Adobe Acrobat format

2005 Analysis of Code Enforcement Citations
City of Springdale

FOREWORD 

          Code enforcement has received considerable attention in the past several years in Springdale.  While all attorneys within the City Attorney's Office work on code enforcement matters, most of the responsibility for filing charges and dealing with the Code Enforcement Division of the City has been assigned to Ernest Cate.  Ernest also has primary responsibility for handling planning, zoning and real estate matters.

          Last year, because there had been so many comments about code enforcement, I had Ernest put together a study of code enforcement related violations that were handled through court that occurred in Springdale during 2003 and 2004.  This report details charges filed in the year 2005.

          As with all legal matters, our office strives to provide the best service possible in regard to prosecution of code enforcement violations, with the goal of bringing the property into compliance with City codes.  In the end, that is why we have a Code Enforcement Division, to ensure persons keep their property in compliance with City ordinances.  This enhances not only the neighborhood of the property involved, but also the City as a whole.

          The City of Springdale has started a new program this year (2006).  The program, called SNAP (Springdale Nuisance Abatement Partnership), was the idea of Police Chief Kathy O'Kelley.  The partnership consists of the Police Department, Fire Department, Building Inspector's Office, Code Enforcement, and the City Attorney's Office, working together with the community to identify and abate nuisances in the City of Springdale.  Chief O'Kelley has assigned Sergeant Billy Turnbough and Patrol Officer Travis Monson to represent the Police Department in the program and Sergeant Turnbough is the coordinator.  The program has already improved the City's ability to attack nuisances and enhance neighborhoods.  Because the program began this year (2006), it will be covered in next year's report.

Jeff C. Harper, City Attorney

A.      Overview

The City of Springdale, Arkansas, has a Code Enforcement Division which exists to ensure compliance with city ordinances governing, among other things, unsightly/unsanitary conditions, inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, and other related ordinances pertaining to the appearance and safety of private property.  The Code Enforcement Division consists of a Coordinator and two (2) Code Enforcement Officers. 

Code Enforcement responds to complaints called in by citizens, and also monitors compliance with city ordinances by patrolling City streets and neighborhoods.  Once a violation of a city ordinance is confirmed by Code Enforcement, the occupant and/or property owner is given notice that an ordinance violation exists on the property, and the owner/occupant is given the opportunity to correct the problem.

Code Enforcement subsequently rechecks the property to determine if the property owner or occupant has corrected the ordinance violation.  If the ordinance violation has not been corrected, the Code Enforcement Officer will write the property owner or occupant a summons to appear in court on the city ordinance violation.

B.      Types of Ordinance Violations

This survey examines city ordinance violations encountered by Code Enforcement that pertain to the appearance, cleanliness, and safety of property.  The most common examples of these violations are unsightly/unsanitary conditions, inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, and what will be referred to as "miscellaneous ordinance violations".  This survey will examine the number and type of these ordinance violations that were actually referred to court, and will examine the results of the prosecution of these ordinance violations.   

1.      Unsightly/Unsanitary Conditions

The most common type of ordinance violation encountered by Code Enforcement in the City of Springdale is the "unsightly/unsanitary condition" violation.  This type of violation encompasses tall grass, junk, trash, etc.  "Unsanitary" means that a place, condition or thing is unsanitary when it might become a breeding place for flies, mosquitoes and germs harmful to the health of the community.  "Unsightly" means that a place, condition or thing is unsightly when it is in public view and offends the then-prevailing standard of the community as a whole.  The specific ordinance can be found in Sec. 42-76 and 42-77 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Springdale.

2.      Inoperative/Unlicensed Vehicles

Another common ordinance violation encountered by Code Enforcement is the "inoperative/unlicensed vehicle" violation.  This type of violation generally pertains to junk cars being parked or stored on property.  "Inoperative" means an item which, by mechanical or physical defect, can no longer be used for its intended purpose and which is not serving a functional purpose.  "Inoperative vehicle" refers to any motor vehicle which is inoperable, dismantled, damaged or is unable to start or move under its own power.  A vehicle shall be presumed to be inoperative when certain conditions exist, such as when the vehicle is missing a tire, a door, if weeds have grown up around the vehicle, or if the vehicle does not have current tags or registration.  The specific ordinance can be found in Sec. 42-76 and 42-77 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Springdale.

3.      Miscellaneous Ordinance Violations

Code Enforcement encounters other types of violations which affect the appearance and safety of property in the City of Springdale.  In 2005, these "miscellaneous ordinance violations" ranged from violations of the City's sign ordinance, zoning ordinance violations, violation of the City's swimming pool code, violation of the open air enterprise ordinance, building code violations, and no trash service.

