HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1993 0210 CC ADJ ITEM 11JOORPARK, CALIFORNIA
city Council Meeting
of ,SITE
ARK, CALIFC ^`;'A
ACTION: City Council Mee;;nj
A G E N D A R E of 149 3
By • -
TO: The Honorable City Council
B
FROM: Donald P. Reynolds Jr., Administrative Servic
DATE: January 27, 1992
SUBJECT: Consider Developing a Code Enforcement Cost Recovery Fee
The following report will discuss for the Council's consideration,
the concept of adopting a Code Enforcement Cost Recovery System.
This concept was presented to the Council's Budget and Finance
Committee (Mayor Lawrason and Mayor Pro -Tem Montgomery) on January
4, 1993. Staff is responding the questions raised by the Committee
in this report.
Intent
While the cost recovery system presented in this report is designed
primarily to recover actual costs, by doing so it may act as
deterrent to violators who attempt to use the system to delay
compliance. The added deterrence of paying for the City Attorney
and Code Enforcement administration has been successful in other
jurisdictions in reducing the amount of time it takes to gain
compliance from persons who violate the City codes and fail to
comply with the prescribed time limit.
The intent of this policy is separate from those events which
create more urgent health and safety concerns. The City's Health
and Safety codes allow complete recovery of costs from the liable
party if the matter is not abated within the time specified by the
first notice (as a "Nuisance ", 8.08.090 "Abatement Procedure ").
The intent of this policy would be to recover costs from the less
urgent matters that evolve into lengthy compliance terms and third
and fourth notices and subsequent inspections.
Background
The City has been recovering costs associated with development and
land use actions, but has not previously addressed the cost
associated with enforcing City codes after development has been
completed.
On February 6, 1991, the City adopted a bail schedule establishing
fines for violations of City codes. Over the last 18 months,
approximately 8 fines have been issued. Typically, citations are
not issued without the approval of the City Manager.
In a period of six months between May and October, 1992, Code
Enforcement opened 237 case files. Of these, 25.74% have evolved
into second notices, (61). It has been identified that as many as
22 hours can be spent on one extreme case. The average case
requires from between 3 to 4 hours after the second notice was
issued. The shortest case took 15 minutes to conclude after the
second notice was issued.
Discussion/Overview
Staff has identified three cities in the County (Santa Paula, Port
Hueneme and Thousand Oaks), that practice a cost recovery system
for code enforcement, as well as the City and County of Santa
Barbara. The programs which appear to be most applicable to
Moorpark are being practiced in the cities of Port Hueneme and
Thousand Oaks. Santa Paula's system is reported to be effective,
but differs from the other cities by including Building and Safety
inspections as well as other code enforcement issues.
Staff identified 3 other cities in the County that are conducting
similar research to propose a system of cost recovery within the
next few months.
Budget and Finance Committee Response
Staff's interpretation of the Committee's reception of this concept
(discussed on January 4, 1993, the agenda materials were provided
to the Council December 11, 1992) is that they do believe that the
City will have to move in this direction based on the budgetary
constraints imposed by the State last year and anticipated again
this year. They would prefer that the City Attorney review the
matter and take into consideration the aspect of appeals of the
cost recovery system and its legal validity.
The Committee would also like to see a system developed that is
reserved for extreme cases, where ample yet reasonable opportunity
for compliance is being afforded by staff for the accused in a
uniform manner. Staff is not aware of a code enforcement system in
California that works in other jurisdictions where the
discretionary decision for compliance is not left to the staff to
determine. An application of standards based on the precedent of
prior cases would help to eliminate any accusation (true or false)
that the accused person is being "harassed" by the City.
Conceptual Considerations
Some agencies link resale of residential properties to building and
safety and /or code enforcement inspections and approval by causing
resale inspections of the property to take place. The County of
Santa Barbara uses this approach to assure that the buildings are
in compliance with County codes prior to their resale. Code
violations can then be attached to the deed of trust preventing the
resale of the property. The City can opt to pursue this direction,
but the initial step being presented by this report only addresses
existing City activities by the code enforcement staff and does not
propose implementation of activities such as resale inspection.
