Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
Meeting Name: Legislative Hearings Agenda status: Final-revised
Meeting date/time: 5/16/2019 9:00 AM Minutes status: Final  
Meeting location: Room 330 City Hall & Court House
Published agenda: Agenda Agenda Published minutes: Minutes Minutes  
Meeting video:  
Attachments:
File #Ver.Agenda #TypeTitleActionResultAction DetailsVideo
RLH TA 19-250 11Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 466 CENTRAL AVENUE WEST. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-394 12Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 325 CHARLES AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-395 13Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 450 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-367 14Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 464 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-396 15Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 463 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Laid Over  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-382 26Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 881 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-358 17Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 945 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-379 28Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 983 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-357 19Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 623 FULLER AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-360 17Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 646 FULLER AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-261 111Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 973 IGLEHART AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-267 112Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 564 THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-286 113Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 660 THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-351 114Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 814 THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-364 115Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 423 WESTERN AVENUE NORTH. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Laid Over  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-385 116Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 511 BLAIR AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-386 117Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 547 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-392 118Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 583 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Laid Over  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-387 119Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 610 EDMUND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-384 120Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 435 THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-388 121Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 744 THOMAS AVENUE. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Laid Over  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-355 122Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 950 ASHLAND AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-363 123Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 142 BAKER STREET WEST. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-266 124Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1932 BAYARD AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-368 125Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1370 CLEVELAND AVENUE SOUTH. (File No. CG1901E2, Assessment No. 190068)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-251 126Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2177 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-344 127Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2188 FAIRMOUNT AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-279 128Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1076 HAGUE AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-265 129Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 2126 HIGHWOOD AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E2, Assessment No. 190068)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-369 130Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1895 IVY AVENUE EAST. (File No. CG1901E2, Assessment No. 190068)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-253 131Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1930 JEFFERSON AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-380 132Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealDeleting the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1619 JUNO AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-365 133Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 93 MILTON STREET NORTH. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-366 134Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 99 MILTON STREET NORTH UNIT 1. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-268 135Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1980 STANFORD AVENUE. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-381 136Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 213 WINIFRED STREET EAST. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH TA 19-397 137Resolution LH Tax Assessment AppealRatifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 1535 CHAMBER STREET. (File No. CG1901E2, Assessment No. 190068)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH AR 19-60 138Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018. (File No. CG1901D3, Assessment No. 190065)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH AR 19-61 139Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018. (File No. CG1901D4, Assessment No. 190066)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH AR 19-62 140Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018. (File No. CG1901E1, Assessment No. 190067)Referred  Action details Not available
RLH AR 19-63 141Resolution LH Assessment RollRatifying the assessment for the City’s cost of providing Collection of Delinquent Garbage Bills for services during October to December 2018. (File No. CG1901E2, Assessment No. 190068)Referred  Action details Not available
File #Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 10:22 AMEric Lein Against MAY 30, 2019 -- CLARK, ET AL vs CITY OF ST. PAUL; RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, JUDGE CASTRO'S RULING includes this: Petitioners brought this Petition in an effort to have this Court order that the Referendum be immediately placed on the municipal election ballot. This Court looks to § 8.05 which states that the ordinance which is subject of a referendum must be “suspended in its operation as soon as the petition is found sufficient.” The Charter specifically outlines the method by which a referendum must be brought. Here, there is no evidence in the record that the petition presented in October 2018 was deficient in anyway. Respondents concede that the petition was sufficient. Consequently, it was an improper exercise of power for the Council to refuse to place the Referendum on the November 2019 ballot.
RLH TA 19-394 6/12/2019 10:11 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-364 6/12/2019 9:57 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-381 6/12/2019 9:54 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-266 6/12/2019 9:50 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-251 6/12/2019 9:43 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-265 6/12/2019 9:42 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-253 6/12/2019 9:39 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH AR 19-63 6/12/2019 9:30 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH AR 19-61 6/12/2019 9:30 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH AR 19-60 6/12/2019 9:29 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 9:23 AMEric Lein Against • Invalid Garbage Contract? The haulers’ LLC signed the contract 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 [re-filed with correct signatures on May 20, 2019, 16:07]. Exhibit H – RES 17-1776.)
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 9:22 AMEric Lein Against • Invalid Garbage Contract? The haulers’ LLC signed the contract 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 [re-filed with correct signatures on May 20, 2019, 16:07]. Exhibit H – RES 17-1776.)
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 9:22 AMEric Lein Against • Invalid Garbage Contract? The haulers’ LLC signed the contract 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 [re-filed with correct signatures on May 20, 2019, 16:07]. Exhibit H – RES 17-1776.)
