Adobe Acrobat Format

2006 Analysis of Code Enforcement Citations
City of Springdale

FORWARD

            Code enforcement has received increased attention in recent 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, condemnation, SNAP, and real estate matters.

            Two years ago, because there were so many comments and questions 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.  A similar report was issued for 2005.  This year’s report details the enforcement and prosecution of code enforcement violations in the Springdale District Court for 2006.

            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.

Jeff C. Harper, City Attorney

A.        Overview

1.         Code Enforcement Division

The City of Springdale, Arkansas, has a Code Enforcement Division which exists to ensure compliance with city ordinances such as unsightly/unsanitary conditions, inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, and other related ordinances pertaining to the appearance and safety of private property.  In 2006, the Code Enforcement Division consisted 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.  In 2006, the Code Enforcement Division issued a total of 3,171 violation notices, or an average of 61 violation notices per week.  

Code Enforcement subsequently rechecks the property to determine if the property owner or occupant has corrected the ordinance violation.  In 2006, the Code Enforcement Division performed a total of 3,050 rechecks, or an average of 58 rechecks per week.  If, after the recheck, it is determined that the ordinance violation has still not been corrected, the Code Enforcement Officer may write the property owner or occupant a summons to appear in court on the city ordinance violation.

When considered together, the Code Enforcement Division performed a total of 6,221 violation notices and rechecks in 2006.  This is an average of 120 violation notices and rechecks per week.  It is important to remember that in 2006, the City had only 2 Code Enforcement Officers to perform these 6,221 violation notices and rechecks.  In addition, in 2006, these 2 Code Enforcement Officers also performed 122 home office inspections, and handled 129 complaints which proved to be unfounded.

These 2006 statistics clearly illustrated the need for additional Code Enforcement Officers.  This need was recognized by the Springdale City Council, who approved funding for two additional Code Enforcement Officers for 2007.  These two new Code Enforcement Officers have enabled the Code Enforcement Division to dramatically increase its productivity.  For example, during the months of March through June of 2006, Code Enforcement issued a total of 1,225 violation notices and performed 1,450 rechecks.  In this same 4 month period in 2007, Code Enforcement issued a total of 2,547 violations notices and performed 3,748 rechecks (exceeding the sum for the entire year of 2006).

2.         SNAP (Springdale Nuisance Abatement Partnership)

In March of 2006, the Springdale Police Department created SNAP (Springdale Nuisance Abatement Partnership).  SNAP is made up of representatives from several City departments, including the police department, fire department, code enforcement, building inspection, and city attorney’s office.  The goal of SNAP is to enhance the exchange of information between City departments, in order to make these departments more efficient.  The members of the SNAP team hold monthly meetings to discuss and exchange information on specific properties and problems within the City.  The SNAP team has met on a monthly basis since March of 2006. 

Led by Sgt. Billy Turnbough of the Springdale Police Department, and assisted by Officer Travis Monson, SNAP made its presence clearly known in the City of Springdale during 2006.  Initially, these two officers worked the SNAP program in addition to their other duties with the Police Department.  As a result, Sgt. Turnbough and Officer Monson quite often worked on SNAP issues on their days off.  In 2006, these officers still managed to address problems and issues related to 158 different properties in the City. 

In addition, SNAP strives to educate City departments, private and civic organizations, property owners, and the general public regarding ordinance violations, nuisance properties, quality of life issues, and crime prevention in the City of Springdale.  Specifically, during 2006, SNAP provided numerous training sessions to, among others, the Springdale City Council, Northwest Arkansas Realtor’s Association, Springdale Lion’s Club, NWA Apartment Association, NWA Police Academy, and the NWA Code Enforcement Association (which includes representatives from Ft. Smith, Fayetteville, Rogers, Siloam Springs, Bentonville, Lowell, and other small towns in Northwest Arkansas).  

Sgt. Turnbough and Officer Monson have also initiated several facilitation meetings with the owners and operators of bars and apartment complexes.  These meetings allow the City to communicate its concerns regarding activities taking place at these businesses, such as fights, possible gang activity, noise, etc.  The meetings have resulted in better communication between business owners and the City.  Better yet, these meetings have resulted in improved conditions at these businesses.

A huge benefit is the fact that the SNAP officers have completed training in Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED).  CPTED is “the proper design and effective use of the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and an improvement in the quality of life."  The goal of CPTED is to reduce opportunities for crime that may be inherent in the design of structures or in the design of neighborhoods.  This CPTED training is being put to use by SNAP in the planning process, and SNAP is in attendance at all technical plat and Planning Commission meetings to review all new subdivision plats and large scale developments proposed in the City.      