Moorpark CEO Cost Recovery
January 27, 1993
All cities surveyed by staff that use the system reported that
compliance has greatly improved and the number of citations issued
has decreased. The system, when applied to the chronic violators,
acts as the only mechanism available to the jurisdiction for
recovering attorney fees.
The City of Port Hueneme's program is presented in Exhibit "A" and
the City of Thousand Oaks' Ordinance as Exhibit "B" for Council
consideration. Port Hueneme's ordinance and resolution has been in
effect for one year. Essentially, the first inspection and notice
is free and provides no less then 5 days for compliance, making
reference to fees and fines that may apply if the violation is not
mitigated within that time period.
Proposed Concepts
As proposed, the length of time for compliance will be left to
staff's discretion based on the circumstances unique to each
situation, when issuing the violation notice. Adjustments to the
original notice may be deemed to be necessary based on feedback
from the person cited, and would be evaluated by the Community
Development department on a case by case basis. This approach is
modeled after both Thousand Oaks and Port Hueneme.
For example, a person is cited for an abandoned vehicle, allowing
ten days to remove the car. Within the ten day period, the owner
contacts the City and requests an extension because the car was in
an accident and the insurance company has not arrived yet to
inspect the damage. In this case, an extension would most likely
be granted, because the request was made within the time frame for
compliance, and is based on the reasonable expectations of the
citizen and staff.
The compliance time frame would not be adjusted in cases where the
person complies, and then reverts back to the old condition within
a specified time frame. The system works towards deterring "repeat
offenders."
The second inspection confirms whether or not compliance was
reached. No cost recovery time is attributed to the case until
this inspection has been completed.
All work after the second inspection is applicable to this proposed
procedure. In the second notice, the violator is alerted that the
administrative costs apply and that they apply in addition to any
fines or penalties. The case will not be considered closed until
all costs are recovered by the City.
3
Moorpark CEO Cost Recovery
January 27, 1993
The third notice is sent after compliance has been reached. This
notice summarizes the administrative cost associated with the
matter, and provides 30 days for the violator to pay. The third
notice refers the person to City Hall if additional detail of the
costs are requested, and provides a 10 day appeal period for those
who wish to protest the cost amount. Appeal of the cost of the
services are heard before the City Council in Port Hueneme, (not to
be confused with an appeal of the violation which would not change
in Moorpark and be left to a court to decide). When the fees are
paid or the matter of appeal is resolved, a notice of compliance is
issued. If the cost is not paid, than the City Manager would have
the authority to recover the cost as deemed necessary, (i.e.,
collection agency, small claims court, placing a lien against the
property).
Administration
Administration of this program would consist primarily of form
letters and tracking of accounts receivable. These duties can be
assumed by existing staff. The daily time sheets of the Code
Enforcement Officers' time is already part of the City's
administrative procedure.
Staff has not carefully evaluated the policy in place for the City
of Santa Paula because the organization is different where code
enforcement and building inspection activities are carried out by
the same person and by in -house staff. The Santa Paula program is
self sufficient and avoids court involvement which adds further
delay to gaining compliance. The principle of applying actual cost
to building inspection activities may be an activity that the City
wishes to pursue, but currently, our building fees account for this
service.
Cost Recovery Analysis
Exhibit "C" is staff's calculation of the code enforcement costs,
amounting to a fee of $49 /hour. The City Attorney costs under this
proposal would be billed according to the City's current contract
amount plus 150, (from $95 per hour to $145 per hour for
litigations). The City Attorney is typically not relied upon in
simple cases, therefore, only extreme cases that evolve into
lengthy compliance efforts would include these costs.
The Direct and Indirect costs are simple applications of the
original cost recovery model. Applied to the indirect cost is the
percentage of the Community Development activity which is deemed to
be code enforcement related (23.430-). This percentage is based on
the cost of personnel, ( "Maintenance and Operations ") . "Personnel"
has been adjusted by deducting non -code enforcement related staff
4
Moorpark CEO Cost Recovery
January 27, 1993
and then taking 23.430 of the balance.
The "General Overhead" deductions are the same as those applied to
the planning fee rate. The percentages are estimates which would
be adjusted at the end of each fiscal year to represent actual
costs, ( "Prior Year Adjustments ") . City Attorney has not been made
part of the fee due to the direct charge ability proposed in this
report. The City Engineer and Building and Safety are removed
because either they don't apply to code enforcement matters or are
compensated for by a different set of fees.
