Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />OCTOBER 14, 1992 <br />PAGE 2 <br />of the hearing. There being no one in attendance wishing to be <br />heard the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m. Gehrz moved adoption <br />of Resolution R-92-42 which carried unanimously. <br />RESOLUTION R-92-42 <br />A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS <br />FOR DELINQUENT UTILITY CHARGES <br />PUBLIC HEARING ON DELINQUENT DISEASED TREE REMOVAL CHARGES <br />Baldwin opened the hearing at 7:15 p.m. and presented a brief <br />history of the city's diseased tree removal policy and the <br />necessity of making changes in the policy over the years. He <br />explained that it is unknown who planted many of the trees, and <br />some of the trees which property owners believed to be on the <br />city boulevards actually were on private property. He commented <br />on the confusion created by these plantings leading to the <br />adoption of Resolution R-85-41. This resolution stipulated that <br />after September 1, 1987 the city would no longer participate in <br />any removal cost for the remaining 20 private trees which had <br />been previously assumed to be public. <br />Mr. Roger Pittelkow, 1853 Pascal St., was in attendance to <br />protest the proposed assessment against his property for removal <br />of a diseased elm tree on his property in 1991. Mr. Pittelkow <br />had been notified to remove the diseased tree and did not, the <br />city had the tree removed, billed the property owner and <br />implemented the assessment procedure as the bill was not paid.' <br />Mr. Pittlekow objected to the city requesting he pay for removal <br />as the city had paid for removal of neighboring trees in past <br />years. Baldwin explained that the city had removed some of <br />these trees prior to being aware of their location on private <br />property and prior to the resolution adopted in 1985. A <br />discussion followed regarding whether or not is was appropriate <br />to have the Pittleklow property and five neighboring properties <br />surveyed and the. estimated cost of such surveys. Baldwin <br />stressed that if the property is surveyed and the bulk of the <br />tree is on city property the city would pay the cost, otherwise <br />it would be the property owner's responsibility. <br />There being no others in attendance wishing to be heard Baldwin <br />closed the hearing at 7:35 p.m. <br />Jacobs moved that the properties at 1859, 1853 and 1847 Pascal be <br />surveyed. A discussion ensued regarding whether or not <br />information to be obtained by surveying neighboring properties <br />should have any impact on the Pittlekow's property and possible <br />• <br />