Lago Vista sends $2,000-a-day building fine rules back for review

The Lago Vista City Council voted unanimously on Oct. 15, 2026, to send its rewrite of the rules for dangerous buildings to legal for clean up.¹ The record has no cost figure, but the city could pay up front to repair a dangerous building and recover the cost through a lien, a legal claim on the property.²

Listen

AI voices

A two-host briefing. The voices are AI generated. Read the transcript.

A large hourglass stands on a weathered wooden porch step at golden hour, its glass chambers filled with crumbling plaster chunks and wood splinters instead of sand, the top chamber nearly empty, overgrown grass at the edges. AI illustration, not a real scene from Lago Vista. — AI illustration. Image credits.

What the rules are and why they matter

An agenda item for the Oct. 15, 2026, City Council meeting asked the council to consider Ordinance No. 26-10-15-01, on property maintenance and dangerous buildings. Article 3.1200 of the city code sets the rules for property upkeep and for substandard and dangerous buildings. The changes are meant to update and clarify the city's rules on notices, orders, liens, penalties, enforcement, and judicial review.³ The Building and Standards Commission is a city board whose members are appointed by the City Council.⁴

If an owner does not comply, the city may repair a dangerous building at its own expense and assess the expenses on the land. The city would then follow the article's steps for filing a lien on the property.² The lien secures payment of the repair, removal, or demolition costs or the civil penalty.⁵

Under the draft, a violation would be a misdemeanor with a fine of between $1 and $2,000, and each day would count as a separate offense.⁴ The City Council could also assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 a day against the responsible party for failing to repair, remove, or demolish a building.⁵

The motion said it would be "sent back to council for the second meeting in November." The rules would not change unless the council adopts them after that.¹

How the draft reached the council

The Building and Standards Commission reviewed the changes at its June 3, 2026, meeting. The commission voted to recommend that the changes be forwarded to the City Council. Tam Pieklik, the city's development services supervisor, submitted the item for the Oct. 15 agenda.³ Staff recommended that the council consider approving the ordinance.⁶ The draft in the packet still has margin notes, such as "Why is this sentence in this paragraph?"⁷

What the draft would change

The draft would adopt the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) as the city's property maintenance code. The code is published by the International Code Council.⁴ The draft would delete the code's Section 302.4, on weeds.⁸

The city could secure a building that is open and unsecured or poses an imminent risk of collapse.² Owners, lienholders, and others affected by a commission order could appeal it to the City Council. They would have 30 calendar days after the order is mailed or delivered.⁹

The city may not place a lien for securing or demolishing a building on a homestead.⁷ To count as a homestead, a home must be owned and used by its owner as a principal residence.¹⁰ A lien for repairs may not be foreclosed if the home is lived in by a person 65 or older.¹¹

What was said on Oct. 15

It was a regular City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers at 5803 Thunderbird.¹² Mayor Shane Saum chaired the meeting.^1,12 The Oct. 1 minutes in the packet list Norma Owen as mayor pro tem, Amanda Chavarria as a council member, and Brad Bullock as city attorney.¹³ The council took up the ordinance as action item 9.1.¹⁴ In the staff presentation, the speaker said, "Staff recommends this ordinance as presented."¹⁵ The presenter said the changes would make the city's procedures "consistent with Chapter 214 of the Texas Local Government Code."¹⁶

Council Member Amanda Chavarria began, "Tam, thank you for bringing this forward." Chavarria said that once the city condemns a building, it has a very short window to act. Chavarria said cleaning up some properties would take multiple bids, and that a request to include it in the budget "didn't get rolled in."¹⁷

Chavarria said enforcing the city's own rules "will come with a cost," but that the city can place a lien, and "if it's not paid, we can sell it."¹⁸

Mayor Pro Tem Owen asked, "Did we have anybody, a planner or anybody look at the ordinance?"¹⁹ Pieklik answered, "I can certainly send it to a planner."²⁰

A council member said, "We had already adopted the 2024 IPMC in a May ordinance."²¹ That member asked whether a reference to the 2021 code on page 30 "should be updated to cite the 2024."²²

That council member went back to the mayor pro tem's question of who else reviewed the draft and said it "could be good for Brad to review."²³ City Attorney Bullock replied that he could not remember if he sent it to an associate, and said, "I don't recall reviewing it myself."²⁴

The member said the draft removed places that "required a qualified professional" and "simply leans on the code enforcement officer."²⁵ The member said an ordinance passed on June 5 of last year limited daily citations for the same infraction, and asked that this code be "congruent with that." The member said the written notice and correction-period rules "weren't aligning with state law."²⁶