C.      Number of Citations Issued

In 2005 there were a total of 155 citations issued for ordinance violations.  These citations can be broken down into the following categories:

D.      Multiple Offender Citations

Of the 65 individuals issued citations for unsightly/unsanitary conditions in 2005, 18 of those were also cited either for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles or for a miscellaneous ordinance violation (12 of those were cited for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, and 6 were cited for a miscellaneous ordinance violation).  In other words, 27.69% of those cited for unsightly/unsanitary conditions also had some other ordinance violation existing on the property as well. 

Similarly, of the 27 individuals issued citations for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles in 2005, 12 of those were also cited for unsightly/unsanitary conditions.  In other words, 44.44% of those cited for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles in 2005 were also cited for unsightly/unsanitary conditions.  This is almost identical to 2004, when 43.14% of those cited for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles in 2004 were also cited for unsightly/unsanitary conditions.

These statistics indicate that it is not uncommon for a property to have more than one ordinance violation.  For example, these statistics indicate that it is very likely that properties with inoperative/unlicensed vehicles parked on them will have other ordinance violations as well, such as unsightly/unsanitary conditions.

E.      Criminal Prosecution of Ordinance Violations

Once the Code Enforcement Division issues a summons to the property owner, the ordinance violation is then prosecuted through the Springdale District Court.  The Code of Ordinances for the City of Springdale provides that a violation of these types of city ordinances is punishable by up to a $500 fine and up to a $250 fine for each additional day the violation continues.  Thus, a violation of one of these ordinances could result in substantial fines to the owner or occupant of the property.

However, the Code Enforcement Division has accomplished little if the property owner is fined, but the property is not cleaned up or brought into compliance with city ordinances.  As such, the primary goal of prosecuting these ordinance violations is compliance, not just collecting fines.  Therefore, gauging the success of Code Enforcement should not be based solely upon conviction rates and the amount of fines assessed or collected.  Rather, the success of Code Enforcement is reflected in the number of properties that are cleaned up or are otherwise brought into compliance with city ordinances. 

With this goal in mind, it is informative to examine not just the conviction rate for these ordinance violations, but it is important to also examine the "compliance rate" for these types of ordinance violations.  The compliance rate is determined by adding the number of cases resulting in a guilty disposition with the number of cases that were otherwise disposed of due to compliance with city ordinances.

F.      Disposition of Ordinance Violation Cases for 2005 (all cases) 

Of the 155 total citations issued in 2005, 125 of those resulted in a conviction, 13 cases were dismissed, 14 failed to appear, and 3 cases are still pending.  As such, of the 155 total citations written in 2005, 138 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

1.      Conviction Rate.  Of the 138 disposed of cases in 2005, 125 of them resulted in a conviction, for a conviction rate of 90.58%.  The conviction rate for 2005 is higher than either 2003 (87.67%) or 2004 (87.20%).  Out of the 155 total citations issued in 2005, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.  Of the 13 dismissals, 6 were dismissed by the Judge (due to compliance), 2 were dismissed at the request of Code Enforcement (due to compliance), 2 were dismissed by the prosecutor (due to compliance), 1 was dismissed due to the defendant selling the property, 1 was dismissed due to the defendant's death, and 1 was dismissed due to the property owner obtaining a variance from the Planning Commission.

2.      Compliance Rate.  Of the 138 disposed of cases in 2005, all of those cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  For example, 1 case was dismissed in 2005 due to the defendant selling the property.  However, the new property owner brought the property into compliance with city ordinances.  In each of the 13 instances where a case was dismissed in 2005, the property was nonetheless brought into compliance.  As such, the compliance rate for 2005 was 100%. 

To achieve this compliance rate, the City employed a couple of alternate methods of securing compliance with city ordinances.  First, in order to obtain compliance on one particularly property, the City filed a nuisance abatement lawsuit in the Washington County Circuit Court.  The City was successful in obtaining an Order of Abatement on the property, which required the property to be brought into compliance.  Had the property owner not complied with this Order, the occupant would have been evicted from the property and his business would have been shut down.

607 James - Before

607 James - After

The other alternate method used to secure compliance with city ordinances was the power to raze and remove property.  As mentioned previously, one of the 2005 ordinance violation cases was dismissed due to the death of the defendant.  The property owner's death was caused by a fire on the property.  In order to gain compliance with city ordinances, the city was forced to use its authority to remove any structures which are hazardous and which are dangerous to the public at large.

