Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR ACTION <br />TO . ITEM NUMBER <br />Ma or and Ci Council ~ 7,4, <br />AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY <br />Communi Develo ment November 21, 2011 erem Barnhart, Plannin Mana er <br />ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By <br />Appeal of Snow Abatement Charges Incurred at 18037 Monroe Cal Portner, Ci Administrator <br />Circle REVIEWED BY <br />ACTION REQUESTED <br />The Council has two primary options: <br />The roperry owner requests that the snow abatement charges in the amount of $125 be dismissed. <br />City staff is recommending denial of the appeal of the property owner for the $125 abatement <br />charges incurred at 18037 Monroe Circle based on staffs findings noted below. <br />BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION <br />The City has received an appeal of a snow abatement invoice for 18037 Monroe Court. <br />The appellant cites five reasons why they believe the charge is unjust: <br />1. No letter was sent via standard mail to the tenant of the property, so that they could have <br />had a chance to do the work before the city did. <br />2. No letter was sent via standard mail to the owner of the property, so that management could <br />have a chance to do the work before the city did. <br />3. No phone call from the city to the owner or the tenant was made. <br />4. Elk River sent a certified letter to the owner of the property at 21850 Brook Road in <br />reference to sidewalk cleaning needs. This letter was signed for AFTER the city cleanup and <br />fine was scheduled. <br />5. Management and the tenant received a city newsletter at about the same time the city sent <br />the certified letter. In this newsletter the city simply "asked" that the residents of the city <br />help clean the sidewalks around their buildings so that the city didn't have an expense in <br />doing so. Nothing was stated in the newsletter that the city would be imposing fines if the <br />sidewalks were not cleared. This is simply misleading. <br />Staff has reviewed the file, finding responses to the numbered items above: <br />1. On January 11, 2011, duplicate letters were sent by certified mail and standard mail to the <br />property owner of record. Two notification methods are used because occasionally a <br />property owner does not accept the certified letter. A copy of the letter is attached. City <br />ordinances require the property owner to maintain the property, therefore letters are not sent <br />to tenants. On January 27, 2011, the sidewalk was cleared and the city was invoiced by the <br />contractor. <br />POINERE® RC <br />N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Coundl RCA\Agenda Packet\11-21-2011\Appeal Monroe 3.docx ~„ 6~~~~~ <br />