HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12171996 - D5 t D.5
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IOC-07 E••SE__L Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEEn `s Costa
County
Ops.'.` --- •Y'4�
DATE: December 16, 1996
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF OVERALL CODE ENFORCEMENT
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
SPECIFIC REQUESTS OR RECOMMENDATION S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
REQUEST the full Board of Supervisors to discuss the need for a General Fund
financed revolving fund to pay for abatement actions which can be replenished from
repayments of abatement costs, penalties and other sources of revenue related to
a more active code enforcement program.
BACKGROUND:
On May 21, 1996, the Board of Supervisors made a dual referral to the Finance
Committee and the Internal Operations Committee to review the County's overall
code enforcement policies and procedures. We were asked to wait to schedule the
item for the Internal Operations Committee until the Finance Committee had acted
on the referral. On November 19, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved a report
on this subject from the Finance Committee. Staff was then asked to schedule the
item for consideration by our Committee.
On December 16, 1996, our Committee met with Val Alexeeff, Director of GMEDA;
Frank Lew, Director of Building Inspection; Mickie Perez, Director, Neighborhood
Preservation Program; Mike Walford, Public Works Director; Vic Westman, County
Counsel; and John Gregory, Code Compliance Coordinator in the County
Administrator's Office.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER 4JR
SIGNATURESGAYLE BISHOP I JIM S
ACTION OF BOARD ON- December 17. 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
REFERRED to the County Administrator for development of funding options, the report on overall code
enforcement policies and procedures, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee above;
DIRECTED the County Administrator to develop several options for funding and; REQUESTED the County
Administrator to present the proposed .options to the Board of Supervisors for decision.
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.
ATTESTED December 17, 1996
Contact: PHIL BAICHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 2 S E ORS AND COUNTY AD IST TOR
BY D Y
IOC-07
Our Committee noted the need for a more active code enforcement program. The
Finance Committee report helps to establish a fund to abate enforcement actions in
District V, but does nothing to resolve equally pressing problems in other
Supervisorial Districts. Frank Lew noted that the Building Inspection Department
is not funded for code enforcement activities. The problem is that even when the
Department gets authority to abate a problem, there is often no money to pay for the
abatement action up front while waiting for the property owner to reimburse the
County, which may take from several months to several years to accomplish. As a
result, many abatement actions cannot be accomplished in as prompt a manner as
would be ideal. Supervisor Rogers noted that he has no problem with District V
receiving most of the funds if they have most of the problems. The response from
staff was that District V has generated a large number of calls to staff pointing out
code enforcement problems.
Our Committee believes that until we have a countywide fund established which can
be used to provide up front funding for abatement action and which can be
replenished over time from the repayment of abatement costs by property owners,
either through payment of the amount due, collection of the amount with the property
taxes or through a lien on the property which is satisfied when the property is sold,
we will be unable to get a handle on the code enforcement problem. Our Committee
has not had adequate time to study this problem in detail and, therefore, requests
that the Board take some time on December 17, 1996 to discuss this matter so we
can provide some direction to staff regarding what priority this subject has among
all of the competing priorities with which the Board is faced.
We have again attached a copy of the Finance Committee report on this subject
which the Board approved on November 19, 1996.
cc: County Administrator
Director, GMEDA
Director of Building Inspection
Public Works Director
Health Services Director
Community Development Director
County Counsel
John Gregory, Deputy County Administrator
-2-
• TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` S'"' Contra
c
_FROM: Costa
Finance Committee
County
DATE: November 19, 1996
SUBJECT: RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PILOT CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
TO BE INITIALLY IMPLEMENTED IN DISTRICT V
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. RECOMMEND approval of a pilot code enforcement program in District V utilizing
Municipal Advisory Council liaisons.
2. DIRECT representatives of the County Administrator's office, Building Inspection
Department and District V Supervisorial staff to meet to work out logistics of
program.
3. ESTABLISH program for a twelve-month period, with an evaluation of the program
to be held at the six-month point (July 1, 1997).
4. ESTABLISH January 1, 1997 as the start date for the program.
5. RECOMMEND funding for the pilot program be allocated from the following
sources: -
Maintain current District V Code Enforcement funding level $ 85,000
Keller Mitigation Fees (previously allocated) $ 60,000
Keller Reserves (for revolving abatement fund and CAO ombudsman) $120,000
TOTAL $265,000
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: -N-C/�i�
RECOMMENDATION OF ,OUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES
W. r*k (XDe_Sauluier rora Torlakson
AV
ACTION OF BOARD ON ovem er 19 , 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
All persons desiring to speak were heard. The Board APPROVED the
recommendations set forth above with the initial implementation to take place
in District V with the additional direction that the Pilot Code Enforcement
Program will be operated out of the District V office with a Clerk from
District V dedicated to this program to work with the Building Inspector
assigned to District V to coordinate the program with the Municipal Advisory
Council volunteers, and report to the County Administrator's Office designated
ombudsman "for overall guidance on the project.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT III ) 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.
