Goodrich – A second village property owner is balking at what he claims are excessive fees for a one-time lawn mowing fee.
Ray Toma, an attorney in Bloomfield Hills who owns two vacant village lots in the Fairview Estates subdivision, said he received an invoice from the village asking him to pay $150 in administrative fees after the village hired his lots mowed.
‘I gave the village a check for $40 to pay for the mowing fee, but I will never pay the $150 administrative fee,? said Toma. ‘It’s not just the excessive amount of the fee, it’s that the village failed to follow due process.?
Still, village councilmembers aren’t backing down from the $75 administrative fees they are charging property owners for a one-time mow if a property owner’s grass gets over six inches.
Ordinance 140 states if a business or residence has weeds that are six inches or more, the village will mow the property and charge the owner $20 for the mowing and a $75 administrative fee for each piece of property.
Toma said when he spoke to Village Clerk Patricia Schierup on July 21, she confirmed that he did not receive the courtesy notice that was sent to five other property owners. Toma said that because he is not a resident in Goodrich, he was not aware of the publication of the ordinance in April, 2008.
‘I have owned these lots for over five years and have never had any prior complaints,? Toma said. ‘If I had received a courtesy notice, I would have immediately brought my lots in compliance. I have spoken to Thomas McKenney, the village attorney, to discuss whether due process was followed legally. Nevertheless, shouldn’t the village be more courteous regarding this matter??
Toma’s not the only property owner outraged at the fees.
When Michael Furnari, owner of Fairview Builders, received a bill of non-compliance on July 7, asking for $2,280 for the one-time mow of his 24 vacant lots in the Fairview Estates subdivision in Goodrich, he said he was shocked because he was also unaware of the ordinance.
‘I don’t understand why the village is charging me $75 per lot for administrative costs. They claim it costs them that much to do the office work. Maybe one administrative fee would be appropriate. But to charge me that fee 24 times, well it just doesn’t add up,? said Furnari.
Although the village council agreed to cut the administrative costs in half at a July 14 council meeting where Furnari made his complaint, Furnari said he is still left with an invoice of $1,180 for the one-time mowing.
‘I don’t feel like I got any relief by their splitting the fee in half, it didn’t really help me out. Because I can’t afford to pay this amount of money, this could turn into a tax lien on my property. I am hoping to discuss this matter with their attorney Thomas McKenney.?
McKenney said he thinks the administrative fee is working. ‘The program is working well, and for one reason and one reason alone: property owners are now taking care of their property.?
McKenney said he also believes the actual costs may even exceed the $75 that property owners are being charged.
‘The weed cutting ordinance takes time to enforce and time is money. For instance, the office takes the calls of complaints. Then they have to turn the matter over to a DPW (Department of Public Works) worker to see if the complaint is true. Then the DPW has to meet with the mower to discuss the matter and a post cutting inspection is required. Add to that the office has to make sure they are documenting the charges and the right property lots and money are being assessed against the right property owner.?