Eastlake staff proposes higher grass-abatement and permit clerical fees, stronger repeat-offender options

A building department staff member told the Eastlake City Council on Oct. 12 that the city proposes raising the charge for city-ordered grass abatement from $100 to $200 and increasing the clerical portion of permit deposits from $25 to $50.

The proposal is meant to cover staff time spent issuing notices, re-inspecting properties and arranging contractor work, the staff member said. “The city charges a hundred dollars and then plus the landscapers cost…it's still the hundred dollar cost, which that's not even covering the cost of my staff to send out the notices,” the staff member said. He told council members he had spoken with the finance director and the mayor and that both were “on board.”

Why it matters: Council members said the current fee schedule does not deter repeat offenders and asked staff to explore options that add enforcement “teeth,” including criminal penalties or repeat-offender provisions in the property maintenance code. “I guess what I'm wondering is if there's a way that we could be increase the penalty…and then it's going to be a cumulative effect,” a councilmember said during the discussion.

Details and supporting points: The staff member said landscapers typically charge about $30–$35 for a routine lawn cut, and that comparable jurisdictions' fees sometimes reach $400, though the staffer said Eastlake does not intend to go that high. He said the city sends a notice with a five-day compliance period (often arriving in seven days by mail) and then reinspects before arranging for contractor mowing; if property owners do not pay the bill within 30 days it is placed on the property's tax roll.

The building department also proposed equalizing permit deposit handling for contractors and homeowners: keeping a $100 deposit but raising the clerical fee from $25 to $50 and making deposit-return rules identical for both groups. Under the current schedule described to council, a $100 deposit includes a $25 clerical fee and a $75 refundable portion returned if inspections are requested and passed.

Council and staff agreed on better public education about the permit process and deposit rules — for example, information at the counter and on the city’s web/Facebook pages — to reduce cases in which homeowners obtain permits but do not call for inspections and then forfeit deposits. “If you do everything, you get the deposit back,” the staff member said.

Discussion versus decisions: The meeting record shows these items were presented for council discussion; no formal vote or ordinance change was recorded at the meeting. Staff said it would check the property maintenance code for repeat-offender enforcement language and whether criminal violations have previously been used for similar code violations.

What’s next: Staff will draft specific ordinance language or fee-schedule amendments and report back; council asked staff to examine whether the property maintenance code already provides remedies and to propose any necessary additions or enforcement procedures.