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 9:18 AMEric Lein Against • Azsume a 4-unit building is directly across the alley from a 1-family house and each property uses only ONE 95-gallon trash cart. The hauler’s “fixed cost” to “put the truck at the site” (one stop, two properties) is the same for each property. The hauler’s cost to “service” the 4-unit’s single cart is NOT four times higher than the cost to “service” the adjacent 1-family single cart – the City’s proposed 4x azsessment greatly and arbitrarily exceeds the benefit to the 4-unit property.
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 9:17 AMEric Lein Against • Azsume a 4-unit building is directly across the alley from a 1-family house and each property uses only ONE 95-gallon trash cart. The hauler’s “fixed cost” to “put the truck at the site” (one stop, two properties) is the same for each property. The hauler’s cost to “service” the 4-unit’s single cart is NOT four times higher than the cost to “service” the adjacent 1-family single cart – the City’s proposed 4x azsessment greatly and arbitrarily exceeds the benefit to the 4-unit property.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 9:16 AMEric Lein Against • ***ume a 4-unit building is directly across the alley from a 1-family house and each property uses only ONE 95-gallon trash cart. The hauler’s “fixed cost” to “put the truck at the site” (one stop, two properties) is the same for each property. The hauler’s cost to “service” the 4-unit’s single cart is NOT four times higher than the cost to “service” the adjacent 1-family single cart – the City’s proposed 4x azsessment greatly and arbitrarily exceeds the benefit to the 4-unit property.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 9:13 AMEric Lein Against • Charges and azsessments 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. •• MN Stat. 429.051 – Cost may be azsessed “…based upon the benefits received…” •• Charter 14.01 – “…in no case shall the amounts azsessed exceed the benefits to the property.”
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 9:13 AMEric Lein Against • Charges and azsessments 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. •• MN Stat. 429.051 – Cost may be azsessed “…based upon the benefits received…” •• Charter 14.01 – “…in no case shall the amounts azsessed exceed the benefits to the property.”
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 9:12 AMEric Lein Against • Charges and azsessments 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. •• MN Stat. 429.051 – Cost may be azsessed “…based upon the benefits received…” •• Charter 14.01 – “…in no case shall the amounts azsessed exceed the benefits to the property.”
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 9:10 AMEric 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 azsessment 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 azsessment purposes and must NOT be certified to the county or levied against the property.
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 9:10 AMEric 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 azsessment 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 azsessment purposes and must NOT be certified to the county or levied against the property.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 9:09 AMEric 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 azsessment purposes and must NOT be certified to the county or levied against the property.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 9:08 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-40 has been suspended since October 2018 and is to be repealed. Language in force says: •• 357.05(g)(1) – “…This section shall not preclude azsessing property owners from cooperating for arranging for collection services from a licensed hauler, nor other arrangements for reasonable interruption of service.” •• Property owners who have been “sharing” or who made other reasonable arrangements must not be azsessed 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.
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 9:07 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-40 has been suspended since October 2018 and is to be repealed. Language in force says: •• 357.05(g)(1) – “…This section shall not preclude azsessing property owners from cooperating for arranging for collection services from a licensed hauler, nor other arrangements for reasonable interruption of service.” •• Property owners who have been “sharing” or who made other reasonable arrangements must not be azsessed 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.
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 9:05 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-40 has been suspended since October 2018 and is to be repealed. Language in force says: •• 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.” •• Property owners who have been “sharing” or who made other reasonable arrangements must not be azsessed 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.
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 9:03 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 9:02 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending aszessments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 9:01 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) should have been “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….” 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. Petitioners filed a lawsuit in district court on February 7, 2019. On May 30, 2019, Judge Castro ruled that, “THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT PROPERLY EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY IN REFUSING TO HAVE ORDINANCE 18-39 PLACED ON THE BALLOT.” All collection activities and pending ***essments must be put on hold and/or laid over until: (1) The lawsuit, Clark vs. City of St. Paul, is decided pursuant to any and all appeals; and (2) Ord 18-39 is approved by voters in a referendum.
RLH TA 19-365 6/12/2019 8:59 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) was not effective until October 10, 2018, thirty (30) days following its pazzage, approval and publication. The City should not azzess for charges that arose before October 10, 2018.
RLH TA 19-366 6/12/2019 8:58 AMEric Lein Against • ORD 18-39 (Chapter 220) was not effective until October 10, 2018, thirty (30) days following its pazzage, approval and publication. The City should not azzess for charges that arose before October 10, 2018.
RLH AR 19-62 6/12/2019 8:57 AMEric Lein 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.