HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01171984 - X.10 X� o
fes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '
FII: Supervisor Tom Torlakson Cl Mra
Costa
DATE: January 17, 1984 Cry �
SUBJECT: SURCHARGE FOR ZONING VIOLATIONS ""'� "�
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & 13ACKGROUPD APD JUSTIFICATION
BACKGROUND: A tremendous amount of staff time is involved in
investigating allegations of permit and zoning ordinances .
Attached is a copy of a January 11, 1983 Internal Operations
Committee Report which I assisted in developing which outlines
the need for a more aggressive enforcement policy and summarizes
the different proposals we discussed for months within the
Internal Operations Committee. I believe the concept of a
surcharge for permit or zoning violators who after a staff
investigation applies for the needed permits .
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to the County Administrator's Office
to coordinate a review by the department heads of the Planning
Department, Building Inspection, Public Works-Environmental
Control , Health Services--Environmental Health, and County
Counsel of the concept of imposing a surcharge_.on permit appli-
cations submitted after such staff investigations, and if' feasible,
to bring forward a proposal to the Board as soon as possible.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT' YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
i
SIGNATURE S :
ACTION OF BOARD ON 7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE of SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) APD CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TALO: 7 2
E
AYS: NOES. APD ENTERED ON THE M 1 MUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON TtE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED i7 , 1,*deY
Counsel Counsel IVJ.R. OLSSOIf, COUNTY CLERK
Public Works Director AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Planning Director
Building Inspection -Director _
M382ITeg3th Services Department By �_ ,DEPUTY
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on Jan"Arxll, 1QR1 . by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SUBJECT: Report of Internal Operations Committee on
Enforcement of County Ordinance Code
The Board of Supervisors considered on June 1, 1982 the
report of the Internal Operations Committee on enforcement of
various provisions of the county ordinance code. This matter was
continued on referral to the Committee for further consideration
of an improved citation procedure following adoption of the
budget.
The Committee has met with the departments concerned--Health
Services, Animal Services, Building Inspection, and- Planning--to
review the current process and to consider alternatives which may
improve the effectiveness of enforcement procedures.
A meeting was held on December 8, 1982 with the judges of the
municipal courts to discuss the concerns of departments with
respect to court adjudication of county ordinance code infractions.
The need for vigorous enforcement of violations in order to obtain
compliance with code provisions was stressed at the meeting. The
judges expressed their desire to cooperate with departments in
their consideration of appropriate disposition of-violation cases
brought to the courts.
The judges indicated at this meeting their concern that the
maximum fine which they can impose on infractions under current
State law is only $500 which in some instances is not adequate for
the violation. It was indicated that the effectiveness of enforce-
ment can be improved if judges have greater flexibility in imposing
fines.
.RECOMMENDATION
A proposal be included in the County's State legislative
program for 1983 to increase the maximum fine for
infractions from $500 to $1,000.
Inasmuch as the problems encountered by departments vary
with the programs with which they are involved, the needs of each
for changes and improvements vary and are discussed below:
Health Services: The Committee was advised by staff
t at the procedures being followed appear to be operat-
ing effectively. The costs involved are not substantial
and regulated industries must obtain-' permits or licenses
for which a fee is charged which covers inspection costs.
The cost of reinspections to make certain of compliance
are charged to the violator.
BUILDING INSPECTION: The department advises that it has
no particular problem with respect to code enforcement.
In order to improve the abatement program, however, it
is suggested that the interest levy applied to the
county's cost of abating code violations be increased
from the current 6 percent rate.
37 3
•
2.
Recommendation: A proposal be included in the county's
State legislative program for 1983 to allow the interest
levied on the county's cost for abatement of a code
violation to be increased from the current 6 percent
rate to 10 percent and after one year to be further
increased to 1.5 percent per month. Further, that a review be
made to-.determine whether or not there is legal authority for the
Building Inspector to levy a-re-inspection charge under the abatement
program.
Animal Services: A number of concerns were expressed by
e department with respect to current procedures. A
January 6, 1983 memorandum from the Animal Services Department describes
these concerns and provides recommendations of the department with which
our committee concurs and which are summarized below:
Recommendations:
1. County Counsel be requested to determine. the
feasibility of amending the County Animal
Control Ordinance to allow a third and
subsequent violation to be specified a
misdemeanor.