ATTESTED November 19 , 1996
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: Joe Canciamilla SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
John Gregory, County Administrator
Val Alegeeff, GMEDA �-4.,.f�Li'�
Frank Lew, Building Inspection BY DEPUTY
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
Over the last six months the Finance Committee has guided the development of a pilot
program for code enforcement. The Committee has grappled with legal, procedural and
financial constraints. On October 29, the Committee supported extra code enforcement
efforts for District Five to the extent of$265,000. District Five staff will coordinate efforts
with assistance from the GMEDA Departments, County Counsel and the CAO. A program
plan including work activities is attached for reference.
l
PROPOSAL FOR
DISTRICT V
CODE ENFORCEMENT
PILOT PROGRAM
RECOMWENDATION:
To develop a pilot program,to be operated on a twelve-month trial basis,in
Supervisorial District V to address code enforcement issues.
BACKGROUND
Constituents in District V have expressed dissatisfaction with the processing of code
enforcement complaints within the district. It is their perception that reported code
violations are not taken seriously,are not tracked properly and are not followed-up on
in a timely manner. They feel that the current process for intake of complaints is a
form of intimidation,and a deterrent to the reporting of alleged violations.
OBJECTIVE:
To develop a pilot project,to be conducted in District V,to intake,prioritize,coordinate,
and develop a reporting system to monitor alleged code violations reported within the
District. This program will utilize volunteers in the form of designated liaisons from
each of the Municipal Advisory Councils in District V,as well as permanent staffing
from the District V office.
PROJECT TIMEFRAME:
January 1997 through December 1997 (twelve months)
PROPOSED BUDGET:
(See Attachment 1 for breakdown.)
PROTECT GOALS:
1. To develop and implement a model reporting program to intake,track,refer and
monitor code enforcement complaints,utilizing volunteers and permanent staff
including a dedicated inspector as well as ombudsman designated from the
County Administrator's office,in District V.
2. To develop a written database management program which will provide a
listing of each complaint,active and inactive,of alleged code enforcement
violations in District V.
3. To provide a monthly report which summarizes the status of each alleged
violation in District V.
4. To develop parameters and a program to train volunteers (MAC liaisons) on the
intake,acknowledgement and referral of code enforcement complaints. (See
proposed list of MAC activities -Attachment 2).
5. To develop a system of acknowledging a complaint (see sample - Attachment 3)
and the provision of a status report to the complainant (if desired),as well as to
the respective Municipal Advisory Council of the area in which the complaint
originates.
6. To develop a"community"letter to be distributed by the local MAC to alleged
violators aslang their cooperation and compliance to maintain community
standards.
7. To work with local MAC and East County Regional Planning Commissioners to
develop a"Citizens Guide"to code enforcement and code enforcement
reporting.
8. To develop a process'whereby program staff will provide assistance and
supplement other county staff(i.e. inspectors,community development,
environmental health,county counsel,etc.) in their efforts to bring violators into
compliance in a timely manner.
9. To provide a report at the conclusion of the program which reflects the
performance of the program,including the quantification of cases,disposition of
cases,and other'statistics of the program including the timeframe to resolve
various cases.
ATTACHMENT 1
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR
TWELVE MONTH PILOT
CODE ENFOkCEMENT PROGRAM
1 Full Time Inspector Salary 49,536.00
Benefits 21,765.00
S/T 71,301.00 71,301
1 Full Time Clerk Salary 30,160.00
Benefits 8,444.80
S/T 38,604.80 38,605
CAO Assistance Lump Sum 15,000.00 15,000
(Ombudsman)
Other Costs Lump Sum 40,094.00 40,094
(Program Manager, County
Counsel, supplies)
Revolving Abatement Fund 100,000.00 100,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
FOR PILOT PROGRAM 265,000
ATTACHMENT 2
PROPOSED LIST OF ACnVrM
• FOR EAST COUNTY MAC LIAISONS
1. Each East County MAC and the East County Regional Planning
Commission will appoint one individual to act as a liaison in the
area of code enforcement who will work in cooperation and
coordination with District V pilot program staff. The liaisons will
work with program staff to develop a volunteerwork schedule and
work program.
