Council OKs weed law — improperly
Procedural mistake sends proposed lawn overgrowth rule back to committee
A procedural mistake is sending back to a Common Council committee a city law intended to deal with overgrown lawns and vegetation.
The council on Tuesday approved a local law mandating that the exteriors of all city properties are “maintained in a clean, safe and sanitary condition.” On Wednesday, though, it was determined the matter mistakenly was brought forth as a resolution, rather than a local law, said Megan Weiss-Rowe, the city’s director of communications and community engagement. She said local laws require two readings by the council and a public hearing before they can be enacted.
“While this error in process is unfortunate, it will allow the council additional time to discuss the matter further at the upcom-
ing public safety committee [meeting] and resolve any outstanding issues or concerns,” Weiss-Rowe said in an email.
The proposed law states that all exteriors shall be free from weeds or plant growth in excess of 10 inches in height and that noxious weeds will be prohibited.
During the council meeting, lawmakers were split over whether to advance the law. Council members who wanted to refer the matter back to committee said, in part, that there needed to be more clarity about what was considered a “weed.”
The law defines weeds as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation other than trees or shrubs. It excludes cultivated flowers and gardens.
The votes in favor of the law and against sending it back to committee were both 5-4, with council President James Noble casting the tie-breaker both times.
The council has nine members, but Nina Dawson, D-Ward 4, was absent. The council president votes only when there is a tie.
Tuesday’s vote, however, is now moot.
Voting in favor of the law, along with Noble, were council Majority Leader William Carey, DWard 5, Minority Leader Deborah Brown, R-Ward 9, and aldermen Reynolds Scott-Childress, D-Ward 3, and Steven Schabot, DWard 8. Voting against the law, and in favor of it being discussed further in committee, were aldermen Lynn Eckert, D-Ward 1, Douglas Koop, D-Ward 2, Anthony Davis, D-Ward 6, and Maryann Mills, DWard 7.
In attempting to refer the law back to committee, Koop said he supported its intent and believes the city’s Building Safety Division needs a mechanism to deal with these kinds of code violations. “However,” he said, “this particular resolution lacks specificity with respect to weed-related definitions and procedures for how property owners deal with notices of violations.”
Koop said, for instance, that naturalistic landscaping might look like a patch of weeds to people who are not familiar with “prairie patches” or patches of milkweed left to grow for the benefit of Monarch butterflies. Koop said referring the proposal back to committee would allow the city’s environmental educators to be consulted.
A property owner found in violation of the law would have seven days to comply. If the owner doesn’t do so, the city would have the right to hire someone to remedy the problem and bill the property owner for the cost. Unpaid bills would be added to property tax bills.
Brown said a lot of the calls she receives from constituents this time of year deal with weeds and overgrown properties. She said “noxious” refers to something that causes harm, and many people have severe allergies. Brown also noted the burgeoning tick population.
The city’s Building Safety Division needs a way to address these issues, she said.
“If you’re going to put the enforcement on homeowners, then the city has to do their part too,” Brown said. “Especially this time of year.”
She said the city has seasonal employees who can maintain city-owned properties to keep them from becoming overgrown.
Scott-Childress also cited health issues caused by unkempt properties and noted they also bring down property values.
Eckert, though, said there are some gray areas in the law that could have the potential to be abused. She said the law needs better definition.