|
City questions 37 hours to mow one yard
by Gregory R. Norfleet · News · June 16, 2021
An incredulous West Branch City Council voted 3-2 to pay a $1,188 bill for mowing a quarter-acre property, then unanimously removed the company from its list of vendors.
Swift & Swift LLC sent a bill on May 26 saying it needed 37 hours over three days to travel from its Davenport offices and cut the tall, wet grass and haul it away.
The council pulled this bill out of its consent agenda — a set of items usually expected to pass without controversy — to discuss the bill with owner Andray Swift, who joined the June 7 meeting virtually. The discussion revolved around a homeowner who did not cut the grass in accordance with the city’s nuisance ordinance requiring grass shorter than six inches.
Swift said a crew of three men traveled to West Branch on May 24 and heavy rain prompted them to let “the wet dirt and grass to drain and dry out.” A crew of two men returned the next day to run a brush hog — a heavy-duty mower — over the yard, and a crew of two men returned the third day to clean up the grass.
Swift added that, in Davenport, city ordinances state that it is illegal to throw grass in the street or in sewer drains — and that the company assumes similar ordinances exist in any towns where it works. That practice means it takes more time to cut and clean up grass.
“But 37 man-hours? I … have a serious problem with that,” Mayor Roger Laughlin said. “How did it take so long to mow a quarter-acre lot with a house on it?”
Councilmember Jodee Stoolman said she can mow her own yard — when dry — in about an hour.
Laughlin said he believes “a high school kid could mow it in an hour and rake it in two hours.”
City Attorney Kevin Olson suggested that instead of approving or rejecting the bill that the council ask for a more detailed version of the bill, breaking out travel times from the on-site labor.
The council did not follow that advice, but Laughlin estimated that three trips between West Branch and Davenport should take about 11 hours, leaving 26.5 hours of on-site time. Councilmember Jerry Sexton called 11 hours too generous.
Councilmember Colton Miller noted that all nuisance abatement bills — like Swift & Swift’s mowing bills — will get passed along to the property owner to reimburse the city. He added that the city cited the homeowner at 332 North Downey for violating nuisance laws by letting the grass grow taller than six inches, “but I’d be ashamed to tell them they’ve got to pay that bill.”
“There’s got to be a better way to do this,” he said.
City Administrator Redmond Jones said the city nuisance ordinance requires the city to notify the property owner and give them 10 days to mow. However, if the city does mow and bill the property owner, subsequent mowings that same year happen automatically, meaning the property owner does not get notified before a crew appears to mow again. That means the follow-up visits take less time and cost less because the grass is shorter.
“The first cut is always the tallest,” he said.
Miller suggested the council vote to pay the bill, but then remove Swift & Swift from the list of landscaping companies that city staff call when a resident’s grass gets too high.
Councilmember Nick Goodweiler asked what happens if they refuse to pay the bill. Olson said Swift & Swift could offer a bill breakdown “or take us to court.”
Finance Officer Gordon Edgar suggested negotiating with Swift & Swift, but Laughlin said that should not take place during a public meeting.
Olson said the council could wait for a bill breakdown and vote at a later meeting.
Swift objected, asking if the council wanted him to submit a different bill and “lie about the cost.”
Laughlin answered “No. Not one bit.”
“The bill is accurate and true,” Swift said. “It’s for real. (The grass) was totally out of control at that house.”
Councilmembers Nick Goodweiler, Jodee Stoolman, and Jerry Sexton voted in favor of paying the bill; councilmembers Tom Dean and Colton Miller voted against it.
A few minutes after paying the bill, the council took up Resolution 2009, which updated its preapproved list of companies that provide nuisance abatement services.
The resolution recommended adding J&D Lawn Care, Rocha Lawn Care, and Casper Lawn Care and renewing Swift & Swift.
Miller voted to strike Swift & Swift. The mayor noted that Swift & Swift does “most” of the more difficult abatement projects.
“We’ll find somebody else,” Miller said.
Miller further directed city staff to require contractors to provide “ballpark” estimates “before the work starts.”
Dean also suggested putting a cap on what a company can charge, stating that cutting down six to 12 inches takes about the same amount of time “even if it takes longer to pick it up.”
Goodweiler said he is sure there are landscaping companies in West Liberty and Iowa City “who can do it cheaper.”
The council voted unanimously on the resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
