City council members railed against administrative fees imposed
by a county fire hazard-removal program when one property owner was
charged more than $7,000 to cut the grass in a cow pasture.
City council members railed against administrative fees imposed by a county fire hazard-removal program when one property owner was charged more than $7,000 to cut the grass in a cow pasture.
Santa Clara County implements the annual weed abatement program for the city of Morgan Hill, which is responsible for approving or rejecting fines and assessments against non-complying properties. The purpose of the program is to keep Morgan Hill “fire safe” by eliminating the presence of flammable vegetation that grows on the borders of residential areas, according to Morgan Hill program administrator Anthony Eulo.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the council was asked to approve fines to be levied against 89 property owners who failed to cut grass and weeds that county inspectors determined were a hazard.
The owners were sent written notices that said the properties contain such hazards, and that the owners could cut the grass themselves or the county would hire contractors.
Of the 89 properties in violation of weed hazard laws, the county’s contractors cut the weeds on 26 properties, according to Moe Kumre, Santa Clara County weed abatement coordinator. The county charged an inspection fee of $298 for properties that failed inspections, but the owners cut the weeds back themselves.
But those properties where weeds were abated by the county were charged the contractors’ costs for personnel and to operate tractors, lawn mowers and weed whackers, plus a 150 percent “administrative fee” to pay for the county’s costs, Kumre said.
That level of fee is unfair, according to council members. The county’s administrative workload should be the same no matter how much work the contractors do, Councilman Larry Carr said.
“I don’t see how or why that is equitable, “Carr said.
Property owner and developer Rocke Garcia, whose company Glenrock Builders had three non-complying properties on the list, also complained about the administrative fee.
“I don’t know anybody who makes 150 percent in overhead,” Garcia said.
The high fee is set by the Santa Clara County board of supervisors and is intended to cover the costs of the weed abatement program in which more than 300 parcels were inspected, and to provide an incentive for property owners to take care of the problems, Kumre said.
“We told them (in written notices) that it would cost more if the county did it,” Kumre said.
He noted the program is supported only by inspection and administrative fees, and no general fund or tax dollars.
The administrative fee resulted in a fine of about $7,398 for Isaac Abrams, who owns a 20-acre pasture on Cochrane Road where the county cut weeds that were deemed a hazard.
Speaking at Wednesday’s public hearing, Abrams said he received a notice telling him the edges of his pasture had to be cut back, only after the county already cut the grass. He added that for several years he has allowed Joe Santos to use the property to let his cattle graze and keep the grass down.
A letter from Santos to the city council said that if he had known the weeds had to be cut, he would have done it himself with his tractor.
The county used weed-whackers, a more time-consuming method of weed abatement than tractors, because they said they could not access the property with a tractor, Kumre said.
County inspectors tried to ensure that Abrams knew about the hazard, and the need to cut the weeds with mailed notices. However, Abrams said he either did not receive the notices or received them too late.
Kumre noted Abrams’ agricultural property in question borders a residential subdivision. “Should this property burn, the damage to his property would be minimal, but the lives of people adjacent to this property (would be) in danger,” Kumre said.
Under questioning from the council, Kumre said while county inspectors had Abrams’ phone number, they did not call him to let him know about the issues on his property.
Because the county did not exhaust all of its options to ensure Abrams was notified that he would be charged for weed abatement, the council voted to eliminate the administrative fees on his bill – reducing his assessment to about $2,900.
“There wasn’t enough done to reach out to (Abrams),” Councilman Greg Sellers said. “I understand the challenge in making that program equitable. On the other hand, people who are clearly violating the ordinance are threatening all of us, and they need to pay for it.”
The council approved the fines imposed on the 88 other property owners as proposed by the county. Those ranged from $298 to about $3,600 – however the next highest bills on the list were about $1,700.
The council also voted to draft a letter to the board of supervisors, who sets the administrative fees for the program. The letter will ask the supervisors to reconsider the 150 percent administrative fee, and perhaps reduce it for next year’s program.
