Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10171989 - IO.4 I.0.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Costa DATE: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE -4° DATE: October 9 , 1989 - cfo�nCounty SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON CODE COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Authorize the County Administrator to initiate discussions with Los Medanos College personnel on an agreement for in-house training of County personnel in issuing citations for code violations. 2. Request the County Administrator to confer with department heads of the Building Inspection, Community Development, Public Works, Health Services, County Counsel and Sheriff ' s Departments to identify appropriate personnel from their respective departments to participate in the citation training. 3 . Refer to the Finance Committee the request from the County Administrator for $5000 ' to pay for the citation training course and software programming necessary for a personal computer tracking system for code compliance complaints. 4. Request County Counsel to do an analysis of AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989) to determine what revenue recovery options may be available , to pay for various elements of the code compliance program and report his conclusions to our Committee when this item again is before our Committee. 5. Request the County Administrator' s staff to contact the Captain of the CHP Office in Alameda County which has jurisdiction over portions of West County to determine what the CHP is doing in West County regarding abandoned vehicles CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:YeS YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOM ATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER C�•.�„ SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 17, 1989 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED L__& OTHER X Also, REQUESTED County Administrator to meet with the Commander of the Contra Costa County CHP and report back to the Board with recommendations on how to implement his suggestions. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ' ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED I70 19Ov ,1 See next page. PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382 (10/88) BY DEPUTY h and other code compliance issues over which they have jurisdiction and report the substance of his conversations to our Committee when this matter is again before our' Committee. 6. Request staff from the County Administrator' s Office to bring to the County Administrator' s attention any issues regarding cooperation between departments relating to code compliance enforcement. 7. Request the County Administrator to report to the Board October 24, 1989 on financing alternatives which are available for an expanded code compliance program. 8. Request staff to provide a further status report to our Committee on this subject, to include: Report from County Counsel on a Special Events Ordinance. Report from County Counsel on funding alternatives available in AB 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989) . Report from County Administrator on the feasibility of consolidating County Code Enforcement activities in one department/division, including current personnel and budget. Report from County Administrator on conversations with the Alameda County CHP Office. BACKGROUND: The County' s system for code compliance and violation abatement has been under intensive review this year by this Committee and the County Administrator' s Office. Supervisor Torlakson' s April 4, 1989 referral to our Committee on the continuing problem of code enforcement in the Bethel Island Area further highlighted the need to address this problem. The County Administrator' s Office has been meeting with the affected departments in an effort to create a more responsive and coordinated code enforcement system. Out of these meetings a strategy has emerged for addressing the County' s code enforcement responsibilities. On July 11, 1989 components of that strategy were presented to our Committee. These components included: - Implementing the attached County Code Enforcement form as a means to refer, track, coordinate and follow-up on reported code violations. - Tracking and documentation of present County code enforcement efforts to determine overall effectiveness and highlight continuing problem areas. Developing and implementing a County Special Events Ordinance to help govern special events such as festivals, parades and concerts which are prime sources for code violation -and compliance problems. - Exploring the viability of using the Land Information System (LIS) as a tracking and referral tool for code enforcement activities. Exploring ways to finance and support code enforcement activities using existing resources, including the Special District Augmentation Fund, County Redevelopment Agency funds, Community Development Block Grant funds, garbage and tipping fees and expanded use of the Career Development Employment Program. - Developing a long term financing solution using fees from new landfill fees. The attached memo from the County Administrator's Office provides a status report on these activities. From our Committee' s discussion on this subject on October 9, 1989 we have developed the above recommendations which will facilitate a resolution to the problems in the code compliance area. One of the most important elements of this strategy is the ability to issue citations on the spot when a violation is discovered. However, in order to avoid unnecessary