2. Local East County MAC's and East County Regional Planning
Commission will provide a forum for the receipt of code
enforcement complaints in their respective areas of influence. East
County MAC's will maintain a supply of enforcement complaint
forms for distribution at their regular public meetings.
3. Liaisons will assist program staff in the intake of code enforcement
complaints,as well as processing complaints received directly by the
MAC to the District V program staff.
4. Liaisons will develop a community letter to be sent to residents
asking their cooperation and compliance in an effort to maintain
community standards.
5. Liaisons will assist program staff in the input and updating of code
enforcement complaints. They will also assist in acknowledging
complaints at the time of receipt.
6. Liaisons will meet with program staff on at least a monthly basis to
review status of current caseload and to assist in the prioritization of
cases in their respective area. In order to make the most efficient use
of the inspectors time, liaisons will work with program staff to
arrange site visits or tours of areas where alleged violations are
numerous or clustered. Liaisons will also report back to their
respective MACs on the status of the code enforcement pilot
program on at least a monthly basis.
7. Liaisons will assist program staff in educating constituents about the
code enforcement process including the reporting of complaints and
evidence gathering. They will also work with program staff to
develop a draft "Citizens Guide" to code enforcement.
me 0 mmn m mc00 Om > z Y
� c c� � rD- � c pc crD- �
_ Zir '< N = G)I <
o3o > � y � 0 m > v < Z > m0
m:�� m ozv -n � ..dDm vzv -n
D � WZ zG) <. 0 oDo � W .z< zG) � 0
0ED � N00n O �-� NDOt�
< � OA c � 0 < 0) C c � 0
m Wim m -1Z Wim MZ
•Q0q n0y t -i 00ZD n
(�Orr- 0 K (zn0 0 (WOrr- O 3 (n � 0
mm
T - Z -- -ntzn �° zZ Z
to m �' z z -1 Ui M . -t ^'1
-� mr � Oc -omrr -ziON
r c (n Ir*t -n m
' o n ZMm n D0 ((nn ZDm -n n
M 0 � 0 mem vin 0
m -
n m m N ;u "no � Dz m (n
mm ? r Z > mm -zi r � � Z r -1 >
--,mpM > Zm � � Dn Om ; 0
� m � rr- � C -( m AFM C
m Dr OmZ Z mei Omz
c c
�t C1••-� 0 z -t -� -n n �n n O z -q -' �
mc00 'rmmy m mc00 0m , D
Z �0 c � > Z Z �-c c � 7
c p = r - 3 � N = x � m .<
m > -4 < z -ni0Oc m -q z -4mc
M ..� m vzam � �� D OZ0 -n
00OD (, DOS o — ,� NO 0
mw � m � � O m � � m � �
((Mr— 0 z 0 O �r0 3 (zn0 0
(Or z � _ � rmz r�' zz
inmin D "i 01m � D .; O
r n � c (cn � -nm -zicuci �.
0 ((n ZDm0 � O � ZDm -n n
m3m vin 0 m3m vm0 r 0
mD0 r m -N1 mY0 P— m SNI
� Oma q .0( � mm n
T O W � - 0 0 > 0 3 rD 0
m > .CZ m > Oma C
-i 0m0 2
0 C �
E 1N3WH3V11`d f
V - I
� �.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CC'TT sA GOSTQ
�� " ,z . Contra
IoM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson 96 JUN 28 PH 3: 36 Costa
COMMU
NITY `°f�, r '�``
County
DATE: May 21, 1996 DEVELOPMENT DEPT
SUBJECT: REVIEW CURRENT AMTEMENT ACTION AT 100 NAPA COURT (RAY POINT AREA), SPECIFICALLY;
REVIEW OVERALL CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICIES AND POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommended Action:
1. Review current abatement activity at 100 Napa Court.
A) Request report from Environmental Health Department on complaints and
proposed abatement action related to alleged illegal garbage service
and waste handling being conducted at 100 Napa Court, including
history of complaints, response to complaints at this location, and
schedule to resolve problems.
B) Request report from any other department conducting investigation of
code enforcement complaints at this location.
C) Investigate utilization of the County's franchising authority and our
ordinance requirements for a Board of Supervisor permit for hauling
waste on a County road as a means of forcing immediate abatement of
the problems here.
