Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises concerns about special assessments, lead-service grant communication and storm-related tree removal
Summary
Remington Taft, a first-time speaker at the May 27 council meeting, said he was told in February city grant money would cover private lead-service replacement but later received an assessment notice, and he said a nearby tree removed as part of work later fell on his house, causing about $17,000 in damage.
Remington Taft, a first-time speaker at the May 27 Oshkosh Common Council meeting, told councilors he had been advised in February by a city staffer (identified in the meeting as Maria) to delay private lead-service replacement work because grant funding would cover the work; Taft said he later received an assessment notice and asked whether the promised grant had fallen through.
Taft also said crews removed multiple street trees on his block and that a neighboring tree — left standing while others were removed — fell onto his house two weeks earlier; he estimated $17,000 in damage and said his insurance would not cover the loss. Taft said he has received limited answers after trying to contact city offices.
Public works staff answered Taft’s questions during the meeting. James (staff) explained that the city’s typical program using the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program covers 50% of private-side lead-service replacement costs, with the property owner liable for the remaining 50% unless they qualify for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) assistance under an income threshold. James said there is a separate project later this year that may cover specific census tracts at 100% but that the assessment in Taft’s packet would typically fall under the 50% program. James directed residents to contact the public works main office at 236-5065 and named management analyst Maria Fletcher and Assistant Director/Utilities General Manager Steve Godey as program contacts.
On the tree removal claim, the mayor and public works director asked the meeting to allow city staff and Public Works Assistant Director Justin (first name used) to speak with Taft outside the meeting to determine whether the tree removals were part of the contract in question or related to forestry work; staff committed to a follow-up conversation.
Why it matters: Taft’s comments illustrate two practical issues that can affect property owners during utility projects: (1) confusion about what grant or loan funding covers the private side of lead-service replacement versus what the city assesses for public-side work, and (2) potential property damage tied to tree removals or maintenance associated with construction contracts. Councilors and staff responded by clarifying program rules and offering on-site follow-up.
Staff follow-up: Public Works Director Robbie and Assistant Director Justin agreed to meet Taft immediately after the council session and to return to council if additional action or clarification is required. Councilor Larson and others pressed staff for clarity on who property owners should contact and whether the city can provide enhanced upfront notice when projects may trigger private-side work or assessments.
What the record shows: Council members asked staff to provide clearer communications to residents about the split responsibility (public side vs. private side) for water-service work and the limits of any grant funding. Staff advised that the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program is generally 50/50 and that targeted 100% funding would only apply to qualified census tracts identified for a later project.
No formal vote resulted from Taft’s comments; staff recorded a planned follow-up task to meet with the resident and investigate the tree-removal/damage claim.
