Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conway council delays decision on $399 cleanup lien after lengthy dispute over notice and dates
Summary
City staff sought a cleanup lien to recoup $399.19 for work at 413 Garland Street; the property owner’s representative disputed the timing and sufficiency of notices and the council voted to table the lien for two weeks.
The Conway City Council on Feb. 25 voted to table a proposed cleanup lien for property at 413 Garland Street after extended testimony from city staff, the city attorney and a representative for the property owner who disputed the city’s timeline and evidence of notice.
City code enforcement officer Mister Clausen told the council the city paid $399.19 to bring the property into compliance and recommended creation of a cleanup lien to secure that cost. “We provided, a lot of notice a lot more than 7 days and, provide it in many different ways, emails, text message, phone calls, certified mail, and regular mail,” Clausen said, describing the city’s outreach and the repeated rechecks of the property.
AJ Register, who said he represents Delta REI LLC, the property owner, disputed the sequence and said the cleanup work had been performed earlier than the city’s filings indicated. “I believe mister Clausen is incorrect. The cleanup was actually performed on January 9,” Register told the council and presented emails and records he obtained via FOIA to support his account.
City Attorney Mister Finkenbinder explained the legal standard the council must apply: under Arkansas law a cleanup lien may be imposed only if the owner refuses to abate a nuisance after being given seven days’ written notice, and that notices “shall be regular mail and certified mail return receipt requested,” as cited in the meeting. Finkenbinder said the council must decide both whether to create the lien and the amount sought; he also explained the owner may appeal a council decision to circuit court.
Council members and staff walked through conflicting records in the public record requests, photographs, officer notes and certified-mail receipts. Clausen said the cleanup work and related notices were documented with multiple contacts over an eight-month period; Register pointed to emails and a phone call he said showed a city officer approved leaving concrete on the site and flagged irregularities in how service was delivered.
After discussion, Council Member Hawkins withdrew the pending resolution and the council voted 5–0 to hold the item in committee and revisit it at the next council meeting in two weeks. No lien was created at the Feb. 25 meeting.
The council heard extensive public and staff comment on due-process issues (how and when notices are delivered) and on factual questions about when the property was cleaned, whether some items — notably stacked concrete blocks — were authorized to remain, and the degree of homeowner notice that qualifies as the statutory seven-day period.
