Laserfiche WebLink
<br />and considered, and all such objections were tabulated as fol- <br /> <br />lows: <br /> <br />There were no written communications. <br /> <br />MR. W. SCHILLING, 1941 North Snelling: Contractor removed <br />one stump of a diseased tree but left one in his yard saying <br />he couldn't get to it. Mr. Schilling said he refused to pay for <br />the work until they honored the contract. Mr. Honchell replied <br />that the oontract the City had with the stump removing firm was <br />for the purpose of removing the stump, grinding it out and <br />placing black dirt. He pointed out that in many instances it <br />was found it was not possible to get to the stump and do it <br />efficiently without causing more damage than the value of the <br />grinding. The state law then provides that the community <br />would then strip the bark off the stump which would be cut to <br />the lowest possible elevation which is usually three or four <br />inches above ground and that I s all that can be done under the <br />contract provisions when there are inaccessible tree stumps or <br />it would cause excessive damage to get there. <br /> <br />Mr. Schilling said there was no reason they could not <br />remove the stump. He further said if the City wants him to <br />remove it he will deduct the cost from the assessment. Mr. <br />Honchell said they will review the situation. <br /> <br />There being no one else who wished to be heard, Councilman <br /> <br />Anderson moved that the adoption of the assessment roll be con- <br /> <br />tinued to Monday, August 28, 1978, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the <br /> <br />City Hall. The motion was seconded by Councilman Curley and <br /> <br />upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor <br /> <br />thereof: All; and the fallowing voted against: None. <br /> <br />The motion was carried. <br />