liability exposure for the County, it is essential that all staff who may be issuing citations be fully trained in the circumstances under which citations can and can not be issued. The proposed training program through Los Medanos College will meet this training requirement. , cc: County Administrator John Gregory, County Administrator's Office Director of Building Inspection Community Development Director Public Works Director Health Services Director County Counsel Sheriff-Coroner Assistant Administrator-Finance Members, Finance Committee OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C O N T R A . C O S T A C O U N T Y Administration Building 651 Pine Street Martinez, California DATE : October 4, 1989 TO: Supervisor Tom Powers Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE FROM: John T. Gregory, Management Analyst SUBJECT: Status Report on Code Enforcement Activities RECOMMENDATIONS : 1 . Acknowledge receipt of this status report on steps taken to enhance County code enforcement efforts . 2 . Direct the County Administrator to initiate discussions with Los Medanos College personnel on an agreement for in-house training of County personnel to issue citations . 3 . Direct the County Administrator to confer with Department Heads of the Building Inspection, Community Development, Public Works, Health Services, County Counsel and Sheriff Departments to identify and direct appropriate personnel from their respective department as participants in the citation training. 4 . Authorize the County Administrator to recommend to the Board of Supervisors at its October 24, 1989 meeting approval of $5, 000 to pay for the training course and software programming necessary for a personal computer tracking system. Monies to be allocated from the County General Fund. 5 . Request that a further status report be presented to the Internal Operations Committee which will include: ♦ status report on a draft Special Events Ordinance by County Counsel; ♦ financial alternatives for code enforcement compliance program; and ♦ feasibility of consolidating County Code Enforcement activities in one department/division including current personnel and budget . ;Status Report on Code Enforcement Activities October 4, 1989 Page -2- BACKGROUND: The County' s system for code compliance and violation abatement has been under intensive review with many reform methods suggested during the years . On April 4, 1989 Supervisor Torlakson ' s referral to this committee on the continuing problem of code enforcement in the Bethel Island Area further highlighted various concerns . Among those concerns was the need for a systematic approach to make the enforcement process more effective. Discussion led by the County Administrator' s Office with staff of the Community Development, Building Inspection, Public Works, Health Services, Sheriff' s and County Counsel Departments identified a strategy for dealing with problems associated with County efforts . On July 5, 1989 components of that strategy were presented to this committee for consideration. The components included: ♦ Implementation of the attached County Code Enforcement form as a means for referral, tracking, coordination and follow-up of code violations . ♦ Tracking and documentation of present County code enforcement efforts to determine overall effectiveness and highlight continuing problem areas . ♦ The development and implementation of a County Special Events Ordinance to help govern county special events such as festivals, parades and concerts which are prime sources for code violation and compliance problems . ♦ Further discussion on the viability of using the Land Information System (LIS) as a tracking and referral tool for code enforcement activities . ♦ Explore ways to finance and support code enforcement activities from existing sources including Special District Augmentation Funds; County Redevelopment Agencies; Community Development Block Grants; and/or garbage and tipping fees, as well as identifying additional staffing through the Personnel Departments ' Career Development Program. ♦ Develop a long term financing solution with anticipated . landfill development agreement fees, as the support for future enhanced County efforts and staffing. The status of present efforts are : -Status- Report on Code Enforcement Activities October 4, 1989 Page -3- The County Administrator' s Office has implemented the County Code Enforcement form. Previously, there have been questions on staffs ' effort in code enforcement . However, all departments charged with enforcing code requirements are doing SO. The major issue. is whether the means exist to improve process by shortening time for resolution of an issue and by focusing the attention of county efforts . A major problem was identified in multi-jurisdictional cases involving several County Departments . In some cases, County staff address and correct problems without proper coordination and communication with other Department ' s staff. This may lead to delays and confusion in getting code violations fully corrected. The use of the form serves to provide a means of coordination and proper follow-up to fully correct problems . * It is increasingly clear that the bad publicity on County code enforcement activities results from a small minority of violators who challenge, flaunt or otherwise attempt to exploit the established enforcement process . Therefore, efforts are forthcoming to compile data indicating that there is a great deal of activity occurring in code enforcement. Review of such activity shows that most cases are satisfactorily resolved. Staff from