SNAP has also enlisted the assistance of other organizations in its efforts to improve the quality of life in the City of Springdale.  SNAP has made an effort to include all those within our diverse community to participate in, and benefit from, their involvement with SNAP.  In October 2006, SNAP became a full-time position within the Springdale Police Department.

3.         Issues Addressed in 2006

In 2006, Code Enforcement and SNAP played a key role in addressing several issues in the City.  For example, the City Council adopted new ordinances which placed regulations on mobile vending sites.  Code Enforcement and SNAP were instrumental in identifying the need for such regulations and were of valuable assistance in getting these ordinances passed by the City Council.  The adoption of these new regulations on mobile vending sites has had a positive impact in the City.

Code Enforcement and SNAP also played an important part in the development and discussion regarding new regulations pertaining to parking on unpaved areas in residential zones.  Commonly known as the “parking in the grass ordinances”, these regulations were written, discussed, and debated in 2006, before being approved by the City Council in January 2007.  Not only have these ordinances improved the quality of life in the City of Springdale, but other cities in Northwest Arkansas have adopted or discussed similar ordinances as well. 

Also in 2006, Code Enforcement and SNAP were instrumental in the razing and removal of two (2) unsafe structures in our city.  Both of these structures had been badly damaged by fire, and one (411 Hatfield) resulted in a fatality.  These burned out structures were unsafe and posed a hazard to the people living nearby.  As a result, at the request of Code Enforcement and SNAP, the City Council authorized the razing and removal of these two structures.  After these two structures were demolished, the City Council approved placing a lien on these properties to secure the City’s costs of removing these structures.  These liens totaled $23,750.00.  The City has since collected the entire amount of these liens.   

These examples clearly illustrate the impact and leadership demonstrated by Code Enforcement and SNAP in 2006.  This trend has continued into 2007, with the adoption of landlord registration requirements, a business license revocation and suspension procedure, and new regulations pertaining to outdoor flea markets.

B.        Types of Ordinance Violations

This survey examines city ordinance violations encountered by Code Enforcement and SNAP that pertain to the appearance, cleanliness, and safety of property within the City of Springdale.  The most common examples of these violations are unsightly/unsanitary conditions, inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, and what will be referred to as “miscellaneous ordinance violations”, which includes Property Maintenance Code 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 and SNAP 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 and SNAP 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 and SNAP often encounter other types of violations which likewise affect the appearance and safety of property in the City of Springdale.  In 2006, these “miscellaneous ordinance violations” ranged from violations of the City’s Property Maintenance Code (adopted in June 2005), zoning ordinance violations, no house numbers, no trash service, and violations of the City’s sign ordinance.

C.        Number of Citations Issued

In 2006, there were a total of 181 citations issued for ordinance violations, up from 155 in 2005, 145 in 2004, and 77 in 2003.  These citations can be broken down into the following categories:

D.        Multiple Offender Citations

Of the 181 total charged filed in 2006, 88 of those charges were filed against individuals who had committed more than one violation.  This means that 48.61% of the ordinance violations were committed by individuals who had more than one ordinance violation, and quite often, more than one type of ordinance violation.  For example, of the 68 individuals issued citations for unsightly/unsanitary conditions in 2006, 24 of those were also cited either for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles or for a miscellaneous ordinance violation, or both (10 of those were cited for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, 10 were cited for a miscellaneous ordinance violation, and 4 were cited for both).  In other words, 35.29% of those cited for unsightly/unsanitary conditions also had some other ordinance violation existing on the property as well.  This is up from 27.69% in 2005. 

Similarly, of the 63 individuals issued citations for miscellaneous violations in 2006, 35 of those were also cited for either unsightly/unsanitary conditions, inoperative/unlicensed vehicles, or some other miscellaneous violation.  Likewise, of the 50 individuals issued citations for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles in 2006, 29 of those were also cited for either unsightly/unsanitary conditions or some other miscellaneous violation.  In other words, 55.55% of those cited for miscellaneous violations, and 58.00% of those cited for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles in 2006 were also cited for some other violation. 

These statistics indicate that it is more likely than not that a property having an ordinance violation will have more than one ordinance violation.  For instance, it is very likely that properties with inoperative/unlicensed vehicles parked on the property will also have other ordinance violations as well, such as unsightly/unsanitary conditions, or a violation of the property maintenance code.

