Shelby County, City of Alabaster, plant nuisance abatement further provided for
HB497 is a local bill applying only to the City of Alabaster in Shelby County. It creates a specific process for addressing plant-related public nuisances on private property. The mayor must designate an enforcing official who may inspect property, post and serve written notice to the owner, and order abatement within 14 days, with up to 28 days allowed in more difficult cases. The notice must also inform the owner of the right to request a hearing before an administrative official, and the bill sets out detailed requirements for notice, hearing timing, public access, and recordkeeping.
If the owner does not abate the nuisance after notice or after an adverse hearing decision, the city may enter the property and perform or contract for the abatement. The city must then prepare an itemized statement of its costs, including labor, equipment use, postage, legal expenses, and materials, and the city council may assess those costs against the property after notice and an opportunity to object. The assessed costs become a lien on the property, called a "weed lien," and are collected through the county revenue commissioner in the same manner as municipal ad valorem taxes, including foreclosure and sale procedures for delinquency. The bill also requires weed liens to be paid during redemption or state sale of the property, and it becomes effective June 1, 2025.
HB497 would amend local law for Alabaster by giving the city a formal nuisance-abatement and cost-recovery mechanism for overgrown or otherwise nuisance plants on private property. It authorizes notice, hearings, appeals to circuit court, city entry for abatement, and the imposition and collection of a lien for abatement costs through the property tax system. The bill affects property owners in Alabaster, city officials, the city council, the circuit court, and the Shelby County revenue/tax offices that would process and collect the lien.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the House. It passed the House of Origin and third reading with no recorded nays, and the available vote history shows unanimous or near-unanimous approval on related motions. There were no committee transcripts indicating opposition or extended debate, suggesting the measure was viewed as a routine local government enforcement tool.
The main issues embedded in the bill are procedural fairness and property-rights protections versus municipal enforcement authority. The bill addresses those concerns by requiring written notice, posting on the property, an opportunity for a hearing, a written decision, and a right to appeal to circuit court. Any potential contention would likely center on the city’s ability to enter private property, assess abatement costs, and impose a lien collected like taxes, but the vote history does not show active opposition.