HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11071989 - 2.3 TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
S)q'-
DATE: November 2, 1989 ------:--
SUBJECT: Financial Alternatives for a Code Compliance Program
Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept report from County Administrator regarding updated information on a budget and staffing pattern for
an enhanced code compliance program.
2. Direct the County Administrator to continue to pursue funding alternatives for this program as noted below and
present a further status report to the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 1989.
3. Request that the County Administrator meet with the Directors of the Building Inspection and Community
Development Departments to determine feasibility of fees as interim funding support for enhanced code
compliance actions.
BACKGROUND:
On October 17, 1989 the Board of Supervisors approved a report from the Internal Operations Committee requesting
the County Administrator present a report to the Board of Supervisors on October 24, 1989 for financing alternatives
available for a code compliance program. The Board accepted that report and requested a detailed budget and staffing
pattern for an enhanced code compliance program,utilizing various funding alternatives be presented back during
its meeting of November 7, 1989. This report is intended to meet that request.
Upon review of a number of funding alternatives which included:
1. County General Fund
2. Community Development Block Grant Fund Application.
3. Redevelopment area funding for parts of the program falling within the redevelopment area.
4. Restricted fines from litter violations to be used for litter cleanup activities.
5. Abandoned Vehicle legislation to be used as augmentation for the County's abandoned vehicle abatement
program.
(continued)
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendati f Board Committee
Approve Other:
Signature(s):
Action of Board on: November 7, 1989 Approved as Recommended x Other x
Also, REQUESTED that the full code compliance program be implemented by January
or early February 1990.
Vote of Supervisors
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
X Unanimous(Absent III ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
Absent: Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED 71 1989
Kerry Harms-Taylor PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD
C. Van Marteir, S ERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Community Development Director
Building Inspector f!
r—onty Counsel BY: Deputy Clerk
JTG:eh. FPD, Riverview FPD, W. Co. FPD
codprg6o' -_.y McGraw, CAO
6. -Solid Waste Management legislation to increase the scope of permissible activities involved with the tipping
fee.
7. Special District Augmentation Fund for weed and/or rubble abatement activities to minimize fire hazards.
Of these alternatives, two were deemed the most feasible. Following is an updated status on pursuance of these
additional resources.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
An application co-authored by the County Administrator's Office and Building Inspection Department;containing
a budget and suggested program has been developed and submitted in the amount of$100,000 during the fiscal year
of 1990-91. A copy of the application is attached. Because of the substantial process that final recommendations
require before expenditure of funds,it will be after April 1, 1990 before funding is available. The review body for
applications,the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee is scheduled to made its preliminary
decisions on December 13, 1989. A public hearing will be held on January 3, 1990 to receive comments on the
Committee's preliminary decisions and from which final recommendations will be developed for approval by the
Board of Supervisors.
SPECIAL DISTRICT AUGMENTATION FUNDS
Discussions are occurring with the County Fire Districts to determine the feasibility of using SDAF funds for the
purpose of code compliance. Initial conversations indicate Fire District Chiefs have a high degree of concern on
whether legally fire districts can provide code compliance enforcement services other than what presently is done
for weed and rubble abatement. In addition, the fire districts are expressing reservations about assuming activities
which are primarily fire district responsibility. County Counsel is providing an opinion on this question. A general
meeting will be convened to address further concerns by the fire chiefs.
BUDGET
In the initial submission to the Internal Operation Committee, a budget containing$155,000 of expenditures was
submitted to support a level of activity for an enhanced code compliance program. That budget is listed below:
Expenses
Personnel
Salary Level - Planning Technician Specialist (2)
Salary Range of$2,845 - $3,458
Salary Level - Clerk (Experience Level) .5 time
Salary Range of$1,663 - $2,123
TOTAL PERSONNEL COST = $98,270
Services and Supplies
Offices Expenses $1,500
Communications 4,000
Minor Equipment 2,200
Public Legal Notices 2,500
Computer Software 1,250
Transportation/Travel for Employees 5,280
Professional/Specialized Services 32,500
Contracts for:
Abatement Actions $10,000
Abandoned Vehicle Removal 7,500
Code Violations Corrective Actions 7,500
General Clean-up 7,500
Data Processing Services 1,200
Other Special Departmental Expenses 2,500
Capital Expense:
2 - IBM PS/2 Model 50's $6,800
TOTAL SERVICES AND SUPPLIES $56,730
TOTAL PROPOSED BUDGET $1559000
- 2 -
Income
CDBG $50,000
Special District Augmentation Funds 50,000
County Landfill Site Fees 25,000
West Pittsburg and North Richmond Redevelopment Projects 30,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED INCOME $1559000
Upon further discussion, it is recommended that only one additional code enforcement officer be hired. The real
needs of code enforcement are the prompt response to removal of the problem or violation. Having additional
officers does not ensure better compliance only swifter and more identification of problems. Those problems will
only compound the problem of what seems to be a system that is not presently as effective possible. Therefore,
monies need to be made available to allow departments for operations geared at abatement of code violations. If
this philosophy is employed then an estimated additional $50,000 would be allocated for actual clean-up and
abatement activities.
Given these revised staffing levels,perhaps anticipated new fee structures within the Community Development and/
or Building Inspection could support funding for an additional person. This should be some discussion as to whether
it is possible that any new fee structure would encompass funding for a code enforcement officer if such an
arrangement is seen as an interim arrangement given anticipated full funding support forthcoming from the
development agreements for the new landfill site.
Should the aforementioned consideration and recommendations prove acceptable;our office will continue its efforts
on this matter and made another report giving updated information to the Board at its'December 19, 1989 meeting.
JTG:eh
codeprog
Attachments
- 3 -