HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01311984 - X.11 THE BOARD OF 8UPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on January 31 , 1984 by Un following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT. Review of Procedures to Strengthen
Enforcement of County Code Requirements
Supervisor Tom Torlakson having this date presented
the Board with a copy of a memorandum dated January 20, 1984
(copy of which is attached hereto and by reference incorporated
herein) on the subject of County code violations , and containing
suggestions for ways to strengthen enforcement of code requirements;
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the matter is referred
to the Internal Operations Committee (Supervisors Powers and
Fanden) for review and report to the Board.
hereby certify chat this is a'rue tnc:cc7c,.t copy of
an action taken and entered on, ,c:::,t;,ces of tf:o
Board of Supervisorc on the da:o sliown.
ATTESTED: 'y/ �9p/
J.R. OLSSOM, CO TY CLERK
find ex officio Cierk of the Board
By , Deputy
Orig. Dept.: Clerk of- the Board
cc: Internal Operations Committee
County Administrator
County Counsel
Public Works Director 171
Building Inspection Director
Planning Director
Acting Health Setvices Director
(Environmental uePlt�!)
t•
Tom Toriakson G 1. 45 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg,California 94565
Supervisor,District Five f -� "' (41 5)439-4138
-._
Contra Costa County 1 ';
Board of Supervisors
srt court
DATE: January 20, 1984
TO: Mel Wingett, County Administrator
John Clausen, County Counsel
Mike Walford, Public Works Director
Paul Kilkenny, Environmental Control
Karen Groppi, Environmental Control
Dan Bergman, Environmental Health
Jim Blake, Environmental Health
Bob Spare, Environmental Health
Bob Geise, Building Inspection
Bill Martindale, Building Inspection
Joe Venturino, Building Inspection
Tony Dehaesus, Planning Department
Ron deVincenzi, Planning Department
Tony Bruno, Planning Department
FROM: SuperviTo Torlakson
SUBJ: COUNTY CODE VIOLATION AND WAYS TO STRENGTHEN OUR ENFORCEMENT
(SITE TOUR AND MEETING--JANUARY 20, 1984
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many good ideas came from our January 20 tour and meeting on
Bethel Island.
As you are all aware, I have been extremely frustrated and disap-
pointed with the slowness with which we respond to many violations of
county codes and to citizen complaints on these matters. Even after the
extensive work I did in the Internal Operations Commission in 1982 (See
IO Report of 1/11/83) , , 1 have been amazed at our apparent inability to
effectuate compliance in a timely manner. I have not been satisfied at
all that the intent of the Board of Supervisors and Internal Operations
Committee has been implemented. Working once again directly on this, I am
sure we will be able to get on top of it this time.
I believe with greater cooperative efforts between departments,
improvements in our ordinances and a real commitment to getting the job
done, we can improve the system greatly.
In addition to the surcharge idea that I initiated to establish
application surcharge fees for any county permits or land use applications
where there are violations prior to application (which I brought to the Board
and County Administrator on January 17*) I believe the following concepts can
help and should be investigated for implementation:
*By way of clarification of the 1/17 Poard Order on the surcharge concept, the
intention isto look at surcharges on any applications requesting county approval
for any form of permit or land use entitlements. These surchages can cover the
extra investigative staff time and effort involved prior to the application in
researching and responding to violations.
Subj : County Code Violations
January 20, 1984
Page TWO
• Quicker response in writing that a complaint has been received
from a citizen regarding an alleged violation--and also indicating
the code section or rule being violated and the length of time
to be allotted for compliance.
• Add to 'ordinances in all possible departments inspection fee
schedules so that after a short warning period has passed and
a county inspector goes out to the site and still finds a
violation, we should then have the ability to apply inspection fees.
• It may even be desirable to establish such inspection fee schedules
with escalating fee amounts for second, third and fourth visits.
• In addition to inspection fee schedules to recoup staff costs,
I believe we should be issuing more actual citations. What can
be done in each department area to include in our ordinances
fines andep nalty sections that can be imposed via infraction
citations.
• As I have looked at this further since the extensive review by
the IOC in 1982, I am convinced that we should have the inspectors
empowered with citation ability. A few training sessions would be
helpful with County Counsel to brief all inspectors on legal
technicalities and to discuss utilization of common sense and
discretion in the use of the citation process.
• Examine ways to utilize the "infraction"/"small claims" process
effectively to process ciations and "collect revenue."
• For recalcitrent and uncooperative violators, a coordinated process
needs to be developed to proceed with court action to actually
halt the illegal activities.
• Develop the best means for collecting citation fines and inspection
fees. Perhaps we need to have state legislation authorizing
property tax leins, if we don't have that power now. This could
help enforce collection- on an annual basis in addition to the
present mechanical lein type of collection system getting recovery
at the sale of the property.
These are just a few of the ideas that we discussed and that came
out of our meeting. I appreciate all of your creative thinking at the meeting
and look forward to more 'or it at, a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February
1, at 3:30 p.m. at the County Counsel conference room.
TT:gro
173
j