Howard County commissioners seek cleanup funds for junk-filled property, press for nuisance ordinance and code enforcement

Howard County commissioners asked the county council to approve an additional appropriation from the unsafe-properties fund to clean one long-troubled parcel at 477 North Hickory Lane and urged the county to adopt a nuisance ordinance paired with enforceable code‑enforcement capacity.

Commissioner Dodd urged action on the property, which he and other officials described as “a junkyard” spanning three lots and filled with vehicles, trailers and debris. He told the council the county had pursued the owner in court, that the court had given the owner time to comply, and that residents near the property continue to complain about its condition and the effect on neighboring property values.

The matter came during discussion of an omnibus additional‑appropriations ordinance. The county requested roughly $56,000 for the Stevens property cleanup, citing a contractor quote from Green Acres Farm (3718 North 700 E., Kokomo) that county staff said remains valid from an October estimate. County staff said they had obtained multiple bids and that the quoted amount chosen was substantially lower than several six‑figure alternatives.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the Stevens property is emblematic of broader enforcement gaps across the county. Planning and code‑enforcement staff told the council their office is already stretched thin and lacks the enforcement “teeth” to compel compliance when property owners ignore letters. Commissioners and staff discussed using liens, tax assessments and court orders to recover cleanup costs, but cautioned that those remedies may not deliver timely reimbursement.

Discussion highlights and next steps: Commissioners and planning staff said a nuisance ordinance that spells out minimum property standards and graded fines could address ambiguity about what constitutes a nuisance. Several council members and commissioners favored starting enforcement capacity on a contract basis — a combined building‑inspector/code‑enforcement contractor — to test demand before hiring a full‑time employee. Commissioners warned that even with contract enforcement, the fund will deplete quickly if multiple large cleanups are required.

Formal action: The council approved a series of additional appropriations (see related article). Council members approved the requested appropriations by voice vote after a motion by Councilman Faulkner and a second by Councilman Roberts. The funding request for the unsafe property was included in that package; commissioners said they expect to return for additional funding as other properties get prioritized.

Officials who spoke about the issue included Commissioner Dodd and Commissioner Lipinski; planning/code‑enforcement staff (identified in the meeting as Mr. Scheelein) and county staff (Mr. Wilson) explained enforcement limits and legal tools such as liens and court orders.

Community impact and constraints: Staff warned the council that enforcing a nuisance ordinance requires an identified enforcement officer or contracted inspector, plus budgeted money to pay for cleanups up front. Commissioners noted the county previously had larger unsafe‑building reserves that have fallen; at the time of the discussion staff said the unsafe‑property fund had about $100,000 appropriated for the year, and adding the request would increase available funds but not guarantee long‑term coverage for multiple large cleanups.

Ending: Commissioners asked the council to approve the appropriation now to address the Stevens parcel and to allow planning staff and commissioners time to finalize the nuisance ordinance language and a plan for enforcement. They said they would return with budget proposals or contract language in coming meetings if the council wants to avoid creating an unfunded enforcement obligation.