By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Why should it cost so much to clean up five building lots?
That was the question that Calvin and Gayle Wright asked Nephi City Council on Tuesday because they had been charged what they termed a hefty fee to have a private contractor clean up several weedy lots after they did not clean those lots to the city standard. Earlier, the Wrights had been sent a letter asking them to abate the nuisance.
C. Wright said he had recently had 14 additional lots he was responsible for cleaned up in another section of town from where the city had sent in a contractor. The individual Wright hired had charged only $450.
Wade Gee, council member, stated that meant that Wright paid approximately $32 per piece of property he had had cleaned.
"I think I am being overcharged by the contractor you had do the work," said Wright.
For the second meeting in a row, (last meeting he was not on the agenda) Wright requested that the council reconsider the bill of approximately $3,000 that had been accumulated for the cleaning of five weedy properties as part of the city's weed abatement program.
He had talked to White Excavating and found that they charged $80 an hour for the work they did. So did the contractor he eventually hired who came from the Payson area.
Lisa Brough, council member, said that when the abatement letters were sent out by the police department, as part of the city's determination to abate weed problems, no one realized that all five of the properties were connected to Wright.
The amounts, and names on the accounts, as originally billed are: Calvin and Gayle Wright--$600 plus $75 administrative fee; Gayle and Maughn Wright--$600 plus $75 administrative fee; Kay Harrell (Dallas, Texas)--$500 plus $75 administrative fee; BMK Properties (St. George)--$600 plus $75 administrative fee; BMK Properties (St. George)--$500 plus $75 administrative fee.
"Sometimes, statements have sounded as if the city billed Calvin personally $3,000," said Randy McKnight, city administrator. "Each bill was sent to the address to which property tax notices for those parcels are sent (one to Texas and two to St. George)."
"Some of the lots cost more to clean up, because they contained more rocks and piles to be moved," McKnight said.
Following the meeting with Wright, the council responded to Wright's request for financial relief by agreeing to waive the administrative fee, if the clean-up bills are paid by September 10, 2014. In total, for the five lots, that would amount to $375 off the bill.
The need for abatement of the weeds came as a result of a complaint from a nearby neighbor. The lots are on the south end of Nephi. They are being held as future building lots but were complained about as a weedy home for vermin and insects.
Wright said that he had submitted a GRAMA (Government Records Access and Management Act) request. However, no one in the city office was aware of a request, other than a phone call, being made.
GRAMA is a broad-ranging Utah law dealing with the management of government records. First adopted in 1991 and revised several times, GRAMA is intended to balance the public's constitutional right to access information, individual privacy rights, and government's interest in restricting access to some records for the public good. A form must be obtained to make such a request.
He wanted to know, he said, how many letters had been sent out and how many of those who received them had their lots cleaned by a city-contracted excavator.
"I felt like you were targeting me," said Wright.
McKnight said that 75 letters had been sent out but that all other recipients had responded to those letters and had cleaned up their property.
Wright said that there were lots all over the community that had not been taken care of and there were weeds growing on many properties and thought that not everyone was being asked to take care of the problem.
Everyone is given 14 days to respond to such a letter, said Mark Jones, mayor, and the police department and council are responding to complaints as they occur.
If he had wanted to save money, said Jones, Wright should have gone out and found his own contractor to do the work when he first got the letter telling him to abate the weeds. However, since Wright had not done that, Jones did not think it was right for the city to pay the bill for abating the nuisance.
"If we give you a concession then every little widow in town, every taxpayer, would have to pay for your cleanup," said Jones.
He did not think that was fair, he said.
Had Wright either cleaned up the lots he was responsible for or had come into city hall and found out what he was expected then the outcome would have been different. If needed, Wright could have asked for more time.
Wright, on the other hand, thought that the city should have contacted him once more before sending in a contractor to do the work and then billing him and the other property owners, who are all family.
He said the city needed a list of contractors who would do the work and needed to bid out the work giving it to the bidder who gave the best price, said Wright.
"If you know of a person who will do the work for a good price, you should let the city know who that person is," said Don Ball, resident.
"Ed Park contacted several contractors," said McKnight. "They literally would not do the work because of the rocks on the property. We could only get one proposal."
Wright said he had hauled off some rocks and had sprayed weeds on the lots and thought he was showing good faith. However, he did not understand what a high standard the city had.
The idea of where weeds might be sprayed, at the first of the lot or all the way back, was also discussed. McKnight said spraying weeds at the front of the lot is not all that needs to be addressed. The entire lot needs to be made weed-free.
There are still a lot of rocks on the properties and, Wright said, he had not wanted the topsoil distributed over the land. He did think it looked good at this point but still wanted the city to give him a break on the high bill.
"The goal is for you to take care of your own property," said Greg Rowley, council member.
"We are going to continue to send letters," said Jones. "We do want the whole community to come into compliance. If a complaint comes in, we will send out a letter."