Based on the statistics for the period of May to October, 1992, it
is estimated that the City would have been able to collect close to
$10,461.50. This based on the average time of 3.5 hours to comply
after a second notice is issued, multiplied by the 61 cases that
evolved to this level during this time, multiplied by $49 per hour.
It is estimated that over 500 cases have been opened in 1992,
equalling a projected second notice rate of 128.7, times the 3.5
hours average time to comply, which equals approximately $22,000.
As previously mentioned, the impact would result primarily in
faster compliance, and not just cost recovery. Therefore, the
average time to comply may decrease substantially, and the number
of second notices may also decrease. Staff estimates initially,
based on the experiences of Thousand Oaks and Port Hueneme, that
Moorpark would see a 20o decrease in the number of second notices
issued, and a 10% decrease in the compliance time required once the
costs are applicable to the case. This would result in
approximately 100 cases taking 3.15 hours equalling a total
estimated off -set of $15,435.
City Attorney's Review
Staff recommends that the City Council refer this matter to the
City Attorney for the drafting of an ordinance. The accompanying
resolution would be similar to the Development Fee Resolution,
absent the fee schedule.
It is staff's understanding that a fee schedule for this type of
cost recovery is not recommended by some city attorneys. It is
also staff's understanding that measures provided to the person
accused of violating a City code that allow them ample notice and
time to comply with the law, are necessary to show the City's
efforts to gain cooperative compliance prior to attaching a cost.
5
Moorpark CEO Cost Recovery
January 27, 1993
Summary
Staff is proposing a cost recovery system for Code Enforcement for
two reasons; to quicken adherence to violations, and to assign the
cost of extreme cases to those who are responsible for the
violation. The intended outcome is to design a system that allows
code enforcement to be more responsive to community concerns.
Staff is requesting that if the Council approves this concept, to
allow sufficient time for the City Attorney to review the policy
and draft an ordinance and resolution.
Recommendation (Roll Call vote Required)
That the City Council direct staff to:
1) Begin creating a draft ordinance and resolution for
development of a Code Enforcement Cost Recovery program
with input from the City Attorney;
2) To request that staff report back to the CouncilIj in
April, 1993, with a draft ordinance and administrative
plan to implement this program.
Exhibits: A) City of Port Hueneme's Ordinance and Resolution for
the Cost Recovery Program
B) City of Thousand Oaks' Ordinance for Cost Recovery
C) Draft Code Enforcement Fee Calculations
R
ATTACHIIMENT A
Port Hueneme Ord.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL O: THE CITY OF
PORT HUENEME AMENDING ARTICLE I (GENERAL) OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF PORT ::UENEPfE
(Code Enforcement Cost Recover.-)
The City Council of the City of Port Hueneme does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION I: Article I of the Municipa_ Code of the City of
Port Hueneme is hereby amended by adding Chapter 5 to read as
follows:
"ARTICLE I
CHAPTER 5 -- CODE ENFORCEMENT CCST RECOVERY
1400. CONSTRUCTION AND PURPOSE. This Chapter
establishes procedures for the recovery of Administrative Costs
incurred by the City in enforcing the Pow Hueneme Municipal
Code ("Code").
1401. DEFINITIONS. The following words and
phrases as used in this Chapter shall be defined as follows:
(a) "Administrative Costs" means Staff Time and all
other Incidental Expenses reasonably related to a particular
Code enforcement case,- #rem init4:etien threugh preseeutien.
(b) "Code Violation" means any violation of the Port
Hueneme Municipal Code; when used in the sincxular, the term
"Code Violation" includes multiple infractions and when used in
the plural, the number of infractions include the sinctular.
jclfb} "Department" means the Department of Community
Development of the City.
(d)fe} "Director" means the Director of the Department.
(e)fd} "Enforcement Action" means prosecution of Code
Vviolations by infraction citation, misdemeanor complaint,
public nuisance abatement or any other reredy afforded by law.
COST RECOVERY ORDINANCE
Page: 1 of 5
-- RECEI ED —
NOV t-, 0 1991
ON of Monrr,=
Lf)_fe} "Enforcement Officer" means the Code Enforcement
Officer of the Department.
