Property Owner's Appeal Board Meeting - December 8, 2025

The Property Owner's Appeal Board convened at 11:00 a.m. on December 8, 2025, to review the minutes of previous meetings and hear an appeal regarding code enforcement abatement actions at 1515 North 34th Street. The central issue involved the property owner's objection to the cost of tree removal and the lack of direct personal notification regarding the contractor's arrival for hazardous tree abatement. After hearing testimony from both the City's Inspector and the Appellant, the Board proceeded to vote on the assessment of fines.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes from July 14, 2025, September 4, 2025, and September 10, 2025 appeal hearings were approved as presented without discussion.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Inspector Myzel (City): Stated that the city followed due process by posting notices, mailing certified letters to the owner, and sending first-class mail to the tenant. He expressed support for the city abating the dead tree hazard, noting the initial contractor was unable to safely remove the large tree wedged between structures, necessitating a specialized contractor (All American Tree Service). Inspector Myzel expressed position that the city acted within legal bounds by posting an abatement notice on the property, though he acknowledged no direct phone call was made to the occupants regarding the specific day of heavy machinery work.
• Sean Sherry (City Representative): Provided evidence that the city contacts three contractors for bids, though under $2,000 no formal bid is legally required. He defended the city's choice of All American Tree Service, noting they are a regular vendor with appropriate safety equipment (bucket trucks) for complex removals near structures. He rejected the suggestion that the department operates fundamentally flawed procedures, citing a specific instance where a property owner communicated effectively and received leniency on a separate citation.
• Mr. Tidwell (Appellant speaking for parents, Rema and Charles Tidwell): Expressed opposition to the $2,054.62 total bill, stating the price was "considerably higher than the standard" based on their usual rates with other tree crews ($950 per large tree). He argued the city's process is "fundamentally flawed" due to the lack of direct notification to property owners when heavy machinery and chainsaws are about to operate on-site. He emphasized the safety aspect, contrasting the city's minimal posting with his own proactive communication with neighbors. He also raised a concern regarding a potential $10,000 leak (implied by text) caused by a limb falling during removal, though he noted the cause was a "he said, she said" situation.
• Board Member (Unidentified): Questioned the timeline, noting the tree appeared dead for a long time, and suggested the city missed an opportunity for earlier intervention. They expressed support for the city's need to enforce codes but raised concerns about the lack of communication regarding the specific timing of abatement actions.

Discussion Items

• Abatement Authorization and Costs: The Board discussed whether the city met the requirements to enter the property and abate the violation (dead tree hazardous to personal safety and property). It was confirmed that a 7-day notice was posted and certified mail was returned signed by the owner, meeting the legal threshold for abatement. The Board reviewed the contractor selection process, determining that the size and proximity of the tree to two structures required specialized equipment that the first contractor did not possess.
• Communication Protocol Dispute: A significant portion of the discussion centered on the discrepancy between the city's posting of an abatement notice and the appellant's expectation of a direct phone call or specific time-window notification (e.g., "September 5th between 2 and 6 p.m.") prior to the arrival of bucket trucks and chainsaws. Mr. Tidwell maintained that this step is missing from the current city process, while City representatives maintained that the posted notice and legal service requirements were sufficient.
• Financial Assessment: The total abatement costs were confirmed: $1,900 for contractor fees, $944 for code enforcement fees, and $59.62 for financial fees, totaling $2,054.62. The Board deliberated on the reasonableness of these costs versus the appellant's estimates, with the Inspector noting that safety requirements for the specific location (wedged between houses) drove the higher cost.

Key Outcomes

• Motion Carried: The Board voted to recommend to the Board of Directors the rolling out of the delinquent lien and certifying it to the Sebastian County Tax Collector. The vote was unanimous ("All in favor say aye").
• Next Steps: An ordinance to certify the lien plus a 10% penalty will be placed on the agenda for the Board of Directors meeting on December 16, 2025.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned following the motion.