The path to 100% compliance was not as simple as in 2003 and 2004.  The City had to use alternate methods to secure compliance with city ordinances, and will no doubt be required to do so in the future as well.

G.      Disposition by Type of Ordinance Violation

1.      Unsightly/Unsanitary Conditions

Of the 65 citations issued for unsightly/unsanitary conditions during 2005, 52 resulted in a disposition of guilty, 5 were dismissed, 6 failed to appear and 2 are still pending.  As such, of the 65 total citations written in 2005, 57 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

a.      2005 Conviction Rate.  Of the 57 disposed of cases, 52 of them have been convicted, for a conviction rate of 91.23%.  The conviction rate for 2005 is higher than either 2003 (84.78%) or 2004 (85.45%).    Out of the 65 total citations issued in 2005, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.  Of the 5 dismissals, 1 were done at the request of the Code Enforcement Division (due to compliance), 2 were dismissed by the Judge at arraignment (due to compliance), 1 was dismissed due to the defendant selling the property, and 1 was dismissed due to the death of the defendant.

b.      2005 Compliance Rate.  Of the 57 disposed of unsightly/unsanitary condition cases in 2005, all 57 cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  In each of the 5 instances where an unsightly/unsanitary condition case was dismissed in 2005, the property was nonetheless brought into compliance.  As such, the compliance rate in 2005 for unsightly/unsanitary condition cases was 100%.

2.      Inoperative/Unlicensed Vehicles

Of the 27 citations issued for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles during 2005, 23 resulted in a disposition of guilty, 1 was dismissed, and 3 failed to appear.  As such, of the 27 total inoperative/unlicensed vehicle citations written in 2005, 24 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

a.      2005 Conviction Rate.  Of the 24 disposed of cases, 23 of them have resulted in a conviction, for a conviction rate of 95.83%.  This conviction rate is similar to 2003 (94.44%) and 2004 (97.67%).  Out of the 27 total inoperative/unlicensed vehicle citations issued in 2005, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.  Furthermore, only 1 of the 27 cases was dismissed, and was dismissed only after the defendant complied with all city ordinances.  

b.      2005 Compliance Rate.  Of the 24 disposed of inoperative/unlicensed vehicle cases in 2005, all 24 cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  In the only instance where an inoperative/unlicensed vehicle case was dismissed in 2005, the vehicle was removed.  As such, the compliance rate in 2005 for inoperative/unlicensed vehicle cases was 100%.

3.      Misc. Ordinance Violations

Of the 63 miscellaneous ordinance violations cited in 2005, 50 resulted in a disposition of guilty, 7 were dismissed, 5 failed to appear, and 1 case is still pending.  As such, of the 63 miscellaneous ordinance citations written in 2005, 57 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

a.      2005 Conviction Rate.  Of the 57 disposed of miscellaneous ordinance violation cases for 2005, 50 of them resulted in a conviction, for a conviction rate of 87.72%.  The conviction rate for 2005 is higher than 2003-2004 (77.77%).  Of the 7 dismissals, 1 was done at the request of the Code Enforcement Division (due to compliance), 4 were dismissed by the Judge at arraignment (due to compliance), 1 was dismissed by the City Attorney's Office (due to compliance), and 1 was dismissed due to the property owner obtaining a variance from the Planning Commission.  Out of the 63 miscellaneous ordinance citations issued in 2005, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.    

b.      2005 Compliance Rate.  Of the 57 disposed of miscellaneous ordinance violation cases in 2005, all 57 cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  In each of the 7 instances where a miscellaneous ordinance violation case was dismissed in 2005, the property was either brought into compliance or a variance was obtained from the Planning Commission.  As such, the compliance rate in 2005 for miscellaneous ordinance violations cases was 100%.

As mentioned earlier, in order to obtain compliance on one particularly property, the City filed a nuisance abatement lawsuit in the Washington County Circuit Court.  The City was ultimately successful in obtaining an Order of Abatement on the property, which required the property owner and the tenant to bring the property into compliance with all city ordinances.  Had the property owner or tenant not complied with this Order, the occupant would have been evicted from the property and the business being operated thereon would have been shut down until the property was brought into compliance.

H.      Conclusion

This survey clearly indicates that the Code Enforcement Division of the City of Springdale is having an impact on "cleaning up the city".  It also demonstrates the role played by Code Enforcement, the City Attorney's Office, and the Springdale District Court in enforcing these types of city ordinances.