SgZ {f} "Incidental Expenses" means the actual expenses
and costs, other than Staff Time, incurred by the City in the
course of enforcing the Code. Incidental Expenses, as a
component of Administrative Costs, include, but are not limited
to, the printing and mailing of notices, consultant and
attorney fees, word processing and document reproduction, and
telephone charges.
Wh ejg "Responsible Party" means the person or persons
who are alleged to have violated the Code. In the case of Code
Vviolations involving real property, a Responsible Party may
include the owner or occupant of such property, or person
having lawful possession thereof.
-Cjj{h} "Staff Time" means the actual time spent by
officers and employees of the City in the course of enforcing
the Code. Staff time, as a component of Administrative Costs,
shall be calculated at an hourly rate based on a schedule
established by Resolution of the City Council.
1402. COST COMPUTATION. For the purpose of this
Chapter, the Department shall account for and maintain records
of all Administrative Costs associated with the processing of
Code Vviolations under the eede. The computation of
Administrative Costs shall include all Staff Time and
Incidental Expenses incurred by the City in conjunction with
each Enforcement Action For the purpose of this Chapter the
duration of each Enforcement Action and assessment of
Administrative Costs therefore shall be measured from the
Compliance Date prescribed in the Second Notice until all Code
Violations are corrected. Upon conclusion of an Enforcement
Action and correction of the Code Violations, the Code
Enforcement Officer shall file an itemized statement of all
Administrative Costs ( "Report ") with the City Clerk and City
Treasurer. Unless a timely appeal is filed pursuant to Section
1405 of this Chapter, the Report shall be deemed final and
conclusive.
1403. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES. In order to
recover Administrative Costs under this Section, the following
procedures must be followed:
(a) First Notice. Upon investigation and
determination that a Code Vviolation of the eede exists, the
Enforcement Officer shall notify the Responsible Party Pereen
of the existence of the violation and date by which the
violation is to be corrected ( "First Notice").. The First
COST RECOVERY ORDINANCE
Page: 2 of 5
Notice shall be given in the manner provided in Section 1205 of
the Code. In no event shall the date prescribed for correction
be less than five (5) days from the date of the notice.
(b) Second Notice. If the Code Vviolation is not
abated within the time prescribed in the First Notice, the
Enforcement Officer shall notify the Responsible Party of its
liability for Administrative Costs should an Enforcement Action
become necessary ( "Second Notice ") the Bepertmentl' intent to
eharge the Respensible Party fer all Administrative eests
inveived in the Enforcement Aetien- ineiu&ing event expenses if
eenvieted. Furthermore, the Responsible Party shall be advised
that the Administrative Costs are in addition to whatever fines
and penalties may be assessed by the Court. The Second Notice
shall be given in the manner provided in Section 1205 of the
Code and 7 The Seeend Netiee shall provide a period of
correction of not less than five (5) days from the date of the
notice ( "Compliance Date ").
(c) Third Notice. If the Code Vviolation is not
abated within the time prescribed in the Second Notice, the
Enforcement Officer shall take all measures as are necessary to
gain compliance. Upon completion of an Enforcement Action and
correction of all Code Violations, the Enforcement Officer
shall notify the Responsible Party of the total Administrative
Costs incurred by the City. The Third Notice shall be given in
the manner provided in Section 1205 of the Code, and further in
the case of Code Vviolations involving real property, by
conspicuously posting on the affected premises a copy of the
notice. The Third Notice shall provide a written summary of
Administrative Costs which are chargeable to the Responsible
Party; shall advise the Responsible Party of the availability
of the Report prescribed in Section 1402 of this Chapter; shall
require payment from the Responsible Party within thirty (30)
days of the date of the notice; and shall advise the
Responsible Party of the right to file an appeal contesting the
Administrative Costs, provided that such appeal is filed within
ten (10) days of the date of the notice.
