At the last regular monthly council meeting on September 7, several items were included on the agenda because of complaints received by the city clerk from residents of the city. These complaints involved grass clippings in the streets, uncut grass and weeds in yards, junk cars, and dilapidated houses. The meeting was quite long on discussion (over two hours) but little was actually accomplished.
The initial discussion involved a question of what action to take against residents who mowed their grass onto the streets in violation of a city ordinance. In the past, this was a big issue with some of the city council members who claimed this practice was clogging up the storm sewers and was unsightly. The city clerk, Mickey Solano, said she had sent around twenty warning letters to residents who were violators of the city ordinance, but that there were still some who ignored the letters and were continuing the practice of leaving their grass clippings in the street. There was an expressed reluctance by one council member of “slapping fines on people at this point in time.” Solano asked “what if certain residents continue to ignore the warning letters?” Councilman Lobberecht responded sarcastically: “What if, what if.” Yet, there seemed to be concern by the rest of the council that there should be a fine for chronic violators. The city attorney, Greg Life, noted that under the present ordinance there is no specified fine, although any violation of a city ordinance is subject to a minimum fine of around $250 to $700 unless otherwise specified. Council members thought that this amount would be too steep of a fine for leaving grass clippings in the street. Life suggested that if the council wanted to take action, they should set a policy specifying the number of warning letters to be sent and the amount of fines to be levied against violators. He said “all that the city is doing now is sending out warning letters.” Council members commented that the mowing season is almost over and the item should be tabled for further study.
The next item on the agenda involved private yards and lots which were overgrown with grass and weeds. Under the present city policy, the city clerk sends letters to the owners of these properties warning them that if the grass and weeds on their property are not cut within a specified time then city employees would do the work and the cost would have to be paid by the property owner. The city presently charges $50 for mowing the yards and vacant lots. The city clerk expressed concern that the $50 charge did not cover the city’s cost for labor, gas and the use of city equipment. Solano said there are only two or three properties that have to be mowed, each month, during the growing season. Some members of the council did not feel that city workers should be used for this type of work and the work should be contracted out. One council member felt the two city workers were overworked with all their other duties. (There was no mention of all the extra FEMA paid workers who have been working for the city this past spring and summer). There was much more discussion on this subject, but it was finally tabled for further study.
The next agenda item involved junk cars in yards – specifically listed on the agenda - 906 N. 3rd Street, Todd Tilley’s residence. Todd Tilley respectfully addressed the council. He said that “derby-ing” was his hobby, and he wanted to know what he had to do to keep derby cars in his yard and comply with the city ordinance. He said he was willing to put up a fence or a pole building. Councilman Greenlee mentioned that he did not have a problem with the cars in Tilley’s back yard -- the cars were lined up neatly behind a shed, the grass was well trimmed and the cars were hard to see from the street. Tilley’s back yard ends at the railroad track and levee. Greenlee had read the ordinance and told Tilley it appeared all he had to do was to cover the cars with a cloth or tarp. Greg Life, the city attorney, disagreed saying that each vehicle would have to be covered completely. This discussion about the ordinance continued among the council members for another lengthy period. Tilley repeated that he just wanted to know what he had to do. Life advised Tilley to contact his own legal counsel for interpretation of the city ordinance. (WHAT KIND OF RESPONSE IS THAT? Tilley came to a council meeting where the Mayor, city council members, city clerk and the city attorney were all in attendance, and he could not get a straight-forward answer as to what he had to do to comply with a city ordinance. Instead he was told to get his own attorney to advise him. I drove by Tilley’s residence the other day, and it appears that Tilley had put tarps over his cars. It is hard to see the cars from the road, unlike other locations in town with junk cars.)
Another couple had accompanied Todd Tilley to the meeting. They, too, had received a warning letter from city hall about a couple of derby cars they had in the back of their yard next to the railroad track. The wife did all the speaking. She said that they had the cars towed away to comply with the warning letter. Pointing to a list in her hand, she mentioned they drove around town and found 15 other residences, all on the south side of town, with junk cars which were much more visible. She demanded to know why these people had not received warnings. The city clerk replied that it was because there had been no complaints on these other cars. Upon hearing the city clerk’s answer, she said she wanted to file complaints against the owners of the residences on her list. She felt it was only fair that everyone with junk cars in their yards should receive warnings. But then the city attorney spoke up again saying that she would need to provide more than an address. He said she would not only need an address, but she would have to describe the car and explain why she thought the car was junk. (WHAT KIND OF RESPONSE IS THAT? Certainly, the city could have an employee check the addresses on her list – perhaps even the city clerk could find some time to do this.)
The next complaint item on the agenda was about “Dilapidated and unsafe houses.” Specifically, this particular complaint was about an abandoned house on North 3rd Street, across from the frog pond. But unlike the complaint against Tilley, no address was listed on the agenda. The city clerk said the complaint came from the “Mahaska County Sanitarian” who is probably the county health or safety officer. This Mahaska official said he had received complaints from residents in the community about the condition of the house. These residents had told him they had complained previously to city hall and no action was taken. According to the city clerk, this official told her that since the city had an ordinance dealing with dilapidated houses, it was the city’s responsibility to take care of the problem. There was a general discussion of other dilapidated houses in Eddyville. According to the city clerk, there are three dilapidated houses on the north part of town (Mahaska County side) and one on the south part of town (Wapello County side) but she had not received any recent complaints about the other houses. The city attorney advised the council that it should ask the Mahaska County Health Officer for a written report before taking any action. Councilman Lobberecht responded that the city cannot afford to demolish these structures or if the house or houses were torn down the city probably would not be able to recover its costs. He said it would be better if the council would get rid of the nuisance ordinances. Perhaps this was said in jest by Lobberecht, but it certainly appeared that he was bothered by the number of complaints about city ordinances being violated. Councilman Harding added that “we need a policy that (citizen) complaints should all be in writing.”
One of the last items on the agenda was an announcement that the fall clean-up day will be held on Monday, October 5, 2009. And, of course, one of the purposes of a clean-up day is to improve the appearance of the city. On second thought, perhaps that is also one of the reasons for the “nuisance” ordinances.