Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents contest sidewalk snow‑and‑ice assessments; council schedules appeals and rules on two claims
Summary
Dozens of property owners told the Lansing City Council that invoices for sidewalk snow/ice removal were incorrect or unsupported by paperwork. Council staff said appeals will be scheduled starting June 11; at the meeting the council denied one claim and partially granted another, reducing a $560 fine to $310.
Dozens of residents who had received assessments for sidewalk snow‑and‑ice removal spoke at the council’s June 8 meeting, saying the charges were excessive, notices arrived months after alleged service, and supporting documentation was incomplete or inconsistent.
Nicole Bragan told council she received notice on Dec. 15 and believes service occurred Dec. 16 but that the city charges were “a little bit extreme” given her small frontage and the weather conditions that week. Colleen Kakitsos, owner of a commercial building at 2208 East Michigan, said she believes the contractor over‑reported time on a 72.5‑foot frontage and asked for reassessment: “There’s no way it took two hours to clean it,” she said.
Several speakers—including a tenant for a commercial property and a landlord with limited English proficiency—said they received no prior warning or that the city’s postcard and the later public‑hearing documents listed inconsistent dates. Melissa White of Novi Properties said she reviewed her video footage and found no evidence of a city crew on the date listed; she asked council to withhold confirmation of assessments until the city produces parcel‑specific service logs, photographs and time sheets.
The clerk said more than 30 written appeals had been filed and that the Committee on City Operations will begin addressing appeals individually, beginning with a meeting scheduled June 11. Council members and staff repeatedly urged appellants to respond to scheduling communications so appeals can be heard in manageable batches.
On two claim appeals heard in the meeting record: council voted to deny claim appeal #2223 (420 Sawyer Road) after committee review and to partially grant appeal #2227 (425 North Foster Ave.) by accepting a $250 credit recommended earlier by the claims review committee; that reduced the balance owed on the second claim to $310. Council members cited inconsistent photographic evidence and timing discrepancies during debate.
Council members said they will ask staff to provide clearer documentation standards to ensure contractors and code officers supply date/time stamps, photos and service logs to make the record reviewable before hearings.
Next procedural step: the Committee on City Operations will begin scheduled hearings on individual appeals on June 11 and will contact appellants with hearing dates.
