Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Mowing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rushford Village council directs revisions to Weeds/Mowing Ordinance, lowers grass threshold and raises mowing rate
Summary
City Attorney advised on options to update Subdivision and Weeds/Mowing ordinances; council approved revisions to Ordinance #7 lowering required grass-height cutoff to 6 inches, shortening compliance notice to 7 days and increasing man-and-machine charge to $175 per hour; a public hearing will follow.
City of Rushford Village council members on Feb. 4 approved directions to revise the municipal Weeds/Mowing Ordinance (Ordinance #7) after considering legal options and costs.
City Attorney Joseph O'Koren told the council he found no Fillmore County requirement that subdivisions must connect to a hard-surface road and said removing that requirement in the local subdivision ordinance would allow more areas to be developed. The council did not immediately change the subdivision requirement but discussed options.
On the weeds and mowing issue, O'Koren advised that cities handle enforcement differently and cautioned against punitive fees; he recommended fees reflect reasonable costs (truck, trailer, mower, mobilization, fuel, equipment upkeep and staff time) and suggested sending a notice each time a property must be mowed rather than a single notice for the season. Council members raised liability concerns if city staff perform mowing and the alternative of hiring contractors.
After discussion the council voted to revise Ordinance #7 to: lower required grass height from 8 to 6 inches, reduce the compliance window from 10 to 7 days after notice, and increase the man-and-machine charge from $100 to $175 per hour. The motion (Hart/Ruberg) carried. City Attorney O'Koren will draft the revised ordinance for presentation at the Feb. 18 council meeting; a public hearing will be scheduled after the draft is published. O'Koren's office will also send a letter documenting that a habitual offender had been contacted by phone.
The motion does not change the enforcement mechanism (contractor versus city staff) immediately; the council discussed but did not direct a specific contractor plan. The council also agreed the fee structure should not be punitive and that a cap could be considered if fees accumulate with repeated violations.