Another member said of the draft, "This should have been sent to legal to begin with." That member said, "I didn't get to brief this ordinance before it was put in here, because they didn't go through the liaison process."²⁷

That member said "state law does allow" daily fines once an owner has had time to fix a problem. An owner can stop them by telling the city, "I can't do this, I will forfeit this," the member said.²⁸

Council Member Paul Prince said the fine of between $1 and $2,000 "raised a red flag." Prince said $2,000 per day in daily fines "seems excessive."²⁹

Chavarria then described the Tessera development, which had been put on notice for wildfire hazard mitigation, and said "it got to the point where it was absolutely ridiculous." Chavarria said, "These fines need to be on a tiered scale," since tall grass is "obviously not the same" as open barrels of oil or rebar sticking out of the grass. For one citation that covers acres of land, Chavarria said, "$2,000 a day for something of that magnitude is very much justified."³⁰

City Council meeting, Oct. 15, 2026, from 4:11:28 to 4:13:08 in the city's video. Trimmed only at the start and end. Watch the full meeting from this moment. Video credits.

Many cities already use tiers such as "$100 a day for this, $500 a day for this," Chavarria said. Chavarria added that state law may cap the fine at $2,000 a day, but legal would need to verify it.³⁰

City Attorney Brad Bullock advised writing "up to the maximum allowed by state law" in the ordinance. Without citing a statute, Bullock said that for Class C misdemeanors, the maximum fine is $500 in some cases, or up to $2,000 for public health and safety violations. "Nobody in this room is setting those," Bullock said. Bullock said a municipal court judge sets the fine.³¹

Prince then raised a concern about the 30-calendar-day appeal period after an order is mailed or delivered. Prince said the city "mailed something to an address that was not a place I picked up mail and I never knew about it."³²

Bullock then said, "I would very much like to review this," because "I've already heard a lot of things that I'm going to have to edit through."³³

The vote

The chair said there was "a motion from Councilor Chavarria" and a "second from the mayor pro tem." Members voted aye, and the motion was approved unanimously. It was a voice vote, with no roll call.¹

City Council meeting, Oct. 15, 2026, from 4:16:16 to 4:17:02 in the city's video. Trimmed only at the start and end. Watch the full meeting from this moment. Video credits.

What we could not find

How many buildings the city considers dangerous today, and which ones.
How much the city has set aside to repair, secure, or demolish them.
Who wrote the margin notes in the draft, and whether the lawyers' version will answer them.
The May ordinance a council member said had already adopted the newer code.
The minutes, which will confirm who was present for the vote.

What you can do

Ask the City Secretary for the Oct. 15 minutes, which list who attended, and for the May ordinance that adopted the 2024 code.²¹
Read the draft in the council packet linked in the sources below.
Watch the discussion in the city's meeting video, which links from the sources below.
Ask the City Secretary for the revised draft before the council takes it up again.
Tell council members what you think before the vote.

Podcast transcript

Read the transcript

Host 1. This is the Lago Vista Watchdog briefing. The two voices you are hearing are AI generated. Every fact in this episode is sourced in the full story on our website, and a person validates each story before it is published.

Host 2. Here is the bottom line. At its October 15 meeting, the Lago Vista City Council voted unanimously to send a rewrite of the city's rules for property upkeep and dangerous buildings to legal, for clarification and clean up on language, according to the city's meeting video. The record has no cost figure. But under the draft, the city could pay up front to repair a dangerous building, then recover the cost through a lien, which is a legal claim on the property.

Host 1. Here are the penalties. Under the draft, a violation would be a misdemeanor with a fine of between 1 dollar and 2,000 dollars, and each day would count as a separate offense, according to the draft in the council packet.

Host 2. The draft would also let the City Council assess a civil penalty of up to 1,000 dollars a day against the party responsible for failing to repair, remove, or demolish a building. The motion said the draft would be sent back to council for the second meeting in November, and the rules would not change unless the council adopts them after that.

Host 1. So what are these rules? Article 3.1200 of the city code sets the rules for property upkeep and for substandard and dangerous buildings. The changes are meant to update and clarify the city's rules on notices, orders, liens, penalties, enforcement, and judicial review, according to the agenda item report.

Host 2. The Building and Standards Commission is a city board whose members are appointed by the City Council. When the city pays for repairs, it follows the article's steps for filing a lien on the property. The lien secures payment of the repair, removal, or demolition costs or the civil penalty.

Host 1. Now, in order, here is how it reached the council. The Building and Standards Commission reviewed the changes at its June 3, 2026, meeting, and voted to recommend that they be forwarded to the City Council, according to the staff report.

