Vexatious Complaint Discussion

[Amanda Chavarria]

After last nights discussion I thought it best that we continue the conversation here regarding potential policy or protocol changes. I would like to see a disclaimer placed on the online reporting portal. Something that aligns with state law and makes the reporter more accountable. I would like to see something similar to the below statement:


Acknowledgement and Certification

By submitting this complaint, I certify that the information provided in this report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that this report is for the purpose of evaluating and enforcing the City of Lago Vista's municipal codes and ordinances.

I acknowledge that submitting complaints for the purpose of harassment, retaliation, or knowingly providing false or misleading information undermines the integrity of the City’s code enforcement process and may result in the complaint being dismissed or referred for further review.

I further understand that knowingly making false statements to a governmental body may constitute a violation of applicable state law, including Texas Penal Code § 37.08, and could result in legal consequences.


I would appreciate any feedback, especially on how we could further implement something like this for telephone reports or if we should completely eliminate telephone reporting for code complaints. Of course telephone reporting for immediate danger to health and safety would still be appropriate.

 

[Adam Benefield]

I will not support a measure that shifts liability to complainants when our current practice has been to address code violations primarily through education rather than enforcement.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

I will not support a measure that shifts liability to complainants when our current practice has been to address code violations primarily through education rather than enforcement.

I think these are two seperate and very different issues. By state law when an code is violated the city has a responsibility to notify the offending party and give the proper required time frame to correct/rectify the violation before proceeding to fines/forced mows,cleanups etc), that's the education component. The enforcement/fines etc after the party fails to correct a true violation is definitely something we need to correct asap. For repeat violators, especially for the same issue, they shouldn't be allowed the grace period/time frame to "correct " their violation if they have previously been made of aware (educated) of the to skirt fines/penalties etc. I'll look into the legalities a bit more and come back with a more indepth recommendation and ask for discussion regarding how to implement that.

The point of this discussion isn't that. My point was to address repeat yet unsubstantiated,frivolous complaints (not real/actual code violations) by a person who's sole purpose in filing those complaints is to intimidate and/or harrass the other party.

These complaints typically revolve around supposed noise from dogs barking,grass height, wildflowers (bluebonnets), small gardening/landscape projects. Some of the more ludicrous complaints I've recently heard are painting/staining a fence(not in an HOA OR POA for clarification) just because they didn't like the color (not an actual code violation) . Another complaint I've recently heard was that a person was wanting to lodge a complaint because they "thought" it was against code to alllow a child to use chalk and make art drawings on their own property ( their driveway ) just because the complaintant felt it was unsightly.

Forgive me for any typos as I am replying from my mobile device.

 

[Adam Benefield]

Last night I suggested when possible, complaints include supporting evidence such as photos, video, or audio to help establish credibility and allow staff to more efficiently evaluate the concern. I understand the goal here is to reduce situations where complaints are used to harass neighbors through repeated or unsubstantiated reports. In many cases, that concern can be addressed by encouraging documentation that helps staff quickly determine whether an issue exists.

If you go back and review discussions specifically related to code enforcement, it is clear that there are differing views on the degree to which our codes should be enforced. Some on council have expressed hesitation about holding homeowners criminally responsible for code violations, even though enforcement ultimately occurs through a municipal judge under the Class C misdemeanor framework established in state law.

That is why I find the current recommendation somewhat concerning. In this case we are discussing placing legal certification language on the complainant, referencing sworn statements, perjury implications, and potential penal code violations.

If the concern is accountability within the system, I believe that standard should apply equally and proportionally. I would be open to discussing ways to address knowingly false or abusive complaints, but I am not comfortable adopting measures that place greater legal exposure on citizens reporting a concern than on individuals who are actually found to be violating our ordinances.

I also want to acknowledge that I understand the goal is eliminating harassment through false reports. I have personally seen many complaints from citizens that included videos and photos documenting violations that ultimately went unresolved or were not pursued because the city indicated its enforcement authority was limited. That reality makes me hesitant to support policies that raise the threshold or risk for residents who are simply trying to bring issues to the city’s attention.

I would prefer that we focus on administrative improvements like Mr. West recommended such as encouraging documentation and allowing staff discretion to identify patterns of abusive reporting rather than implementing language that could discourage residents from reporting concerns in good faith.

 

[Amanda Chavarria]

Last night I suggested when possible, complaints include supporting evidence such as photos, video, or audio to help establish credibility and allow staff to more efficiently evaluate the concern. I understand the goal here is to reduce situations where complaints are used to harass neighbors through repeated or unsubstantiated reports. In many cases, that concern can be addressed by encouraging documentation that helps staff quickly determine whether an issue exists.

