1967 Jan to Dec - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

After thorough discussion and questioning by Council and Staff of protest made as to high costs and weeds still present on property, and of assurance contract for weed abatement did include further spraying operations at no expense to property owner, Councilman Bury moved protest not be allowed and assessment charge be con- firmed, seconded by Councilman Petersen and carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Bury, Petersen, and Mayor Rosselli voting yes, Councilman Granger voting no. ASSESSMENT CONFIRMED Mrs. Mary Lipovac, 1062 17th Ave. Parcel 055-222-060 $42.00 Mrs. Lipovac appeared again in her own behalf to protest weed abatement charges because of evidence submitted that weeds had been abated by a private contrac- tor paid by her. After discussion and questioning of Staff of dates weed abate- ment proceedings conducted by City, and comparison of schedule of weed abate- ment alleged by protestant, Councilman Granger moved that protestant be charged for one weed abatement operation. No second to motion. After further questioning of Staff, Councilman Petersen moved to deny the pro- test concerning first two weed abatement sprayings, and cancel the third opera- tion. Motion tied on roll call vote, Councilmen Bury and Petersen voting yes, Councilmen Granger and Mayor Herkner voting no. Further questioning held on allegations made by protestant concerning notice which had been given by Mrs. Lipovac and her husband that weed abatement pro- ceedings not be made by City on this property. Discussion held concerning Ordinance provisions at this point where written notice required and of notice provisions required by City to property owners which might need amendments for future. Also discussion concerning possibility of City being able to contribute some to offset the higher costs. Councilman Granger's motion to cancel the first two weed abatement spraying charges, seconded by Councilman Bury and carried on roll call vote, Councilmen Bury, Granger, and Mayor Herkner voting yes, Councilman Petersen voting no. (Cancel charges for 1st and 2nd spraying) ASSESSMENT MODIFIED A. D. McKelvy, 48 Lloyden Drive, Atherton Parcels 052-383-100 $515.20 052-383-130 374.12 Mr. McKelvy reported since last meeting and presentation of his protest he was submitting written testimony from people who had worked on this property continually in preparation of development of Motor City during period weed abatement procedures were claimed to have been performed by City (1) cancelled check from Mr. McKelvy to M & L Investment Corp., in amount of $1,016.50, dated November 1, 1966, for a final cleanup of property, together with statement by Mr. Douglass, of Douglass & Wood- house, concerning their operation; (2) statement by Louis Masarie con- cerning weed abatement procedure attempts witnessed twice on the property; (3) statement by Mr. Johnson, of Bragato Paving Company, concerning con- tract work in process, and stating practically all of few weeds present had been bladed off; (4) Report of inspection of compacted fill made by Cooper, Clark & Associates dated November 7, 1966. Mr. McKelvy further detailed operations which had been underway in pre- liminary development procedures of Motor City which he felt precluded possibility of weed abatement procedures being necessary on these par- cels. Council questioned Staff on further details of weed abatement procedures claimed and review of records which had been made of the proce- dures on this property. Staff member, Mr. Sullivan, reported on inspection made of property and areas which had been covered by weed abatement. Discussion held as to whether further negotiations could be held to resolve this matter by modification of charges due to disputed differences, and whether squire footage had been accurately computed in view of puddles and condi- tions of some area claimed impossible for equipment to enter. After further discussion on whole of weed abatement program, Councilman Granger made motion to reduce whole of weed abatement charges by 50% by contribution of City funds. City Clerk advised full payment had been received for weed a.ssess- ment charges from some eight or ten property owners, and Staff would have to be 1�" ks tt