Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Code topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council removes noxious-weed reference from city code, avoids residential spraying

Augusta City Council · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council adopted Ordinance No. 22-61 to remove Section 8-207 from the city code, aligning local enforcement with a mowing-based abatement threshold (8 inches) and avoiding residential chemical spraying due to liability concerns; roll call vote was unanimous.

Augusta— The City Council voted to amend the municipal code by removing a section that referenced state noxious-weed statutes, opting instead to treat noxious weeds consistent with existing grass abatement procedures and to avoid residential chemical spraying.

Code Enforcement Officer Tanner Thomas explained the change, citing a 2025 incident in which bindweed from an adjoining property created enforcement and liability challenges. Thomas told council that the county weed supervisor advised limited spraying (statutorily one required spray per year for county programs) and that chemicals recommended by the state can harm animals and surrounding vegetation. Thomas said bindweed has deep roots and is hard to eliminate by spraying alone.

Staff recommended removing the Kansas statute (KSA) reference and administering abatement by mowing where grasses or weeds exceed the current 8-inch threshold rather than authorizing residential chemical application. Deputy staff added that mowing-based abatement reduces liability related to chemical application near homes, trees and pets.

Councilmember Merrimack moved to approve Ordinance No. 22-61, omitting Chapter 8, Article 2, Section 8-207 (noxious weeds). The motion was seconded; the clerk conducted a roll call and the following council members voted "Yes": Martin, Lickwider, Bailey, Richardson, Davis, Weedy and Marr. The motion carried.

Council and staff said they were aligning enforcement language with current practice and county/state constraints to limit liability and protect public safety and adjacent vegetation.