Residents accuse Prattville code enforcement of removing property without notice; council pledges review and possible refunds

Multiple Prattville residents told the City Council on June 2 that city code-enforcement actions removed personal property from fenced back porches and back yards without adequate notice or opportunity to dispute the classification of items as "rubbish," and several asked the council to investigate and refund assessed fees.

Laurie Herring, who said she lives at 225 Stewart Street, told the council she received a three-page notice on her door that mentioned a car but did not describe items on her covered back porch. "They took antiques from my back porch," Herring said, adding that she later received a $560 bill for the removal. "There was no garbage. There was no rubbish out there." She asked the mayor and council to review the ordinance and the notification process.

Eddie Edwards, owner of 139 Lawrence Street, said he had complied with a March notice, submitted photos showing the listed items had been corrected, and nevertheless received a later abatement and a $700 bill that he paid under protest to avoid a lien. "I feel like we did everything we were asked to do and we were never afforded any kind of due process to defend ourselves in this action," Edwards said.

Stacy Costafela, a tenant at Edwards' property, described toys, a $400 pool ladder and other usable household items taken from her backyard and said a code officer warned that interfering could lead to arrest. "They took our little Tykes table that the children literally play at," she said. "It is appalling."

Several speakers urged the council to exercise oversight. DJ Parton (598 Marlin Drive) asked the council to "immediately launch an independent investigation" and to report back to the public about whether the incidents were misunderstandings, ordinance problems, or improper conduct that required discipline.

Mayor (addressing public comment): The mayor acknowledged receipt of the complaints and said city staff will follow up. Councilor Langley apologized for any lapses in communication, and Councilor Newman clarified that the council sets ordinances and votes on actions but day-to-day enforcement falls to the executive office; he said the administration would review control measures and that he trusted the process would be rectified quickly.

What council members said they would do: Councilor Langley proposed reexamining meeting structure so the council can hold work sessions and public discussion before problems "blow up," and Councilor Newman said he would host a virtual town hall the following week to hear resident concerns. Council members and staff also said they would review records, consider potential refunds when residents show they complied with written directives, and meet with code enforcement leadership.

Where this stands: The council did not take a formal vote on policy changes at the meeting. Several residents asked for refunds (amounts cited in testimony included $560 and $700); council members said they would look into individual cases and consider whether refunds or process changes are warranted. The mayor and staff were asked to follow up and report back publicly, and councilors encouraged residents to supply records and continue direct communication with the mayor's office and code enforcement.