Upper Arlington council hears code enforcement update and considers tougher penalties for repeat violators

City officials delivered an annual update on code enforcement at the June 9 Upper Arlington City Council meeting and presented an ordinance (17-2025) that would raise penalties for repeat or serious property-maintenance violations and add civil-penalty authority for hard-to-serve owners.

The update, presented by the community development director (Director Gibson) and the city’s code enforcement officers, described this year’s work and an increase in complaint-driven cases. "More than 95% of the cases, we get voluntary compliance," Director Gibson said, noting most matters resolve without court involvement. Mike Morris, the city’s code enforcement officer, said the department opened roughly 146 new cases through April with about half coming from proactive inspections and half from complaints.

The ordinance before council would change some violations in the International Property Maintenance Code and the city’s Unified Development Ordinance from a lower-level misdemeanor to an unclassified misdemeanor with a higher potential fine and would expand a civil-penalty process to residential properties. City Attorney Schulman summarized the key changes: raising maximum penalties in the UDO, moving some appeal jurisdiction to the Board of Zoning and Planning (BZAP), expanding civil-penalty authority beyond commercial properties, and allowing notice by mail to the tax-address on file when owners cannot be located for in-person service.

Why it matters: council members and staff said the changes are intended to add tools for the small share of properties that do not respond to repeated outreach — not to penalize residents who cooperate. "This ordinance is a pretty perfect segue from our previous discussions," Director Gibson told council. City Attorney Schulman cautioned that higher maximum fines do not guarantee judges will impose the maximum and that many cases stem from financial or health hardship.

During public comment several neighbors from the Criswell/Regency Drive area described long-vacant houses and related problems. "It's been vacant for almost five years now. You can't see the house," said Patrick O'Connell, who described concerns about overgrowth and rodents. Carly Fisher and Laura Radulovich urged stronger enforcement tools — including vacancy-related measures used in other cities — to reduce repeated demands on city departments and improve neighborhood safety and sanitation.

Council discussion focused on implementation, resourcing and timing. Officers described typical timetables for compliance letters (30 days for many repairs, three months as a typical full-compliance window for repair work) and said only a small fraction of cases (roughly 2–3% cited during testimony) progress to mayor’s court. Staff also described a recently awarded five-year contract for landscape abatements and the department’s move to more detailed case management and GIS tracking.

Next steps: council did not take final action on Ordinance 17-2025 at the June 9 meeting. Members discussed moving the matter up on the next agenda and, if there is support, suspending the three-reading rule so the second reading could occur at the June 16 meeting. Staff also committed to return with additional research on vacancy-specific tools and county/city legal options for particularly persistent properties.

Ending: Council and staff emphasized that the proposal is intended to be an additional tool — not the primary approach — and that most code issues are resolved through voluntary compliance and assistance referrals. Staff promised follow-up materials on benchmarking, the civil-penalty mechanics, and a plan to report monthly metrics to council.