Host 2. Tam Pieklik, the city's development services supervisor, submitted the item for the October 15 agenda. Staff recommended that the council consider approving the ordinance.

Host 1. The draft in the packet still has margin notes, such as, quote, why is this sentence in this paragraph?

Host 2. What would the draft change? It would adopt the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, or IPMC, as the city's property maintenance code. That code is published by the International Code Council. The draft would delete the code's section on weeds, Section 302.4.

Host 1. The city could secure a building that is open and unsecured or poses an imminent risk of collapse. Owners, lienholders, and others affected by a commission order could appeal it to the City Council, within 30 calendar days after the order is mailed or delivered.

Host 2. There are limits for homes. The city may not place a lien for securing or demolishing a building on a homestead. To count as a homestead, a home must be owned and used by its owner as a principal residence. And a lien for repairs may not be foreclosed if the home is lived in by a person 65 or older, according to the draft.

Host 1. It was a regular City Council meeting in the City Council Chambers, and Mayor Shane Saum chaired it. On October 15, the council took up the ordinance as action item 9.1. In the staff presentation, the speaker said, quote, staff recommends this ordinance as presented. The presenter said the changes would make the city's procedures consistent with Chapter 214 of the Texas Local Government Code.

Host 2. Council Member Amanda Chavarria began, quote, Tam, thank you for bringing this forward. Chavarria said that once the city condemns a building, it has a very short window to act. She said cleaning up some properties would take multiple bids, and that a request to include it in the budget, quote, didn't get rolled in. Chavarria said the city can place a lien, and if it's not paid, the city can sell the property. And she said enforcing the city's own rules, quote, will come with a cost.

Host 1. Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen asked whether anybody, a planner or anybody, had looked at the ordinance. Development services supervisor Tam Pieklik answered, quote, I can certainly send it to a planner. Another council member said, quote, we had already adopted the 2024 IPMC in a May ordinance. That council member went back to who else reviewed the draft, and said it could be good for Brad to review. City Attorney Brad Bullock said he could not remember if he sent it to an associate, and said, quote, I don't recall reviewing it myself. That council member also said the draft removed places that required a qualified professional and simply leans on the code enforcement officer, and that the notice rules weren't aligning with state law.

Host 2. Another member said, quote, this should have been sent to legal to begin with, and said they did not get to brief the ordinance because it did not go through the liaison process. That member said state law does allow daily fines once an owner has had time to fix a problem, and that an owner can stop them by telling the city, I can't do this, I will forfeit this.

Host 1. The fines drew questions too. Council Member Paul Prince said the fine of between 1 dollar and 2,000 dollars raised a red flag, and that 2,000 dollars per day in daily fines, quote, seems excessive. Chavarria then described the Tessera development, which had been put on notice for wildfire hazard mitigation, and said, quote, these fines need to be on a tiered scale. She said tall grass is obviously not the same as open barrels of oil or rebar sticking out of the grass. For one citation that covers acres of land, Chavarria said 2,000 dollars a day is very much justified, and that state law may cap the fine at 2,000 dollars a day, which would need to be verified with legal.

Host 2. City Attorney Brad Bullock advised writing, quote, up to the maximum allowed by state law, in the ordinance. Without citing a statute, Bullock said that for Class C misdemeanors, the maximum fine is 500 dollars in some cases, or up to 2,000 dollars for public health and safety violations. Bullock said, nobody in this room is setting those, and that a municipal court judge sets the fine.

Host 1. Prince also raised a concern about the 30 calendar day appeal period, and said the city once mailed something to an address that was not a place he picked up mail. Bullock then said, quote, I would very much like to review this, because he had already heard a lot of things to edit.

Host 2. Then the vote. Council Member Amanda Chavarria made the motion, and Mayor Pro Tem Norma Owen seconded it. Members voted aye, and the motion was approved unanimously in a voice vote, with no roll call.

Host 1. There is a lot we could not find. We do not know how many buildings the city considers dangerous today, or how much the city has set aside to repair, secure, or demolish them. The minutes will confirm who was present for the vote.

Host 2. If you want to weigh in, read the draft in the council packet linked with our story, ask the City Secretary for the revised draft, the October 15 minutes, and the May ordinance, and tell council members what you think before the council takes it up again. Thanks for listening to the Lago Vista Watchdog.

Sources and documents

Every fact in this story comes from the records below. The small numbers in the story point to them. Links go to the exact moment in the meeting video or the page in the document.

See something wrong? Request a correction. Have records on this? Share them with us.