0
Nay:
2 - Councilmember Noecker and Councilmember Yang
Absent:
Amending the financing and spending plans in the Department of Parks and
Recreation in the amount of $1,987,150 to reflect additional 2024 funding
expected from Como Friends.
35
Councilmember Johnson moved approval.
Adopted
5 -
0
Yea:
Councilmember Jalali, Councilmember Kim, Councilmember Bowie,
Councilmember Jost and Councilmember Johnson
Nay:
2 - Councilmember Noecker and Councilmember Yang
Absent:
Approving the petition of Daniel L. Boblit and Allison L. Boblit, property owners
of 71 Otis Lane, to vacate the City’s interest in a portion of Mississippi River
Boulevard and divert its use as City parkland.
36
Brian Alton, representing the petitioners, spoke during the public hearing.
Councilmember Jost moved approval.
Adopted
5 -
0
Yea:
Councilmember Jalali, Councilmember Kim, Councilmember Bowie,
Councilmember Jost and Councilmember Johnson
Nay:
2 - Councilmember Noecker and Councilmember Yang
Absent:
LEGISLATIVE HEARING DISCUSSION ITEM
Ratifying the Appealed Special Tax Assessment for property at 695 OHIO
42
STREET. (File No. 2406T, Assessment No. 249004)
Assessment ratified
Also in attendance: Daniel Witucki, appellant, appeared via call-in
Marcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer: This stemmed from a notice to
eliminate trees. Two were in the front yard and one in the backyard. The order went out
on September 1, 2023. The deadline for completion was October 2. A work order was
sent and the work was done on January 18, 2024. The cost was $3,700 with a service
Charge of $336.67, for a total of $4,036.67. The cost of the tree removal is based on
the contract cost for the City. The owner indicates he did not receive the notice, and
that there were later conversations with staff after the tenant found a note on the door
about the tree removal. This was a complicated removal because it required power
lines to be dropped. The owner than got a contractor to look at the 3 trees, who came
in December. The trees were then gone by the time the private contractor came back.
The owner said he got an extension, but there is no record of that. The notice before
you shows what the owner received, including how a failure to resolve the nuisance
would result in an assessment. City code does classify this as a nuisance and the City
has authority to abate this nuisance. The owner wants a reduction based on a lower