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 />