council: Date ��/��/�jp Approv�� ��or Subt ' sion Council Adoption Certified by Counci Secretary B � � By: Approved b yor: Date �� Z�Cb ! By: City of St. Paul Office of Financial Services Real Estate Section REPORT OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT COiTNCIL FILE NO._ /� '(�,,�� File No. SEE BELOW Assessment No. SEE BELOW Voting Wazd In the matter of the assessment of benefits, cost and expenses for J1004A1 (108912) property clean-up on private properry at 96 Manitoba Ave on February 12, 2010. LAID OVER TO 06/15/10 LEG HEARING AND 06/16/10 PUBLIC HEARING To the Council of the City of St. Paul The Financial Services Real Estate Section hereby repor[s to the Council the following as a statement ofthe expenditures necessarily incurred for and in connection with the making of the above improvement, viz: Total costs DSI Admin Fee Parks Admin Fee Charge-Code Enforcement Rea1 Estate Service Chazge Attomey Fees $288.00 $ $ $115.00 $ 20.00 $ 5.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES Charge To Nei Assessment $428.00 $428.00 Said Financial Services Real Estate Section further reports that it has assessed and levied the total amount as above ascertained, to-wit: the sum of $428.00 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 pazcel 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 Real Estate Manager, and made a part hereof, is the said assessment as completed by said Rea1 Estate Section, and which is herewith submitted to the Council for such action thereon as may b idere roper. Dated —� �� � Real Estate Manager: ♦ L D- L�-1- �-/� =l0 1 D-��/- !v-/lo-/0 Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � FS - Fnancial Services Date Initiated: �/���j 04JUN201Q Green Sheet NO: 3114256 Contact Person & Phone: � Lynn Moser 266-8851 Atsign Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number For Routing p� T� OTHER (DOESNT FIT ANY Order CATEGORI7 E-0ocumeM Required: Y DoeumentContaM: ��m+'eifer ContaM Phone: 266-8856 Tofal # of Signature Pages _(Cllp All LocaGons for Signature) At Council's request this item was laid over to 06/15/10 LEG HEARING and 06q 6/10 PUBLIC HEARING; property clean-up on private properry at 96 Manitoba Ave on February 12, 2010. File No. A 004A1 Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contrects Must Mswer the Following Questions: t. Has this person/firm ever vrorked under a conUact for Nis departrnent? Yes No 2. Has this persoNfirtn ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does ihis persoNfirm posse55 a skill not nortnally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Enplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Properiy owners or renters create a health hazard at various times thtoughout the City of Saint Paul when their property is not kept up. The City is requued by City code to clean up the property and charge the propetty owner for the clean up. Advantages HApproved: Cost recovety programs to rewver expenses for summary abatement, grass cutting, towing of abandoned velricles, demolirions, gazbage hauling, tree removal and boazdings-up. Disadvantages If Approved: None Disadva�ges If NotApproved: If Council does not approve these chazges general fund would be required to pay the assessmeni. Total Amount of $428.00 Trensaction: Funding Source: Financiai information: (Explain) CosURevenue Budgeted: Activity Number. �������� �i.t� v �� ���"�� 1 proper[y owner will be notified of the public hearing and chazges. � F '', June 4, 2010 8:41 AM Page 1 June I5, 2010 Legislative Hearing Minutes Page 4 2. Laid over Summazy Abatement Assessments: � L 5 � J1004A Property clean ups from February 12 to February 25, 2010; 96 Manitoba Avenue (J1004A) Rescheduled from May 18. Mr. Essling stated orders were sent on February 3, 2010 to remove fiuniture, a couch, cushions and other debris in the backyazd and garage area with a compliance date of February 10. The property was inspected on February 10 and was not in compliance. A work order was sent to Pazks who did the work on February 12, 2010 for a total assessment of $428. The orders were mailed to Robert Rani at 961 Lydia Drive in Roseville, which mail was returned, and to Robert Rani at 172 Red Oaks Drive in St. Paul which there was no returned mail. Robert Rani, prbperty owner stated that he never received the notice to clean up the yard and that he had not lived at the address in Roseville since 2003 and didn't understand why this address would still be in the system. He said this was a duplex with the lower unit being empty and upper unit had a problem tenant. This tenant had trashed the inside and dumped stuff outside of the property which they worked with the SPPD to get rid of the tenants. Ms. Moermond asked to see the video which showed a couch and cushions in the backyazd and debris near the garage which was removed by Parks. Mr. Rani argued that the assessment was excessive and the couch was inside the yard so he didn't understand how this was a violation. Ms. Moermand indicated that he was responsible for maintaining his property and recommended approving the assessment.