Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Single Lot Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents object to single‑lot special assessment bills at public hearing; council records complaints
Summary
Multiple Saginaw residents spoke at a public hearing about 2025 single‑lot special assessment notices and bills for weed cutting and cleanup, citing lack of prior notice, removal of personal items and unaffordable charges; the council closed the hearing and said staff would follow up with the individuals.
Several Saginaw property owners used the public hearing on the 2025 single‑lot assessment tax roll to dispute bills they said resulted from city‑ordered weed cutting and cleanup.
Paul Webb, who gave his address as 3353 Sheridan Avenue, said city crews cut his grass during a road repaving project last year and that he received a bill after the work was done. “I could not get my trailer into cut grass. They cut my grass for me. I did not get notice or pre‑notice,” Webb said. He said he was contesting the bill because he had not been given prior notice and had been unable to arrange cutting because his street was under construction.
Other residents reported property‑clearance actions that removed personal items. A speaker from 922 Cherry Street said contractors took a deflated water slide, an outdoor table, tools and parts of a gutter and that she had not received a certified notice before crews came. Louise Simpson, 2834 Weber Street, said an original bill of $2,400 later appeared as $3,200 and that she has been making monthly payments but needs clarification; she said she was recovering from eye surgery.
Another resident, who identified himself as living at 1328 Bagley Street, said crews removed vehicles and lawn equipment he believed were on his driveway and that he could not afford the bill.
Council procedure: the public hearing was limited to remarks related to the topic (three minutes per speaker) and was explicitly described as not a question‑and‑answer period. After three calls for speakers, council member Ball moved to close the public hearing; a second was recorded and the motion carried on voice vote.
Council members and the clerk said staff would follow up with the individuals who provided addresses so the city could investigate each claim and respond. No formal vote or reversal of any assessment was recorded during the hearing; commenters were told the hearing is the forum to place objections on the record.
Key clarifying details from speakers included: one resident said the city did not send a certified notice before cleanup; another said items of household property were removed and that charges were unaffordable given disability or medical recovery.
Next steps: the clerk and city manager’s office will log the complaints, check service and notice records, and contact the residents with a response.
