Council upholds nuisance abatement for 8143 E. 11th St.; owner told to comply after council rejects appeal

The Tulsa City Council on March 11, 2025, denied an appeal by Asset Financial Management LLC and upheld a nuisance‑abatement order for the property at 8143 East 11th Street, after code enforcement documented tall grass and weeds in a drainage ditch and the hearing officer found no legal error in the original notice.

Courtney Cornelius, a neighborhood inspector with the city’s code enforcement division, told the council that an inspection on Nov. 14, 2024, found vegetation taller than the 12‑inch limit and that the inspection notice was posted at the property and mailed to the owner. Cornelius said the administrative hearing officer reviewed the evidence and denied the property owner’s challenge to the notice on Jan. 29, 2025.

The property owner’s representative, Samuel Horry Jr., argued at the council meeting that the ditch had historically been maintained by the city and asked for clarity about who must maintain the easement, bear liability if utilities are damaged, or if someone is injured while performing maintenance. Horry said multiple requests for clarity had not produced a definitive response: “If we have to maintain and if we now have to cut the ditch, what are our responsibilities? What are the responsibility of the city?” he asked.

Code enforcement said it had confirmed with Public Works that the specific ditch area at issue was not maintained by the city and that the nuisance ordinance does not require staff to contact every affected property owner each time the ordinance is amended. Brent Pitchford of code enforcement and other councilors discussed practical steps, including that property owners may file a no‑trespass letter and signage with TPD if they will not be present during large adjacent events.

Councilor Dutton moved to deny the appeal and affirm the hearing officer’s decision; the motion passed on a unanimous roll call. The council recorded no fines at the meeting; code enforcement said if the owner does not comply the city may proceed with abatement and assess standard administrative and mowing fees. A staff estimate provided during the meeting said a city‑contracted mow plus the $300 administrative fee could range in typical cases from a small amount up to several hundred dollars depending on lot size and extent of vegetation.

Councilors used the hearing to press staff to improve public communication about who is responsible for maintaining ditches and easements, noting that previous informal arrangements sometimes stop after ownership changes.