2. The Animal Services Department be directed to
advise the municipal court judges of revisions
to the documents which accompany each citation
for violators of the at-large section to provide
adequate information for proper disposition of
the case.
3. Request that the municipal court judges make
the following revisions to the Municipal
Court Bail Schedule:
a. The first violation of failure to
license be either proof of license
or a $20 fee (the cost of a
delinquent license) .
b. The second violation be increased
to $40 (the amount of the fee
schedule for dogs impounded) . No
change for the third violation
which is a mandatory appearance.
4. Direct the Animal Services Department to
advise the municipal courts of changes
initiated with transfer of the license
function to the department which inform
citizens of code requirements to eliminate
the concerns expressed by .judges.
5. Direct the Animal Services Department to
develop a class for responsible pet ownership
which is to be submitted to the municipal
courts for review. This program would serve
as an alternative available to the courts.
The program is to be submitted to the Board
for final approval and establishment of an
appropriate fee for the class.
6. Direct County Counsel to review the legality
of procedures whereby violation fees could be 374
paid at the Animal Services Department with
the courts clearing citations with submittal
of proof of payment.
_ _.._...1..Y ,. ....z.... _ _..
3.
7. Direct County Counsel to provide .a legal
opinion as to whether intent must be
established to convict for violation of the
ordinance. Said opinion to be forwarded to
municipal court judges for review and
consideration.
Planning: This department encounters a number of-
violation situations which oftentimes are difficult to
enforce, time consuming and costly to the county. It
is the opinion of the Committee that the time required
in the current process and the cost involved is
excessive. The Committee has investigated a system
which has been initiated recently by a number of other
public agencies to improve the process. The system .
consists of designating a county employee as a "Code
Enforcement Officer" who has authority to issue
citations. A warning citation which in cases of non-
compliance is followed by issuance of a citation which
requires a court appearance. The Code Enforcement
Officer presents the case in court which, if successful,
generally results in a fine being imposed upon the
violator.
In order to implement this program it is necessary
that the Code Enforcement Officer be properly trained
with respect to the procedures to be followed and
preparation and presentation of the case in court.
Improperly performed such a procedure could impose
substantial public liability exposure upon the county.
Citation forms and the process must be developed with
the assistance and cooperation of the municipal courts.
Recommendations:
1. The County Administrator with the assistance
of County Counsel and the Director of Planning
be directed to present a report to the Board
of Supervisors describing in detail the
process, procedures which must be implemented,
cost involved, and experience of other public
agencies which have implemented this system
of enforcement. This report should be
completed on or before April 5, 1983 to allow
for consideration by the Board prior to
preparation of the proposed budget for fiscal
year 1983-1984.
2. Inasmuch as implementation of the new program,
if approved, would require considerable time
to implement, .it is proposed that an immediate
change the current process-he initiated
whereby the Baring o-nu'ted by County
Counsel wou3�b'e eliminated awn he case be
submitted directly to the.court for resolution.
This will further expedite the process and
reduce costs.
The Committee is of the opinion that approval and implementa-
tion of the above recommendations will substantially improve the
effectiveness of our code enforcement program. In addition,
department heads are requested to advise the County Administrator
where difficulties in obtaining compliance are encountered which
are due to the applicable county ordinance not being specific or
clear enough and in situations where repeat 'violations occur. The
County Administrator with assistance of County Counsel and the
377)
a
4.
department head is requested to take such. remedial actions within
his authority as necessary to eliminate the violation and to
recommend to the Board such policy and ordinance changes as
considered desirable for appropriate code enforcement.
T. TO SON, Supervisor R. I. SCHRODER, Supervisor
District V District III
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of its Internal
Operations Committee are APPROVED.
�here ►certtry that thts b a true andcorracteop�rof
an action Wan and enured on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the dab shown.
ATTESTED:
J.R. OIL-.89 N,COUNTY CLERK
and ex offizia Clerk of tM Board
By .Dapvh►
cc: ' Internal Operations Committee members
County Administrator
County Counsel
Building Inspection
Animal Services
Health Services
Planning
County Auditor Controller
Municipal Court Judges via Judge John Minney
Chairman of the Municipal Judges Assn.
376