1404. COST RECOVERY. Administrative Costs shall
only be charged in those instances where the Responsible Party,
after exhausting or forfeiting all administrative remedies, is
found to be in violation of the Code by: (i) the issuance of a
final Administrative Order under the Code; (ii) the issuance of
-4 er by final judgement rendered by a Court of competent
jurisdiction;_ or (iii) the filing of a written Stipulation by
the Responsible Party as provided in Sections 1407 and 1408 of
this Chapter. The Third Notice prescribed in Section 1403(c)
of this Chapter shall only by issued following correction of
all Code Violations. Furthermore, if a Court of competent
COST RECOVERY ORDINANCE
Page: 3 of 5
14
jurisdiction dismisses an Enforcement Action or subsequently
finds the Responsible Party innocent of all alleged Code
Violations any wrong doing i:n regard to an aiieged eede
vialat4:en, no Administrative Costs shall be charged to such
Party.
1405. APPEALS. Appeals contesting Administrative
Costs charged hereunder shall be filed and heard within the
time and manner provided in Article I, Chapter 4 of this Code.
For the purpose of hearing appeals hereunder, the City Council
shall serve as the Appellate Body. At the time of the hearing,
the Council shall consider all matters pertinent thereto and
may either uphold, reverse or modify the amount of
Administrative Costs chargeable to the Responsible Party. The
decision of the City Council shall be deemed final and
conclusive.
1406. COLLECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. All
payments for which a Responsible Party is charged under this
Chapter shall be paid to the City Treasurer. All payments
shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of
the Third Notice as provided in Section 1403(c) of this Chapter
or, in the event that a timely appeal is filed, within thirty
(30) days of the date that notice of action is given by the
City Clerk pursuant to Section 1305 of this Code. The
Enforcement Officer shall notify the Treasurer of all payments
when due and shall monitor all payments received. Should a
Responsible Party fail to pay all Administrative Costs for
which it has been charged within the time prescribed herein,
the Treasurer may effect payment through a collection agency or
through any other legal means at its disposal.
1407. ALTERNATIVE COST COMPUTATION Following
commencement of an Enforcement Action, a Responsible Party may
limit the amount of Administrative Costs otherwise chargeable
to such Party by filing a written stipulation ( "Stipulation"Z
as provided in Section 1408 of this Chapter. Where a
Stipulation is accepted for filing in the time and manner
Provided in Section 1408 the amount of Administrative Costs
chargeable to a Responsible Party shall be the sum of Staff
Time and Incidental Costs incurred by the City from the
Compliance Date prescribed in the Second Notice until the
effective date of the Stipulation For the Purpose of Section
1405 of this Chapter, the Stipulation shall not preclude a
Responsible Party from filing an appeal with respect to
Administrative Costs chargeable to such Party hereunder.
1408. STIPULATION The written Stipulation
referred to in Section 1407 of this Chapter shall be on forms
Prescribed by the City and shall constitute a declaration and
COST RECOVERY ORDINANCE
Page: 4 of 5
aws
acknowledgment by the Responsible Party that it does not
contest the alleged Code Violations and waives all
administrative rights and remedies relative thereto. The
Stipulation shall be not be effective nor be accepted for
filing by the City until all Code Violations have been
corrected. For the purpose of this Chapter, an Enforcement
Action shall be deemed completed the soonest of: (i) issuance
of final Administrative Order under the Code or by final
judgement rendered by a Court of competent 'jurisdiction; or
(ii) filing and acceptance of a Stipulation hereunder.
1409 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS. The
procedures prescribed herein must only be followed if the City
is to recover Administrative Costs. The recovery of
Administrative Costs shall be in addition to any fines or
penalties that may be imposed under this Code or by Court order
including, but not limited to, Enforcement Actions which are
prosecuted to completion after a Responsible Party has
satisfied the provisions of Sections 1407 and _1408_ of this
Chapter."
SECTION II: In all other respects, Article I of the
Municipal Code of the City of Port Hueneme shall remain in full
force and effect as adopted and amended.
SECTION III: This Ordinance shall be effective thirty
(30) days after its adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
COST RECOVERY ORDINANCE
Page: 5 of 5
MAYOR
, 1991.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PORT HUENEME FIXING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED
FOR ENFORCING PROVISIONS OF THE PORT HUENEME
MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING POLICY GUIDELINES
RELATIVE THERETO (Code Enforcement Cost Recovery)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORT HUENEME DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: The City Council does hereby make the
following findings of fact:
A. Prior to rendering a decision on any aspect of this
Resolution, the City Council reviewed and duly considered the
following:
1. All public testimony, both written and oral,
received in conjunction with that certain item entitled "CODE
ENFORCEMENT -- Cost Recovery and Policy Guidelines" appearing
under the Director of Community Development segment of the City
Council Agenda for the meeting of November 6, 1991.
