Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms abatement assessment for 3221 West Tenth Street after owner's objection
Summary
Council heard staff explain abatement steps and mailed notices, considered an objection from property owner Theodore Valkov, and voted to assess abatement costs as presented. Staff had procured a low bid of $1,100 and added a $500 administrative fee for a $1,600 assessment.
City Council considered a staff recommendation to assess abatement costs against the property at 3221 West Tenth Street after the city's codes enforcement division removed noxious vegetation and debris.
Staff outlined the timeline: voluntary compliance letter sent June 27, a notice to abate posted and mailed July 5, competitive bids solicited (low bid $1,100, high bid $4,750), a warrant authorized to enter the property, and the city contracted on July 24 to abate the nuisance for $1,100. The total assessment in the staff report combined the $1,100 direct cost and a $500 administrative fee required by code, for $1,600.
An objection letter from Theodore Valkov (filed Sept. 30) raised five points: that five days for response to the notice of assessment was inadequate; lack of notification about junk and vegetation removal; the city entered private property without permission; a missing steel wheeled bin the owner attributed to the abatement; and disagreement with the cost estimate. Staff responded with administrative details: certified and regular mailings were sent, a warrant authorized legal entry, and two bids were received with $1,100 as the successful low bid. The codes enforcement officer, Nikki Lesich, told council she had not had direct contact with the property owner regarding the vegetation abatement prior to the assessment.
Councilors discussed the case and the difficulty of enforcing public‑safety code during fire season. Councilor Randall proposed reducing the assessment by $150 to account for a possible missing steel bin; Councilor McLaughlin moved to adopt the resolution as presented for the full $1,600. The council proceeded to adopt the resolution assessing the abatement costs; the motion carried unanimously.
Staff said all supporting documents and mailings were included in the packet and that staff had spent roughly a full day on the matter across code, legal and supervisory work.
The resolution assesses the abatement cost against the property; the staff packet contains the full timeline and supporting exhibits for any appeal rights or follow‑up action.
