Updated Agenda Item 12: Daily Citations

[Shane Saum]

Councilmembers,

After speaking with Chief Boshears, staff and council members, I have updated the draft ordinance for Agenda Item 12 on Daily Citations. Please use this draft to work from on Thursday and not the one that is in the packet.

This updated ordinance reflects input from multiple stakeholders:

• Chief Boshears asked that we retain daily citation authority for severe or ongoing cases, particularly for commercial actors. He shared that the PD already practices restraint with homeowners, always issuing a warning and offering time to fix the issue before citations are given. We've now codified that practice into law.
• Development Services staff pointed out that our current contractor registration system hasn’t had teeth. This new version empowers the city to tie contractor registration to code compliance, allowing us to suspend or revoke registration for repeat offenders — and to publish compliance reports.
• Several City Council members wanted to ensure that individual homeowners are treated differently than developers, and that we avoid criminalizing ordinary folks who just need a heads-up and time to fix things.

Key Takeaways:

• Homeowners must receive at least one written warning and a chance to fix the issue before daily citations can even be considered.
• Developers, builders, and businesses can receive daily citations only after a notice period and if they are registered (or required to be registered) under our contractor program.
• The city can now suspend or deny permits to repeat violators who are contractors or developers.
• We've authorized the publication of Developer Violation Reports and Contractor Compliance Reports so citizens and Council can track what’s being done.

Feel free to reach out with any questions or ideas — this is a living process, and I’m committed to thoughtful enforcement that reflects the values of Lago Vista.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Thank you for your hard work and diligence on this. Look forward to hearing your talking points and supporting this measure

 

[Paul Roberts]

Shane,

Thanks for continuing to refine this ordinance and for the thoughtful way you’ve incorporated input from Council, staff, and PD. I think this version reflects a much stronger and more structured approach to code enforcement, and I’ll support its adoption on Thursday. I wanted to offer a few notes for consideration that I believe could further reinforce the ordinance’s clarity and implementation.

1. Clarify How §3.151(d) and §3.111 Work Together

As the author of our current contractor registration ordinance (§3.111), I’m especially encouraged to see it playing a more active role in our enforcement toolkit. That ordinance already provides a detailed and enforceable framework for suspending or revoking contractor registrations based on documented violations, with defined thresholds, due process, and an appeal pathway through the Building and Standards Commission.

I’d recommend we add language to §3.151(d) clarifying that the enforcement tools it introduces are intended to supplement, not duplicate, the procedures already codified in §3.111. A simple cross-reference to the appeal and reinstatement provisions in §3.111 would help align the two sections procedurally and make it easier for staff, contractors, and Council to understand how these tools work together. I think this would also make it clearer that we’re activating the authority we already have — not creating a second track.


2. Add Complementary Revisions to June Agenda

Because §3.111 wasn’t noticed for amendment this month, I plan to propose a few targeted updates for the June agenda to ensure full alignment between the two sections:

• Making it explicit that suspended or revoked contractors are not eligible for permits or inspections;
• Formalizing the publication of the Contractor Compliance Report, which is anticipated in §3.151 but not yet referenced in §3.111;
• And aligning enforcement procedures and appeal references across both sections for consistency.

3. Make Publication of Violation Reports Mandatory

I’d also suggest changing “may” to “shall” in §3.151(c) and (d) regarding the Developer Violation Report and Contractor Compliance Report. While these reports have been published in the past, I believe the last one went up in February — so the practice hasn’t been consistent. Codifying the obligation to publish on a recurring basis ensures that both Council and the public have a reliable and transparent way to monitor enforcement efforts. It’s a simple change that can improve accountability without adding administrative complexity.


4. Remove the $50,000 Lien Threshold in §6.214

This is one provision I’d recommend reconsidering. Setting a high fixed threshold like $50,000 before a lien can be considered creates a financial incentive for property owners to delay compliance, knowing the City may be reluctant or unable to recoup abatement costs. I’d recommend removing the dollar amount altogether and allowing Council to authorize liens on a case-by-case basis.

In my time on Council — and after attending every P&Z and Council meeting for two years before being elected — I’m only aware of one instance where a lien was placed. That said, I fully acknowledge there may be others I’m not aware of. But either way, I don’t see this as an undue burden on Council, and I believe discretion at the dais is a better safeguard than an arbitrary threshold.


5. Clarify Cost Recovery in §5.116

The current language in §5.116 says the City may abate sign violations at the owner’s expense but also says no liens shall be filed. Without a lien or another repayment mechanism, it’s unclear how the City could enforce the “owner’s expense” clause. I’d suggest adding a sentence clarifying that unpaid costs may result in invoicing, denial of future permits, or other legal remedies. That helps preserve the enforceability of the provision even if liens aren’t an option.


6. Add a Fallback Clause for Administrative Penalties (§1.109)

Since the ordinance authorizes the Council to adopt a fee schedule by resolution, I’d recommend adding a short sentence making clear that, in the absence of such a resolution, the penalties allowed under §1.109 or applicable state law still apply. This helps ensure continuity in enforcement and avoids a situation where an unresolved technicality could delay or invalidate a penalty.

I’m fully behind the intent of this ordinance and appreciate the work that’s gone into shaping it. These are just a few small refinements that I believe could further reinforce what’s already a strong and thoughtful ordinance and ensure that the policy goals translate clearly into enforceable practice. Let me know if it’s helpful for me to assist with draft language ahead of Thursday.