2. That certain staff report submitted to the City
Council by the Department of Community Development dated
October 31, 1991, and addendum dated November 3. 1991, entitled
"CODE ENFORCEMENT -- Cost Recovery and Policy Guidelines ".
B. On the basis of evidence submitted and by definition
of "Administrative Costs" set forth herein, the City Council
finds and declares that the fees set forth in Section II of
this Resolution do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of
providing the service for which fees are to be charged.
SECTION II: As provided in Chapter 5, Article I of the
Municipal Code ( "Code ") of the City of Port Hueneme heretofore
adopted by Ordinance No. Administrative Costs of
enforcing said Code are hereby established as follows:
A. COST COMPUTATION
1. Definitions. The following words and phrases as
used in this Resolution shall be defined as follows:
a. "Administrative Costs" means Staff Time and
all other Incidental Expenses reasonably related to a
particular Code enforcement case.
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY
Page: 1 of 1
b. "Incidental Expenses" means the actual
expenses and costs, other than Staff Time, incurred by the City
in the course of enforcing the Code. Incidental Expenses, as a
component of Administrative Costs, include, but are not limited
to, the printing and mailing of notices, consultant and
attorney fees, word processing and document reproduction, and
telephone charges.
officers
the Code.
shall be
appearing
below.
C. "St
and employees
Staff Time,
calculated at
in Paragraph
aff
of
as
an
A.
Time" means
the City in
a component
hourly rate
2., Section
the actual time spent by
the course of enforcing
of Administrative Costs,
based on the schedule
II of this Resolution
2. Hourly Rates. The cost of Staff Time shall
computed on the combined sum of productive hourly rates and
indirect cost allocations appearing in Schedule A attached
hereto and, by this reference, incorporated herein. Based on
the figures appearing in said Schedule A, the following hourly
rates shall be used in calculating the cost of Staff Time:
a. Director of Community Development ... $ 91.08
b. Assistant Planner ...................$ 96.75
C. Public Services Assistant ........... $ 23.36
d. Building Official ...................$ 47.51
e. Code Enforcement Officer ............ $ 59.46
f. City Attorney .......................$140.00
3. unspecified Staff. For City staff not otherwise
listed in Paragraph A.2., Section II of this Resolution above,
Staff Time shall be charged on an hourly basis utilizing the
most recent schedule of productive hourly rates and indirect
cost allocations for the budget year in which Staff Time is
incurred.
4. Cost Accounting. Administrative Costs shall be
calculated on a case -by -case basis for actual Staff Time and
Incidental Expenses incurred by the City on each particular
Code enforcement case, from initiation through compliance
preseeUtien. Staff Time shall be rounded to the nearest
one - quarter hour and shall be accounted for in general
conformance with the schedule of activities described in
Paragraph B.3., Section II of this Resolution below.
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY
Page: 2 of 2
MI
B. BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
1. General. For illustrative purposes only, the
figures appearing in Schedule B, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein, represent the typical
estimated cost of Staff Time required in enforcing various
aspects of the Code. The data contained in Schedule B is NOT
to be used in computing Administrative Costs for actual Code
enforcement cases. Rather, this information is furnished as a
guideline in projecting expenses and evaluating the
reasonableness of Staff Time charges as a component of
Administrative Costs.
2. Enforcement Categories. The various categories
of Code enforcement as used in Schedule B are defined as
follows:
a. "Building Violations" pertain to the
enforcement of Article VIII (Building Regulations) and Sections
10226D, 10226E and 10226F of Article X (Zoning Regulations) of
the Code.
b. "Zonincr Violations" pertain to the
enforcement of Article X (Zoning Regulations), exclusive of
Chapter 2, Part B (Use and Maintenance Standards) of the Code.
C. "Unclassified Violations" pertain to the
enforcement of the balance of the Code not otherwise included
under Paragraphs B.2.a. and B.2.b., Section II of this
Resolution above.