If you go back and review discussions specifically related to code enforcement, it is clear that there are differing views on the degree to which our codes should be enforced. Some on council have expressed hesitation about holding homeowners criminally responsible for code violations, even though enforcement ultimately occurs through a municipal judge under the Class C misdemeanor framework established in state law.

That is why I find the current recommendation somewhat concerning. In this case we are discussing placing legal certification language on the complainant, referencing sworn statements, perjury implications, and potential penal code violations.

If the concern is accountability within the system, I believe that standard should apply equally and proportionally. I would be open to discussing ways to address knowingly false or abusive complaints, but I am not comfortable adopting measures that place greater legal exposure on citizens reporting a concern than on individuals who are actually found to be violating our ordinances.

I also want to acknowledge that I understand the goal is eliminating harassment through false reports. I have personally seen many complaints from citizens that included videos and photos documenting violations that ultimately went unresolved or were not pursued because the city indicated its enforcement authority was limited. That reality makes me hesitant to support policies that raise the threshold or risk for residents who are simply trying to bring issues to the city’s attention.

I would prefer that we focus on administrative improvements like Mr. West recommended such as encouraging documentation and allowing staff discretion to identify patterns of abusive reporting rather than implementing language that could discourage residents from reporting concerns in good faith.

I agree with you on this, change needs to happen across the board in how our reporting and enforcement is carried out is needed. I look forward to working on a legal and logical solutions with council in the coming months, especially once our UDC is completed.

 

[Charles West]

The City of Lago Vista has an opportunity to correct a long-standing problem in code enforcement: inconsistent application of standards caused by overlapping, outdated, or conflicting ordinances. When similar property conditions are treated differently depending on which section of code is cited, the result is confusion for residents, frustration for staff, and reduced confidence in the fairness of enforcement.

A practical solution is to adopt the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code as the City’s primary property maintenance standard, with few to no local amendments.

This approach would not create a new layer of regulation so much as replace uncertainty with clarity. The IPMC is a recognized, organized, and widely used framework that gives cities a single set of standards for issues such as unsafe structures, exterior deterioration, sanitation, occupancy-related conditions, and basic maintenance responsibilities. Instead of forcing staff and residents to navigate multiple local provisions that may point in different directions, the City would have one clear baseline for enforcement.

The main benefit is consistency. A unified code helps ensure that similar violations are handled in similar ways, regardless of the property owner, neighborhood, or staff member involved. That consistency improves fairness, strengthens due process, and makes enforcement decisions easier to explain and defend. It also reduces the perception that enforcement is selective, subjective, or influenced by interpretation rather than standards.

Adopting the IPMC with minimal amendments is especially important. The more the city modifies the code, the more it risks recreating the same patchwork of exceptions and contradictions that has caused problems in the past. Local amendments should be limited to what is truly necessary for administration, appeals, penalties, and compliance with Texas law. The goal should be to adopt a uniform standard, not to rebuild the current inconsistency under a different title.

At the same time, adoption alone is not enough. If the City wants real improvement, it should also review and revise conflicting sections of the Code of Ordinances so that the IPMC becomes the primary standard for property maintenance issues. Without that cleanup, the city may still face the same enforcement problems, only with another code added to the mix. This effort should be paired with clear procedures for notice, cure periods, reinspection’s, documentation, and appeals so that enforcement is not only legally sound, but predictable and transparent.

This is ultimately a governance issue as much as an enforcement issue. Residents deserve to know what standard applies to their property. Staff deserve a code framework that is coherent and workable. Council deserves confidence that the ordinances it adopts can be enforced fairly and consistently. Adopting the International Property Maintenance Code, with very limited amendments and a corresponding cleanup of conflicting ordinances, is a reasonable and responsible way to move the City toward that goal.

Recommended Council Direction:
Direct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code as the City’s primary property maintenance standard, with only essential local amendments, and to identify and revise or repeal conflicting provisions of the City Code as part of implementation.

 

[Charles West]

After speaking with staff, I understand that the City previously had a policy regarding repetitive complaints that were not actual code violations, but instead stemmed from disputes between neighbors. In some cases, the complainant was required to go to the Municipal Court window and sign the complaint before it could proceed. It is my understanding that when this policy was in place, there were fewer unjustified complaints. This did not shift the burden of code enforcement onto the complainant, but it did require individuals to stand behind the facts they were alleging and recognize that, if the matter proceeded to court, they would likely need to appear and testify. Which they are more than like going to be called to testify in any complaint they file regardless if the sign a complaint or not. I believe that process helped discourage complaints based on personal conflicts rather than legitimate violations.