Saint Paul logo
File #: RLH AR 19-39    Version:
Type: Resolution LH Assessment Roll Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 5/22/2019
Title: Ratifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018. (File No. CG1901A1, Assessment No. 190051)
Sponsors: Amy Brendmoen
Ward: Special Tax Assessments
Attachments: 1. Assessment Roll CG1901A1 Ratification.pdf, 2. Online Comments re RLH AR 19-39
Related files: RES 19-497, RLH TA 19-200, RLH TA 19-205, RLH TA 19-214, RLH TA 19-216, RLH TA 19-224, RLH TA 19-226, RLH TA 19-227, RLH TA 19-240, RLH TA 19-243, RLH TA 19-234, RLH TA 19-242, RLH TA 19-247, RLH TA 19-237, RLH TA 19-228, RLH TA 19-263, RLH TA 19-878


Ratifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018. (File No. CG1901A1, Assessment No. 190051)



AMENDED 5/22/19


WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council in Council File RES 19-497 accepted the Report of Completion for Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018; and


WHEREAS, the City Council’s Legislative Hearing Officer has considered objections of affected property owners and developed recommendations for the City Council with respect to their assessments; and


WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 22, 2019 to consider ratification of the assessment roll; and


WHEREAS, the City Council considered and found satisfactory the assessment of benefits, costs and expenses for the services provided; now, therefore be it


RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Chapter 429 of Minnesota State Statutes and Chapter 60 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code, the assessments are hereby in all respects ratified with the exception of the following amendments which will be considered separately:


RLH TA 19-247:  833 Ashland Avenue;

RLH TA 19-224:  487 Dayton Avenue #1;

RLH TA 19:263: 541 Dayton Avenue;

RLH TA 19-242:  756 Dayton Avenue #4;

RLH TA 19-243:  322 Goodrich Avenue #2;

RLH TA 19-216:  549 Grand Hill;

RLH TA 19-234:  761 Hague Avenue;

RLH TA 19-226:  882 Hague Avenue;

RLH TA 19-237:  546 Holly Avenue;

RLH TA 19-227:  586 Lincoln Avenue;

RLH TA 19-214:  666 Portland Avenue;

RLH TA 19-240:  25 Sandra Lee Drive West;

RLH TA 19-205:  361 Summit Avenue;

RLH TA 19-228:  434 Superior Street;

RLH TA 19-200:  110 Virginia Street;

RLH TA 19-XXX: 599-601 Portland Avenue - to be referred to Legislative Hearing May 30, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.; and be it further


RESOLVED, that the assessments be payable in one (1) installment, unless specified by the Legislative Hearing Officer’s recommended amendments.



Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
5/22/2019 7:37 PMDavid Thom Against Cannot ***ess property when the ***essment adds no value to the property. It’s the law!
5/22/2019 6:37 PMEric Lein Against • Invalid Garbage Contract. The haulers’ LLC signed 1-day late and missed the Council’s deadline which clearly states that the contract “…shall be signed by the LLC no later than November 13, 2017.” (See do***ents filed in district court by the City Attorney on May 6, 2019, 16:29. Exhibit H – RES 17-1776.) +1
5/22/2019 6:34 PMEric Lein Against • Charges and ***essments for one, two, three or four unnecessary empty trash carts exceed the benefits to the property and violate MN Stat. Chapter 429 and City Charter Chapter 14. o--- MN Stat. 429.051 – Cost may be ***essed “…based upon the benefits received…” o--- Charter 14.01 – “…in no case shall the amounts ***essed exceed the benefits to the property.” +1
5/22/2019 6:32 PMEric Lein Against • The City and haulers have not complied with MN Stat. Chapter 443. Rates are not just and reasonable. Rates fail to take into account the character, kind & quality of service, of rubbish & method of disposition. Rates fail to take into account the number of people served. The City must issue the original invoice before exercising its ***essment authority under MN Stat 443.29. Haulers are independent contractors and not “agents, representatives or employees of the City.” Charges by haulers have not been properly billed for ***essment purposes and must NOT be certified to the county or levied against the property. +1
5/22/2019 6:32 PMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-40 has been suspended since October 2018 and is to be repealed. Language in force says: o--- 357.05(g)(1) – “…This section shall not preclude a****ing property owners from cooperating for arranging for collection services from a licensed hauler, nor other arrangements for reasonable interruption of service.” o--- Property owners who have been “sharing” or who made other reasonable arrangements must not be ***essed for unpaid trash bills issued by haulers who did not remove, collect and dispose of rubbish from the property. The Legislative Hearing Officer improperly recommended denial of appeals that should be allowed. +1
5/22/2019 6:23 PM  Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) was not effective until October 10, 2018, thirty (30) days following its p***age, approval and publication. The City should not ***ess for charges that arose before October 10, 2018. +1
5/22/2019 3:24 PMDavid Thom Against I believe the council should dismiss all ***essments related to the city wide garbage. The council admits there are sufficient signature to put the police to referendum. Future more there is a question if a contract has even been legally executed between the city and the garbage consortium as I stated to each and every council member in my email dated May 18, 2019 to witch not one of the council members has even bother to acknowledge receipt. Again, I urge you to dismiss all garbage bill ***essments.
5/22/2019 1:06 PM    Hold off tax ***essments and recognize those that are participating as neighbor sharers and be reasonable instead of sticking your heels into the ground like a vengeful politician. This is supposed to be about public safety - removing trash that exists, not fining people for not using a trash bin they never ordered or used! How can the City suddenly enforce trash participation in this one way, when people have not had trash service at these addresses for many years due to using less bins, or sharing with a neighbor, and being our most responsible citizens that are generating less waste? Please stop participating in this mania and speak out that this does not feel right and should stop! Thank you. +4
5/21/2019 9:37 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) was “suspended in its operation” (per City Charter Sec. 8.05) when the City Council adopted Resolution 18-1922 on November 14, 2018, “Finding the Petition for a referendum of ORD 18-39 is legally sufficient but that the subject matter is not appropriate to submit to the electorate.” No trash bills are owed at this time in light of the properly-submitted and legally sufficient Petition. The city must legislate in good faith and carry out its obligations under the Charter. The ordinance must be suspended and submitted to a referendum, or repealed by the Council. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. All collection activities and pending azzessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: • • The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided; and • • Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum. +4