3. Activity Schedule. The various enforcement
activities appearing in Schedule B are defined as follows:
a. "Notice of Violation" pertains to the
issuance of notices under Section 1403(a) of the Code,
inclusive of time spent on field inspections and complaint
investigations.
b. "Enforcement Action" pertains to the
various forms of prosecution of violations as provided in
Section 1100 of the Code as follows:
(1) Infraction Citation. Each citation
issued under Chapter 2, Article I, Part B of the Code.
(2) Misdemeanor Complaint. Each
misdemeanor complaint filed by the City Attorney under Chapter
2, Article I, Part A of the Code.
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY
Page: 3 of 3
(3) Public Nuisance Abatement. Each
public nuisance action commenced under Article III, Chapter 4,
Part A of the Code encompassing the following steps:
(a) Notices and Case Preparation.
Publication of notices required in Code Section 3403 and case
preparation in Administrative Hearing.
(b) Administrative Hearing. Conduct
of an Administrative Hearing and issuance of findings pursuant
to Code Sections 3404 and 3405.
(c) City Council Appeal. Appeal of
an Administrative Hearing determination and Abatement Order
pursuant to Code Sections 3406, 3407 and 3408.
(d) Compulsory Abatement. Abatement
of a public nuisance pursuant to Code Sections 3409, 3410 and
3411.
SECTION III: Administration of this Resolution and the
recovery of Administrative Costs prescribed herein shall be
vested with the Department of Community Development. General
provisions such administration are as follows:
A. INTERPRETATIONS
The Director of Community Development and /or his
designated representative shall have the authority to render
judgements as to the applicability or interpretation of this
Resolution when such judgments are made necessary by virtue of
circumstances for which the procedures and /or provisions of
this Resolution are unclear or otherwise create hardships
inconsistent with the purpose and objectives served by this
Resolution.
B. APPEALS
Judgments rendered by the Director of Community
Development under this Resolution shall be deemed final and
conclusive unless appealed in accordance with operative
provisions of the Code.
C. DOCUMENT REPRODUCTION
Copies of documents shall be furnished at a basic
charge of $0.50 for the first page and $0.25 for each
additional page thereafter. Pre - printed and bound documents
such as the Municipal Code, Zoning Ordinance, Uniform Building
Code and Uniform Housing Code, shall be furnished at actual
cost of printing.
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY
Page: 4 of 4
A /4
SECTION IV: The City Council does hereby adopt the Code
Enforcement Policy Guidelines attached hereto and, by this
reference, incorported.
SECTION V: Except for the Code Enforcement Policy
Guidelines which shall become effective immediately, this
Resolution and the charges for Administrative Costs prescribed
herein shall become effective upon both of the following having
transpired: (i) effectuation of Ordinance No. introduced
for first reading concurrent herewith; and (ii) sixty (60) days
following adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY
Page: 5 of 5
MAYOR
, 1991.
EXHIBIT
t1 U I NAW NO. 1 i
AN Ol O I NAWA 01 Wt C fly COUt.0 It Of I IIL (I OI
TIIOU;ANO OAKS Al101rc;. COST RUCOArY PPOVISIC•,`
CO iHk I I IOUtiANO OAFS MUNICIPAL CODI
RECE 1V77-`
S E V 10 S2
City of YoorG n;
l he C i Ly Council of Lhe City of 1 housand Oaks, hovi ho!"fby ordain as
follows_
Part 1
the title of Chapter 2 of l i t le 1 shall become °I' nal ty apd Ceti Recovery
Provisions ", and section 1 -2.OS is hereby added to TWO I of :::e i sand Oaks
Municipal Code to read a follows:
Sec. P2.08. [`.ccovery of inspection and code en`nrce ent cosh:
Certificate of Compliance_
(a) When
the maintenance,
condition, construction, or use •==
any real
property is such
that it violates
any section of the Thousana Oaks Municipal
Code, and such a
situation violating that coda continues past ; e &:a
for City
code compliance,
as set forth in
a written notice t_. the Owner c--
party in
possession informing
them of that
violation, the City may do all e•-
any of the
following:
issued when he property
is in full
compliance with
(1) Record with the Ventura County Retorter a Wine c- Violation
of the Thousand Oaks Municipal Code setting forth all •. iolawc-.s r l iced to the
real property_
(3) Require the owner, as part of the application ;ee for any
needed permit which the ;,roper:.y c ner failed to obtain before the activity or
use was initiated, to pay a code enforcement cost surcharge in an a-:ount equal
to the City's cost for its code enforcement efforts_
(4) Request, as a condition of probation or senter. --ing on any
criminal conviction of such City code violation, that the deW:dant :�ovide full
restitution to the City for such inspection and code onforcr7ont costs.
