JPs to vote on county cleanup measure

Pulaski County officials plan to consider an ordinance that would allow officials to address unsanitary, dangerous or unsightly structures or garbage left on properties in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Public Works Director Barbara Richard attended the Quorum Court's agenda committee meeting Tuesday and asked for a rule that would give her department the authority to address abandoned structures or garbage in lieu of the property owners.

For several years, her office has regularly received complaints from county residents about dangerously dilapidated structures, which can become breeding grounds for anything from mosquitoes to gang activity, she said.

"There's never been a way in the past to take care of it. We've always just said 'sorry, can't do anything for you.' With this ordinance we would have the authority to take care of that situation," Richard said.

Many of the calls that her office and the county attorney's office have received recently are complaints about burned-out structures or abandoned in-ground pools, she said.

The proposed ordinance lays out the following procedure for addressing such cases: The county must receive at least 10 complaints from county residents before officials conduct an assessment. If the assessment finds that the property is a threat to public safety or health, a letter is sent to the property owner instructing him to address the problem. If the property continues to be neglected, the Public Works Department can send its employees to resolve the matter. Under the ordinance, the property owner can appeal the county's decision to circuit court.

No fine would be levied against the property owner, but the county could recoup the cleanup costs via a tax lien on the property.

"It would have to be a pretty extreme situation where whatever they are keeping on their property has no use," said county attorney Adam Fogleman. "A car that may have value but isn't running, it wouldn't fall under this."

The ordinance "is mindful of people who live in the county and want to live the way they want to live, but at the same time we've got to have some available recourse to address situations that truly create a public health issue," Fogleman said.

During Tuesday's Quorum Court meeting, District 10 representative Robert Green said he feared that any kind of property code would be overreaching. He sought to table the proposal indefinitely, but that attempt failed. The committee later voted 9-2, with three abstentions, to move the ordinance to the full Quorum Court for consideration.

"If you live in the county, you can live any way you want to, and that's why folks move to the county," Green said before the meeting. "They want to complain? Tell them to get out of the county and move to the city."

District 1 representative Doug Reed also voted in opposition to the ordinance.

"I'm always concerned about more regulation from our government on our citizens," Reed said. "The kind of people that are in my district -- District 1 -- that would have situations like this, are often people with limited means."

The committee's majority, however, agreed that the Public Works Department needed some kind of enforcement tool to address dangerous structures.

"My dad always said that your rights end where my nose begins, and that was his way of saying if what you're doing affects my quality of life, then I have a vested interest in that," said District 13 representative Phil Stowers.

"I am one who is very hesitant to put restrictions on people's rights within their own property. However, I do believe that when those rights cross over and affect the quality of life of our fellow citizens, then we have to have some tool in our tool belt to effectively and fairly deal with that situation," he said.

Metro on 09/14/2016

Upcoming Events