Title
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1056 OXFORD STREET NORTH. (File No. CG2403A2, Assessment No. 240116)
Hearing Date(s)
Date of LH: 10/03/2024
Time of LH: 10:00 am
Date of CPH: 11/06/2024
Tax Assessment Worksheet
Postcard Returned by: Lucy P Bloedoorn
Cost: $113.83
Hauling Service(s) Provided: Unpaid Garbage Bill; (April 1 - June 30)
Type of Order/Fee: Trash Hauling
Billing Time Period: Quarter 2 (April - June) 2024
Invoice Date(s): (April 1 - June 30)
Garbage Hauler: Highland Sanitation
Service Level: 64 gallons (weekly)
Returned Mail/Notice Concerns?:
Stated Reason for Appeal (if given): Highland Sanitation (HS) charged property owner four NSF fees for checks written in Q3, Q4 and Q1 onto the Q2 2024 invoice. HS determined the checks were invalid during the Q1 billing cycle.
Staff Comments: PO is contesting the two remaining NSF fees for two NSF payments made in Q1 that are on her Q2 bill. She was told by a representative from HS via email on March 13 the four NSF fees ($30 each) were added to her account and told property owner "all unpaid balances are turned over to the City of St. Paul. We are unable to carry over balances from one billing quarter to the next." However on June 4 a different HS representative stated the reason why her Q2 bill was so high is because "Her normal 3 month invoice is $112.57 the difference is the four NSF fees at $30 each for a total of $120.00 added to the $112.57. The NSF fees were not turned into the city for collection on the Q1 invoice as they weren’t billed on an invoice yet to this resident." The Q1 invoice HS provided shows the four NSF payments were reversed on February 22 and sent to the city for assessment but the NSF fees were not included on the Q1 bill.
Body
WHEREAS, the Office of Financial Services Real Estate Section has attached to this Council File both a report of completion outlining the costs and fees associated with the collection of delinquent garbage bills for services during [ Quarter 2 (April - June) 2024 ] [RE Project #] and the assessment roll including all properties for which these assessments are proposed for Council ratification; and
WHEREAS, the City Council’s Legislative Hearing Officer has reviewed an appeal of this assessment and developed a recommendation for the City Council with respect to this assessment; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing having been conducted for the above improvement, and said assessment having been further considered by the Council and having been considered financially satisfactory; Now, Therefore, Be It