LARNED — Revisiting a discussion about nuisance mowing violations that began last December, the Larned City Council Monday night considered the pros and cons of utilizing in-house staff over bidding and contracting for mowing the yards those who allow their grass and weeds to grow too tall. Of primary concern was the risk of liability and damage to equipment.
In 2019, the city spent $10,735 in mowing contracts and $2,151.95 in postage. It received about 40 cents on the dollar, and recovery of the remainder, when added to property tax rolls, is significantly less because many of the properties are either vacant or abandoned, Eilts said.
Under Larned City Code, a property owner is sent a notice of violation when grass or weeds exceed 12 inches in height. If they don’t abate within 10 days, the City will proceed to abate the nuisance for them. Currently, the city hires a contractor to do the work and charges it and an administrative fee to the property owner. If costs aren’t paid, the amount is added to the property taxes by the County Clerk as a special assessment.
Nowhere in the code is it specified if the city should bid out the work or keep it in house.
Frieda Smith, the city’s code enforcement officer, retired recently, but in 2019, she surveyed 14 Kansas cities similar to Larned to find out how they handled and charged for mowing. She found an almost even split between those that contract and those who perform the work in-house. Some, like Hoisington, charged an hourly fee, and others, like Eureka, a flat rate. Larned is in line with the administrative fees charged, she determined. Smith compiled the data and recommended the city allow in-house mowing.
Eilts built a case in favor of this recommendation, noting that the city could hire additional seasonal workers, even high school students, and they could be put to work on other projects around the city including weed control and painting lines on city streets. He noted that in the past, high school students were the go-to workers for this type of work, and while some equipment guidelines have led the city to hire only adults in recent years, use of lawn mowers and trimmers do not have the same restrictions.
“We can maximize their time for mowing, and they might be at their capacity when they add the additional work, but it’s productive the entire time,” Eilts said. With older equipment available for use, no new equipment would be needed, he added.
But Gary Rainbolt countered that keeping the work in house would hurt contractors who relied on the bids for their income.
Jason Murray argued from the point of view of landlords, asking the council consider rewording the ordinance to have the fees and fines charged to the current occupant’s utility bill. He argued it was unfair for landlords to pay the consequences of renters who broke the law, and that it is very difficult to evict a tenant simply for not mowing the lawn.
But, with many of the properties the city is left to mow being vacant or abandoned, there was little support for Murray’s request. However, when he suggested the city reconsider requiring mowing contractors to have appropriate insurance, the discussion regained steam. Council members differed in their support, with some finding increased competition desirable, while others were cautious about liability. There was some concern that with few contractors available, the city was being “soaked” and that was unfair to taxpayers.
Ultimately, the council agreed either contractors or in house could be utilized, and conceded to Eilts. A combination of bidding and in house could be utilized depending on how much mowing will be needed and how timely it can be completed.
“This lends us a lot of good flexibility,” Eilts said.
