Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04011997 - D1-D2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: April 1, 1997 MATTER OF RECORD SUBJECT: Public Comment The following persons addressed the Board of Supervisors: Rick Gulledge, Hilltop Drive Citizens Advisory Commission, 650 El Centro Road, El Sobrante, expressed concern that Agenda Item C.109 had been passed by the Board. Lou Rosas, PacTel/SBC, 2600 Camino Ramon, San Ramon, announced the merger between Pacific Telesis and Southwestern Bell Corporation which was approved today. Mr. Rosas informed the Board that he will begin his new role as the Public Affairs Director for the Contra Costa County Region representing Pacific Telesis/Southwestern Bell Corporation and offered his services as a liaison between the Board and his agency relative to telecommunication issues. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN 0�Z TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: VAL ALEXEEFF, DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DATE: APRIL 1, 1997 SUBJECT: BOARD TO CONSIDER REVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND FUNDING SPECIFIC REQUFST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: REVIEW and RECOMMEND further action regarding code enforcement procedures and funding. FISCAL IMPACT: Currently, no general funds supplement the $120,000 received from Community Development and building permit rebates. Additional responsibility will require predictable revenue and expanded revenue sources. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On November 19, 1996, the Board of Supervisors directed the GMEDA Director to prepare a report regarding sources of funding for Building Inspection code enforcement. The item has grown into an analysis of existing and potential procedures a precondition to analysis of funding. The report includes exhibits and responses to issues that have arisen during the course of the investigation. The investigation is not complete. However, concern about its duration prompted an incomplete report. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: Y � _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON April 1, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X CONTINUED this report to a future Board meeting. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT V ) ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. AYES: NOES: ATTESTED April 1, 1997 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PHIL BAT LERK OF jB0jSUP COUNTY M VA:dg BY DEP codeenf.bo Contact: Val Alexeeff(646.1620) CC: County Administrator County Counsel GMEDA Departments 1�2 Board Order on Code Enforcement April 1, 1997 Page 1 Sources of revenue for zoning code enforcement: 1. Current Source Funds for zoning code enforcement are collected at the time of building permits. These are funds that would otherwise go to current planning operations (currently understaffed). The funds are transferred to the code enforcement division. The total transferred is $121,000 for five districts. Due to demand for service, this amount has not been enough and Building Inspection has been forced in the past to subsidize the program out of its operating budget. This is not a fiscally sound procedure and is contrary to our budgeting requirements. When GMEDA went off General Fund due to County budget problems in 1992, the agreement with the Board was that there would not be unfunded demands on the Agency. This is important because unfunded demands raise overhead costs, lower efficiency, place departments one step ahead of crisis since revenue does not match expenditures and challenge the basis for collecting fees: only enough to cover the costs of what's necessary to issue permits and grant entitlements. The staff would be happy to set up a more extensive and realistic code enforcement program, but it must close without more permit fee revenue. This investigation seeks alternatives. (See Exhibit A options) 2. Collection from Violators Last year, $485 was received from violations. We billed substantially more. Sometimes costs are waived to expedite compliance; sometimes the property owners simply will not pay. Other times, payment is challenged in court over legal issues such as violation of civil rights despite the years of due process. The attached matrix (Exhibit B) provides a description on what costs of code enforcement are currently recovered. Since I was taught not to bet on questionable revenues, I propose to use any recovery in the base of the following budget cycle rather than anticipate revenue for the current year. The Board has indicated the need for an aggressive billing program. Currently, compliance is our primary objective. In the future, it may become cost recovery. Staff is working with County Counsel to utilize nuisance authority to bill a greater share of expenditures. VA:dg codeenfO I (3/27/97) Board Order on Code Enforcement April 1, 1997 Page 2 3. Title 25 v. Nuisance Abatement v. Citation. Title 25 is a section under the California Code of Regulations. It is provided in Exhibit E. It is linked to the State Health and Safety Code and structural safety and habitability is the