the aforementioned departments are currently compiling this data for a report to this committee and presentations to the media. * County Counsel has been sent a request to develop a Special Events Ordinance. A draft ordinance should be available in the next 30 days . It will be reviewed and reported back to the Board when available. There have been 63 incidents in the last two calendar months involving multi-jurisdictional code violations . The use of the Land Information System (LIS) as a tracking and referral tool for code enforcement is not advisable given the present cost of mainframe data processing. However, there is a high need for a personal computer-based software package to be implemented to track these cases . In addition, some clerical support will be required to track, sort and compile data needed for follow-up on the code compliance cases of a multi-jurisdictional nature. In order to enhance code compliance enforcement efforts beyond the present situation, additional resources will be required. The ability to generate new additional external resources are best derived from the following two possibilities which were also identified in the September 25, 1989 letter to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors from the County Administrator. -31t,atu.�, Report on Code Enforcement Activities October 4, 1989 Page -4- Community Development Block Grant It is possible to apply for funds from the CDBG for the 1990-91 fiscal year. There is a rather substantial process by which final recommendations come to the Board of Supervisors for expenditure of these funds . In addition, only communities which meet certain low-income criteria are eligible areas in which projects can be funded. Community Development Department staff agree that the west Pittsburg and North Richmond communities met these criteria. The major problem with the use of CDBG funds is that all funds for the current fiscal year are committed. New funds will be available effective April 1, 1990. A budget to cover the West Pittsburg and North Richmond areas could be developed and .an application made for CDBG funds . ♦ Special District Augmentation Fund There are funds available from SDAF which are not committed to the fire districts and which can be used for other purposes . The biggest drawback with the use of the SDAF is that the funds have to be allocated to a special district. , In the case of a code compliance program, the most reasonable possibility is to contract with the fire districts for code compliance enforcement. In order to combine the use of the SDAF funds with those of the CDBG funds, it would probably be necessary to contract with the Riverview and West County Fire Protection Districts to cover the code compliance enforcement it the West Pittsburg and North Richmond areas . There are, of course, other demands on these funds which may be of higher priority to the Board. The probable limitation in using the SDAF funds is that they must be used for programs for which the contracting district has jurisdiction. It might, for instance, be difficult to ask the fire districts to use SDAF funds to enforce an Environmental Health code compliance problem. However, there are certainly legitimate code compliance problems for which the fire districts have jurisdiction. Another possibility exists with the passage of AB 939 . Specifically, the bill allows counties and cities to assess fees on generators, landfill operators, or transfer station operators to fund activities included in the County Solid Waste Management Plan. Although it is not certain, at this time, it seems that some litter control and/or code enforcement activities are included in the plan and therefore eligible for funding. Funding would be available after January 1, 1990 . .6tatus, Report on Code Enforcement Activities October 4, 1989 Page -5- Citation Procedures Discussion has been held regarding the initiation of a citation procedure. However, the procedure has not been formalized due to a lack of funding for training and a commitment by staff to attend the training sessions of 25-30 hours needed for authorization and certification to issue citations . However, it is extremely important that persons authorized to issue citation are very knowledgeable of County Ordinances, lawful investigation, the collection of evidence and have sufficient legal training to be able to analyze the proper need for issuing a citation . Because of funding and staffing problems for service areas, County has been very reluctant to commit to the time allocation. However, if code enforcement is to be completely effective, the ability to issue citations must be employed. Committee direction is seen as a means of securing the necessary commitment by departments . One proposal which has been discussed is the possibility of consolidating all code enforcement staff into one department or division . There will need to be more interaction among County staff before a recommendation is forthcoming to the Committee. As the County grows, new residents will and are expecting the service of code enforcement to be a continuing effort by County staff. However, without allocation of more resources, the means of enhancing the effort would seem to be beyond the current capabilities of the County departments involved. The recommendations offered will provide some avenues to assist in securing the resources required for full response code enforcement and abatement action . JTG: eh iocodeen cc: Claude Van Marter Harvey Bragdon Jim Blake Bob Geise Larry Gunn Bill Martindale Patti McNamee Captain Shinn Ken Shunk Lt . Sizemore Karl Wandry