Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shreveport committee reviews enforcement tools as repeat property violators avoid fines
Summary
City legal staff and council members discussed low collection rates for property-standards fines, mechanisms for liens and foreclosure, backlog at environmental court, and contract compliance for city mowing vendors; members suggested trials to attach charges to water bills for repeat offenders.
Council members and the city attorney discussed the limits of current enforcement tools for property-standards violations and possible changes to improve collection and deterrence.
Attorney Edwards and other staff explained that if property owners do not appeal violation letters, the city typically cuts weeds or cleans premises and sends a bill that includes labor and an administrative fee; unpaid bills may be secured by a lien affidavit at year-end. Edwards said many property owners do not pay and that the city is reviewing whether to return cases to environmental court so fines and judgments can be entered earlier. "We're seriously considering sending everything back through environmental court," he said, noting it could slow processing unless administrative efficiency increases but would yield judgments that better support liens.
Council members said repeat offenders appear to receive a free service when they do not pay and asked whether more severe remedies such as foreclosure or other statute-based actions could be applied in some cases. Edwards said foreclosure and similar remedies exist in state statute but are generally not used for routine weed abatements; the usual practice has been to clean, bill and then file liens when bills remain unpaid.
Members raised contractor compliance concerns, asking that contracted mowing vendors not leave clippings or refuse to edge and that the city enforce contract terms. Staff said edging and cleanup requirements are in current contracts and agreed to meet vendors to reinforce expectations.
A proposal to test attaching grass-cutting charges to offenders' water bills was discussed. Edwards said the approach was explored previously and found technically difficult because of billing systems and prior water-billing issues, though he said it was not illegal. Staff agreed to look into the feasibility and to consider a test on repeat offenders.
Ending: The committee directed staff to study returning more matters to environmental court, pursue administrative efficiency to support that change, meet vendors on contract compliance, and research the technical feasibility of adding remediation charges to water bills.