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 2006 (all cases) 

Of the 181 total citations issued in 2006, 147 of those resulted in a conviction, 12 cases were dismissed, and 22 persons failed to appear.  As such, of the 181 total citations written in 2006, 159 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

1.         Conviction Rate.  Of the 159 disposed of cases in 2006, 147 of them resulted in a conviction, for a conviction rate of 92.45%.  The conviction rate for 2006 is higher than either 2003 (87.67%), 2004 (87.20%), or 2005 (90.58%).  Out of the 181 total citations issued in 2006, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.  Of the 12 dismissals, 1 was dismissed at the request of Code Enforcement (due to compliance), 6 were dismissed by the prosecutor (due to compliance), 1 was dismissed due to the defendant conveying the property to the City in an eminent domain action, and 1 was dismissed due to the property owner rezoning the property, thereby bringing it into compliance.  The 3 remaining cases were dismissed due to compliance and the property owner was headed to prison.

2.         Compliance Rate.  Of the 159 disposed of cases in 2006, all of those cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  In each of the 12 instances where a case was dismissed in 2006, the property was nonetheless brought into compliance.  As such, the compliance rate for 2006 was 100%.

G.        Disposition by Type of Ordinance Violation

1.         Unsightly/Unsanitary Conditions

Of the 68 citations issued for unsightly/unsanitary conditions during 2006, 59 resulted in a disposition of guilty, 5 were dismissed, and 4 failed to appear.  As such, of the 68 total citations written in 2006, 64 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

a.         2006 Conviction Rate.  Of the 64 disposed of cases, 59 of them have been convicted, for a conviction rate of 92.19%.  The conviction rate for 2006 is higher than either 2003 (84.78%), 2004 (85.45%), or 2005 (91.23%).  Out of the 68 total citations issued in 2006, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.  Of the 5 dismissals, 1 was done at the request of the Code Enforcement Division (due to compliance), 3 were done at the request of the City Attorney’s Office (due to compliance, and 1 was dismissed due to the defendant conveying the property to the City in an eminent domain action.

b.         2006 Compliance Rate.  Of the 59 disposed of unsightly/unsanitary condition cases in 2006, all 59 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 2006, the property was nonetheless brought into compliance.  As such, the compliance rate in 2006 for unsightly/unsanitary condition cases was 100%.

2.         Inoperative/Unlicensed Vehicles

Of the 50 citations issued for inoperative/unlicensed vehicles during 2006, 38 resulted in a disposition of guilty, 4 were dismissed, and 8 failed to appear.  As such, of the 50 total inoperative/unlicensed vehicle citations written in 2006, 42 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

a.         2006 Conviction Rate.  Of the 42 disposed of cases, 38 of them have resulted in a conviction, for a conviction rate of 90.48%.  This conviction rate is similar to 2003 (94.44%), 2004 (97.67%), and 2005 (95.83%).  Out of the 50 total inoperative/unlicensed vehicle citations issued in 2006, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.  Of the 4 dismissals, 1 was done at the request of the City Attorney’s Office (due to compliance), and the other 3 cases were dismissed due to the fact that the defendant was headed to prison, although he did comply.

b.         2006 Compliance Rate.  Of the 42 disposed of inoperative/unlicensed vehicle cases in 2006, all 42 cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  In each of the 4 instances where an inoperative/unlicensed vehicle case was dismissed in 2006, the property was nonetheless brought into compliance.  As such, the compliance rate in 2006 for inoperative/unlicensed vehicle cases was 100%.

3.         Misc. Ordinance Violations

Of the 63 miscellaneous ordinance violations cited in 2006, 50 resulted in a disposition of guilty, 3 were dismissed, and 10 failed to appear.  As such, of the 63 miscellaneous ordinance citations written in 2006, 53 of those have been disposed of as of the date of this publication. 

a.         2006 Conviction Rate.  Of the 53 disposed of miscellaneous ordinance violation cases for 2006, 50 of them resulted in a conviction, for a conviction rate of 94.34%.  The conviction rate for 2005 is higher than 2003-2004 (77.77%) and 2005 (87.72%).  Of the 3 dismissals, 2 were done at the request of the City Attorney’s Office (due to compliance), and the other one was dismissed because the defendant had the property rezoned, thereby bringing the property into compliance.  Out of the 63 miscellaneous ordinance citations issued in 2006, none of them resulted in a finding of not guilty.    

b.         2006 Compliance Rate.  Of the 53 disposed of miscellaneous ordinance violation cases in 2006, all 53 cases resulted in the property ultimately complying with city ordinances.  In each of the 3 instances where a miscellaneous ordinance violation case was dismissed in 2006, the property was either brought into compliance or a rezoning was obtained for the property.  As such, the compliance rate in 2006 for miscellaneous ordinance violations cases was 100%.

H.        Conclusion

This report shows that the Code Enforcement Division and SNAP are having an impact on “cleaning up the city”.  It also demonstrates the role played by Code Enforcement, SNAP, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Springdale District Court in enforcing these types of city ordinances.