Ventura's elected leaders might have skirted state law when they adopted a new and unusual weed abatement fee last year as part of an annual fee update, the city's top attorney said Monday.

"The City Council needs to explicitly authorize this kind of program," City Attorney Ariel Calonne said in an interview. "It was referenced in too vague a way in the fee schedule."

The council will consider waiving the controversial $99 fee for weed-abatement inspections when it meets next week.

More than 1,200 property owners in Ventura hillside areas were sent bills this month notifying them about the new $99 fee, which would have to be paid even by those who clear their own weeds.

After some residents complained and the fee was publicized last week, Ventura Mayor Christy Weir, City Manager Rick Cole and Fire Chief Mike Lavery all indicated they would support repealing it. Those who have already paid the fee would get refunds if the council agrees.

Although it might be legally possible for the city to collect the fee, Calonne echoed concerns by the mayor about a lack of public notice before it was approved last year. Affected homeowners were not specifically notified about the fee, and there was no public comment on it at the June council meeting when it was adopted.

"The City Council was not asked to explicitly legislate on whether to have this kind of fee," said Calonne, who was hired by the council after the fee — the first of its kind in Ventura County — was approved. "This is an unusual and novel program they are trying."

Last year, the city hired an independent auditor who said the costs of city fire-prevention measures, such as weed-abatement compliance inspections, could be passed on to residents.

Calonne was not asked by the council to review the ordinance authorizing the fee, but he acknowledged legal questions have been raised by residents. He said a council repeal would make "any of my actions a moot point."

Longtime Councilman Jim Monahan said he didn't realize he was voting for the fee last year, because it was part of a package of charges under consideration.

"I think it's appropriate to take another look at it," Monahan said Monday from Fort Sumter, S.C., where he is vacationing. He said he received several phone calls and e-mails from residents angered by the fee.

Many, he said, had spent a great deal of time and money to comply with weed-clearance requirements and didn't appreciate receiving bills threatening citations, additional fees and possible liens on their properties if they didn't pay for compliance inspections. In the rest of Ventura County, agencies do not charge complying homeowners for such inspections.

Affected property owners still must complete and return by June 1 the forms they received from the city to certify they have cleared brush and weeds within 100 feet of structures, fire officials said.

"People are not happy with it," Monahan said, particularly as the city gets ready to begin charging residents a monthly fee for 911 emergency service.

City leaders have defended the fees as necessary to cover the growing costs of city business and offset a projected $4 million budget deficit. The fees have sparked debate and even mocking hostility on blogs and letters to the editor. One letter suggested the city change its name from "The City by the Sea" to "The City With a Fee."

Hillside resident Ken Kipp said the city hasn't explained where the $99 charge came from. The retired Ventura County sheriff's administrator paid the fee but called the city to question its use of a consultant. He said the city should have talked with homeowners, given the sensitivity involved when raising taxes or fees.

"I understand the fiscal situation the city is facing," he said. "I love the city. I am not throwing rocks at them. But sometimes even the best intentions go sideways."