Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Abatements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves continuous abatements for four Bloomington properties over yard overgrowth
Summary
The Board of Public Works approved four continuous abatement orders for properties cited for overgrown grass and lack of owner contact, with neighborhood compliance staff reporting multiple notices and no response from owners.
The Board of Public Works voted July 15 to approve continuous abatements for four Bloomington properties after neighborhood compliance staff reported repeated notices for overgrown grass and no contact with owners.
Neighborhood compliance officer Jo Stong of HAND (Housing and Neighborhood Development) told the board, "On, May 14, June 18, and June 30, we issued notices of violation for, tall grass." Stong said the violations at 213 South Roosevelt involved grass taller than 8 inches and that staff sought a continuous abatement through May 14, 2026.
Mike Arnold, also with HAND, reported repeated citations at 720 South Westwood and said, "This is a property that someone has mowed the front yard haphazardly and the backyard hasn't been mowed." Arnold said his drive-by inspection suggested the rear yard had not been mowed and that he believed the house appeared vacant; staff requested a continuous abatement through May 5, 2026.
Rebecca Davis, neighborhood compliance officer, described notices issued for 1204 East Skylark Court on June 13, June 24 and July 1. "I issued notice of violation at this property on June 13, June 24, and July 1 for overgrowth. I haven't not had any communication with the owners. According to the neighbors, they have, left," Davis said. Staff requested a continuous abatement through June 13, 2026.
For 2407 East Eighth Street, compliance staff reported notices on May 23, June 11, June 18 and June 25 for overgrowth and requested a continuous abatement through May 2026.
Board members asked whether staff had contact with property owners before seeking abatements. Carone (vice president, Board of Public Works) asked about the sequence of warnings and a board member asked if owners had been contacted; Stong and Arnold said they had no record of communication from owners. Stong noted fines are typically issued in escalating amounts and said, "Typically, we write $50 fine and then a 100, and I must not have remembered which way it was going."
Each abatement was approved by roll call. For the 213 South Roosevelt abatement the board recorded Roach and Caron voting "aye"; similar roll-call votes were recorded for the other abatements and each motion passed.
The board distinguished these approvals as enforcement actions under the city's nuisance/abatement procedures (Title 6) and did not adopt further penalties beyond granting staff authority to abate ongoing overgrowth through the requested dates.
The abatements stem from repeated code notices and the board's actions authorize city-contracted or city-performed abatement work and continued monitoring through the specified end dates.