2. Request review of overall code enforcement policies and procedures.
A) Request the County Administrator's Office to set up a workshop in
Martinez for Thursday, May 30, 1996, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. to discuss
and review current code enforcement practices. Representatives of
all Districts offices should be invited to attend,.if they are
interested. Also in attendance should be representatives of Building
Inspection, Community Development, Health Department and Vehicle
Abatement and Community Policing Units of the Sheriff's Department,
as well as personnel from Data Processing familiar with the County's
computer system. Request Code Enforcement staff to conduct a
workshop and walk-through of current intake procedure and follow-up
on that date.
B) Request the County Administrator's office, subsequent to the May 30.'
meeting, to set up a community workshop in District V in conjunction
with District Supervisor.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
*1aNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON MaV 210 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED
JUL 0 9 1996
OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS M A TRUE
_LX_UNANIMOUS(ASSENT I I I AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ASSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc (See Page 3 for Distribution) ATTESTED May 21, 1996
.
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
D9 n /
BY
1�- G �/L!�-�L`n ,DEPUTY
61382 (10/88) —Y—
Abatement Procedure Contd.
" May 21, 1996
Page 2
C) Consider the establishment of a Code Enforcement Citizens
Coordinating Committee with representation from our Municipal
Advisory Councils. Some of the roles of the Committee might be to
serve as liaisons to their communities, both in terms of conveying
information and education about the code enforcement system to their
respective communities, as well as to bring suggestions forward to
County staff and to help gather evidence that would help the
abatement procedures.
D) Request a review of the proposed direct citation process. Review the
proposed process and discuss implementation of the procedure. Review
departments/individuals capable of issuing direction citations and in
what circumstances. Discuss means, whether by revised administrative
process or proposed legislative changes, by which this process can be
streamlined and made more effective.
E) Review State Statutes for directly citing for violations, for billing
for site visits and other means of recovering costs of code
enforcement from the perpetrators of the problem.
F) Review the schedule of code enforcement staff meetings of various
department representatives to assure optimal coordination of County
staff and effective means ;of communicating with community groups of
volunteers. Are inter-departmental meetings being held frequently
enough? Are all departments participating?
G) Review frequency and completeness of computer printout case updates
that could be distributed to and can be used by staff, by district
Supervisors' offices, by community groups (Municipal Advisory
Councils, etc. ) and by the proposed Citizens Coordinating Committee.
H) Investigate further cross-training of different departments' staff'
and of shared use of staff from different departments to make initial
site visits and do follow-up investigations when they are in the
geographic vicinity.
I) Request report in 60 days on the full implementation of the LIS
System in all departments, for posting of progress on cases,
especially as regards the Health Department coming on line and using
this important communication resource and tracking tool.
J) Consider establishing a Volunteer Code Enforcement Assistant Group
that could be trained to assist in some of the proper processing,
intake, and other office work. Volunteers could help expedite the
"complaint to enforcement" process and help free up more technically
trained staff to'do actual enforcement work.
3. Refer all the recommendations contained within Recommendations Nos. 1 and
2 above to the Internal Operations and Finance Committees for review and
final report with their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
Background Information: While some progress has been made in recent years in
pursuing code violations, I'm convinced that much more could and should be
done. Just with existing staff and resources, more effective code enforcement
is possible. With some change in State Law and some changes in our own County
procedures;, much more could be accomplished.
While recognizing the huge volume of cases and the complexity of many of them,
I recognize the frustration that many community groups and citizens feel
. regarding the usual slowness of the process. Code enforcement is so important
because it goes hand in hand with law enforcement in discouraging and cleaning
up criminal activity as well as keeping up property values and neighborhood
appearances.
Representatives of various community groups, including the District V
Municipal Advisory Council, have demonstrated a frustration with current code
enforcement policies and timeframes. A review of the County's overall code
enforcement procedures is in order. Community members have made several
suggestions for improvement to the current system which, notwithstanding legal
constraints, may have some merit. Among the suggestions have been the
establishment of a Volunteer Bureau. The general public appears to be very
Abatement Procedure Contd.
May 21, 1996.
Page 3
cognizant of the budget restraints the County has experienced. A Volunteer
Bureau, whose members could be trained to do intake of code enforcement
complaints, as well as referring and tracking complaints, might be a means by
which the community members could assist in the processing of complaints in a
more timely manner as well as provide an educational opportunity for the
community to understand the current laws and enforcement process.
cc: County Administrator
Finance Committee
Internal Operations Committee
/Itommunity Development Director
MACs
Building Inspector
Sheriff-Coroner
Health Services Director
County Counsel