Weeds & Parking Lot Consume Discussion
Oskaloosa City Hall
With no one from the public commenting and no discussion regarding the Consent Agenda, which passed unanimously, the Oskaloosa City Council’s November 2 meeting lasted just little under an hour.
Two items prompted significant discussion in that hour meeting: the process leading up to levying special assessments for cutting and removal of weeds, and the Council’s vision for city owned property which was acquired as part of the A Avenue corridor acquisition and improvement plan.
Five property owners were listed for having their property assessed for cutting and removal of weeds in August by the City. The code indicates grasses and weeds on all lots and properties within the city are not to exceed 12 inches in height on the 15th of each month April through September each year. Only one property owner, David Wright, spoke on his behalf during the public hearing.
Wright told the council he knew the rules about mowing, he had mowed in the past, he had taken care of the front part of the property, but the City mowed the pasture land in the back of the property before he could get to it. Write said he understood action is taken due to complaints but also indicated, after reading the City Code, the ‘posting notice seven days prior to action’ meant he should have personally received notice the City was intending to mow. Having never received notice, however, he felt the assessment was unwarranted. City Attorney David D. Dixon indicated the posting of the notice is historically done publicly, in a blanket approach through several venues (newspaper, local access channels, online, etc.).
The Council, ultimately, reduced the assessment $250 to $50 to cover labor costs incurred during the mowing. However, many Council members felt the code read like personal notice was to be given and that prompted additional debate.
Jason Van Zetten asked why a letter couldn’t be sent or personally provided especially since city staff obviously has an opportunity to go out and take a picture of the offending property adding costs shouldn’t be too much to do so. City Manager Michael Schrock reminded the council photos are taken on the day of the mow, but also this isn’t the first time this ordinance has been the subject of discussion. Schrock added action following weed height restrictions and code change requests never came out of committee. Councilman Tom Walling said he thinks there needs to be a change. Joe Caliguiri thought the Code did read like personal notice would be given prior to the City taking action. Finally it was agreed the item would again be sent to Committee.
Also discussed was the Council’s position regarding property owned by the City and its future use. The City, with Council’s approval, purchased 204 North C Street, demolished the building and paid for asbestos removal expending over $74,000 on a property which was assessed at $35,000. Councilman Aaron VerSteeg said that investment was meant to prohibit improper or undesirable use, to “stop something bad before it happened.” Additionally, due to the size of the lot, it probably would not be conducive to new business development. At the time of acquisition, the Council agreed utilizing the property for a parking lot was probably the best use.
Schrock wanted to make sure that was still the Council’s position. The owner of Oskaloosa Liquor Store is offering to buy the lot, cement it, and turn it into a parking lot. However, the offer is less than the assessed value. Schrock also indicated a new offer could be in the works based upon a call he received earlier in the day. Knowing the Council’s perspective on what should or shouldn’t be done is imperative to moving forward.
Ultimately, the Council unanimously approved a motion to direct the city manager to continue discussion for the submitted proposal of the concrete parking lot for the city-owned property at 204 North C Street.
On the night’s agenda was also the annual audit review for the City’s fiscal year ending June 2015. A representative from Martens & Company, CPA, LLP, provided a summary of the audit which essentially showed “everything held pretty steady.” The Council unanimously approved a motion to receive and file the audit report and authorize payment of $9,050 to Martens & Company and $625 to the Auditor of the State.