code approach most familiar to building inspection. The fees that can be collected are limited, the procedures for enforcement require interpretation and costs can only be recovered when the property is sold, since liens are settled at that time. Nuisance abatement is described under Exhibit F. It is authorized under Chapter 14 of the County Code. It receives its authority from the State Civil Code. The approach is highly procedural but allows greater cost billing that can be placed as a tax lien on the next tax roll. This does not necessarily mean payment, but it should provide more rapid return than waiting for the property to change hands. Citation is authorized under Chapter 14.8 of the County Code. Fines are imposed as $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second offense, and $300 for subsequent offenses within a twelve month period. These fines, however, do not come to the department issuing the citation. While the method is faster, there is no cost recovery. The County also conducts cite hearings until the matter reaches court. There is no cost recovery and judges have often seek negotiation on costs to the defendant. 4. Department reimbursement through the Teeter Plan The teeter plan was established to provide predictable reimbursement to agencies that rely on the tax collector and auditor to collect revenues from the tax roll. The request in the form of Board or Council resolutions are submitted by the second week of August every year. The 1996 deadline was August 12. The 1997 deadline is August 11. If the request is submitted later, it is not considered until the following year(there is a small window for late submittals but there are penalties and it does not extend into September). The normal disbursement is 50% in December, 45% in April, and the remaining 5% at the close of the fiscal year, to provide for adjustments. The auditor's office charges a fee for this service as indicated in Exhibit G. The benefit for this is that jurisdictions are able to receive revenue even if it is not paid (the county handles collections) and the amount is sent at a predictable time for budgeting purposes. VA:dg codeenfO 2 (3/27/97) h2 Board Order on Code Enforcement April 1, 1997 Page 3 There are two provisions specific to charges, such as reimbursement for abatement. The first is the auditor determines that there is inadequate potential or value for collection. If not the funds will be distributed as received. The funds are not advanced. If the auditor determines there is adequate value and potential or payment, some funds can be advanced at the end of September to County departments. In summary, if an abatement charge is placed on the tax role in September or later, it must wait until the following year for reimbursement. If the resolution of the Board is submitted in July and the auditor determines adequate value exists, funds can be advanced as early as late September. To provide a resolution, the matter has to be finally decided. There cannot be appeals pending regarding charges or disposition. Should the auditor not choose to advance, the county must wait for actual receipt of funds. If taxes are not paid, a tax sale occurs after five years with abatement costs in an inferior position to other government demands. It is possible for the department is receive nothing. If the county chose to include charges on the tax bill, they are advised to file a property lien on the title at the same time for protection. 5. CDBG Appropriations CDBG must be used in low income areas to prevent or eliminate slum or blight conditions. CDBG funds can pay for inspections and legal proceedings, but not correction. The enforcement must operate in conjunction with private investments to revitalize the area by rehabitating and preventing decline. The funds cannot be used to offset County salaries or obligations. (See Exhibit C for detailed discussion.) 6. Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment areas exist in North Richmond,Rodeo, Bay Point, Oakley, and Pleasant Hill BART. Redevelopment areas can pay for enforcement, however, these projects must meet community redevelopment law requirements. They must result in removing blight and increasing tax base. A project that includes abatement should result in new construction. Unfortunately, this is not how complaints come in. (See Exhibit C for more detailed discussion.) VA:dg codeenf.B 3 (3/27/97) DZ, Board Order on Code Enforcement April 1, 1997 Page 4 7. Keller Funds Keller funds have been used for code enforcement in the past through the District 5 Supervisor's office. Since Keller resources have been reduced, code enforcement will have to compete with other needs. The future of Keller Mitigation funds for code enforcement is uncertain. 8. General Funds All other jurisdictions we are aware of provide this support. Code enforcement operations generally are funded by general funds in other jurisdictions. The most important priority is to set up a countywide revolving fund for abatement regardless of the procedure used to abate. This can also be used in anticipation of revenue return. In either case the General fund advances funds for specific operations and receives the amount recovered as it is recovered. 