Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses Perry council on enforcement of unmowed-lot rules; staff outlines penalties
Summary
A resident urged the Perry City Council to clarify enforcement of unmowed vacant lots, citing recurring tall grass and concerns about liens and unequal enforcement; city staff said ordinances allow notices, municipal charges and liens after standards (12 inches) are unmet.
A resident complained to the Perry City Council about recurring tall grass on vacant lots in the city and asked the council to explain why lots without houses appear treated differently than occupied lots.
The question matters, the resident said, because tall grass has created safety and nuisance concerns — including snakes coming into yards — and because notices posted on lots appeared to have been ignored or washed away. “When they do finally come and mow the fairway, they mow with an 8‑inch John Deere with a brush hog in fourth gear,” the resident said, adding that the result sometimes looks worse than before work began.
City staff responded during the public‑comment exchange and described the city’s enforcement options. Staff said there is no distinction between a vacant lot and a lot with a house for non‑agricultural property; the city may pursue civil or criminal enforcement, can issue notices, can bring charges in municipal court when grass or weeds exceed 12 inches, and — after following notice and hearing procedures — can have the city mow and place a lien on the property for costs.
City staff also acknowledged limitations, including that agricultural property is exempt from local enforcement and that practical constraints — such as staff capacity and weather — affect how quickly the city can follow through. Staff said the city will send the resident the relevant ordinance language and outline the process for notices, hearings, mowing and lien placement.
Councilmembers did not take formal action during the public comment period; staff noted the exchange and said they would provide the resident the ordinance text and an explanation of the process.
The exchange occurred during the council’s public‑comment portion of the meeting and did not include a separate agenda item or vote. The resident’s concerns and staff’s summary of remedies establish the city’s stated enforcement approach and the limitations officials flagged for follow up.