9. What should charges include? As indicated in Exhibit A diagram, the process does not actually receive Building Inspection verification until the point known as "violation verified". Until that point, up to 40 days into the process, the information is hearsay. It may be incorrect. It may be a civil matter between neighbors. It may have been grandfathered by prior action. It may be a matter that can be corrected in an hour. If there is no violation, there is no process; there is no recovery. Procedures also require that the government agency allow a reasonable time to correct the violation. There are often extenuating circumstances that cloud the issue. Many violations are cleared up after the letter but before the visit, often with the owner insisting that they didn't know. If penalties accrue from the first notice and there is no waiver for speedy response, this may create increased challenges to the process and appeals on costs increasing the overall cost of enforcement and creating hostility toward government. General overhead cannot be included, routine patrol cannot be included under nuisance provisions. The following can be itemized and charged. (1) Preparation of notices. (2) Correspondence (3) Specifications (if RFP required) (4) Contract. (5) Cost of inspection. VA:dg codeenf0 4 (3/27/97) M,� Board Order on Code Enforcement April 1, 1997 Page 5 (6) Printing costs. (7) Mailing costs. (8) Preparation of inspection warrants. (9) Office hearings. (10) Attorney's fee in a civil action or otherwise. (11) All costs the county may be liable for under state law. (12) Costs recoverable under California H & S 520. Depending on how the procedure is designed additional costs may be recovered. This is more extensive than the charges identified under Title 25 abatement (Exhibit E). To implement this, procedures will have to be examined, step by step procedures described, and the proposal reviewing by County Counsel processing time will increase slightly to provide the additional bookkeeping. Costs are not assessed until the case is closed. An appeal procedure on costs will be beneficial to prevent a flood of new items to the Board. Through the nuisance procedure, the Board's hearing requirements can be expected to increase. 10. Cases opened and closed for the 5 districts in 1996: District 1 100 opened 22 closed District 2 117 opened 41 closed District 3 91 opened 46 opened District 4 20 opened 9 closed District 5 167 opened 73 closed VA:dg codeenf.0 5 (3/27/97) m: EXHIBIT A Building Inspection Department uCO=C^ IProperty Cbamrmdon Division dWnnsm m Complaint Piopr Flowchart Profess Options Bwo pubmwab day Dnambw Refab FM Sa Idly 6votvW e@Ylf aif Yn D Coy lmxRPSaop Rle Ropmu Cad IALmnaen SeM1O 33 0--w4mem I day Cmnct Co m solum Cmla[t Vb4tOt NOViuntlm tDeeW' �,� No} aneFua Saawomn.won - No} No Yionnm voh,imcotwaed IsmYs t3ueFRe f3au� Yminim rkummn Me00d Daemme AppmpLte Detamimlf Vnnu dEnlorrrmna Dgimem®CVBI ouff4vamm 7daya Ptuceaa fa Dm Ftocma oragmrymvolved coitntycamw 1 nllom ain� 30my&e fa C.0"Agmcy submitmof gPkInon 2 $laffbuaeb atom 3 Begmabaemtmu mka0cet]s146 Saoodhantminpiaiomg 4 Hegmaunmw vmnampma,epdom,mvnb uoterl&25 ifvwwmmtmtoond.Copy VieladonCattcad am OoompWnam Md 011M Cinepde a,m,opmin I&Y Procedure I Procedure 2 Procedure 3 Procedure 4 Deadimael ter3prday: RefuO Cavy Upmntpknlm of F mmt BegmaWemtn mtludmgpWudo{aodo0rr 1 Cauarl OR 2 d dwe nandior OR 7pmce&nM' OR--al4 ptooedoro tinker OR_,a> Vlclnim maybe ��Mopwm. Sdayr dmmdfuemman. mrab2s utter �nmy ameVWtmd follow up lbunry SOSCo�Cmaaei7dya 30daaIwe 10 day kma. abno10 day, FOemcaut na2dayr Rqunttaaml20yysciwbwkAppenmrntutfadepmdiugmcoun xdnMda Regrntdtnwd 30n 4S data Ionammamplainl .41 Wit fibd by D.A. }udcw . 2U4•ya hold before Road, kwn withckd 2da s RoudaaaU rw +May involve ea mason due to oonpliame a caul ¢eogtua a Wase f+e0a.44i nu intawblkhadlowp0pm aOouW bepdmarymmporcm Caul4andn int action 30045 comm"Molm,. 30daystmfind 000101M 30daya upmeapbaumof abnememm C Cb G w q C Cs At J � G. lD Cp lD CD A 5" a ti N N ° M M ° A �• CD OY O As 451 'C (D CD45 w a. cCD i F n. ' rho r:M.ro a. rn0 o a oo m e CD cu T,' ,7 'Ct .a"'.'. r. as n �. °- < co o co o ca c ro p o CDN °o W a n ° oo rnEj rn ° S a PO o w rt ° @ a G coo p o S a o rn w 0 o. m CA .0. o° ata v O b CD a w _ ro < CD a ° E o ° < ? a ro c a. O p d o. (D k�] ~ K o w + H o a o g C> g H @ a ' d� CD by N N CD rAj 0 0 H tz H a o prn UCQD r�o �"(:Dl CD0 Oa IpwP? C0OO va y �s . CD CL tiun�� ' O G v m p 0 0 0 CD < p CD ti n co wCD CD p O CL ws < Nag '� � n. .p W N I-• � *s -P. W N ... O c.h A W N 1-• !`' .A W N r-• UJ C CD ro o' �jl o N Pw O Y, o rw„ O 'LS ro .O 0 O .OCD 'cl CD ro CDQ' O CD ro f�'D a C G1 O (D h .Cw-. rn O p IM cr CD 0 CD Con a C. ti a a Ch ti a o ro o J CD N .w- Oil tv CD CD O 1 O O O 1 eros iron vro, o � �y H I r^ I N H Q `r O y� fi wa 0 tj ro o' < a ° o o ° w 2 o k d G � n43 0 �p N .w 'K D.7J x x w N O N � 7 • 0 r oo � �• 46 co O I , ✓ "rf j. N eG.a .�.z•z�� r� G W o C u G o 14 ry N � p O 0 G 0 7 � OA. � � � r N u , (� . N n 2 E, O o p P'• ncu rn N a@ ta � � o a o �� » $ & \ \ k % $ # , ® k « \\ y < » _ « # 0 �: \ ©�¥ ��\ o �