(b)
(2) Require
the C..n2r to obtain from t� = City _ Cer_ ficate of
Compliance
indicating the
correction of the code
violations, and pay a
certificate
processing fee
which will be equal to all costs i ncurreu by the City
in connection with its inspection and code enforcement
efforts from the initial
discovery of
the situation
until such violations have
been carrected and such
certificate
can be issued_
The certificate shall be
issued when he property
is in full
compliance with
the City codes_
(3) Require the owner, as part of the application ;ee for any
needed permit which the ;,roper:.y c ner failed to obtain before the activity or
use was initiated, to pay a code enforcement cost surcharge in an a-:ount equal
to the City's cost for its code enforcement efforts_
(4) Request, as a condition of probation or senter. --ing on any
criminal conviction of such City code violation, that the deW:dant :�ovide full
restitution to the City for such inspection and code onforcr7ont costs.
(b)
the written Ilotico of Violation,
describes in su;secnr —
(a) shai i
he rn:lile.d
to, or personally survod or, the owner
of record of the rQA1
or-opert•.
On which
the coda violation e;r;;., and, if
deomed approprr,•.y tr•: 1A,
City, V,
thr: party
in possession of thn property,
;ire not.it ;ha 1 i cunt::; q
a warnin,:
010 19r or (I •• : t 1.1)
that thr• owner may be ohl 1gated to p.i >, e i o1 th Ci ty's r,r,rlt cnc nri r m•_ �t ,n :
inspection costs incurred in ohtaininq e()mpi iap,<e with the cod,- 0houId th• :
property owner not correct the violation wi'irin th:- time specified in the _ritt_or:
notice_
fart
This section shall be applied to al' code enforcement natters pen; in-i
of the date of enactment whether or not a criminal case has been - "iled.
part
Severability
If any provisions or clause of this ordina-tice or the applic_��ion th_
to any person or circumstances is held to t)e unco:isti tut ionaI er to be of et :i
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity sh_ii not arf�c_
other ordinance provisions or clauses cr applications thereof '.hick c:— _
implemented without the invalid provision or clause or applicatio::. and to
end, the provisions and clauses of this ordinanc_ are declared to �e sev
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th Day of March, 1992_
4ny ATTES i-
A_ il lon, City Clerk
APPROVED AS OR111:
J,_
4arr; C_ Sellers, City Attorney
APPROVED AS 10 ADMINISTRATION:
Crant R. Grimhal ity tt` 1anayer
�iJ:f!:•} q costrrc
(:30 :1i:
F
Robert E_ Lewis, Mayor
City of Thousand 0-ks_ ,aii;`:rr.;a
' C, -9 _')
't-E3 i
CF= I_ _C= - ON
S"_ -TE OF CrLIFOR! ;Lr )
CC --.' ITY OF VENTURA ) -
C7---.'Y O= THOUS -ND O;�RS )
I, tdANCY A_ - DILLON, =it_ C_er:_ cf the City of Tlliousana Daks,
DJ HEREBY CERTIFY- that r` -= forezoir-c _s a full, true, a cc -rec`
copy of Ordinance No- 1.= 0 -`:S, that. -.:as introduced by said City
Council at a regular ree =inc 'r_eld *. -'`_ch 3, 1992, and _doo_ t_d by
said City Council az a c -'_i1 c_ -. =?� _- _ held rtarCn 1-7, 1�: 2, the
-D, !ow ing vote:
-_FS: Council -embers Zea =:n, , a =ar, ScziIlo, Fiore, and 'a% :ewis
- _ _3 STAiN
i further certify_ t - -at sz_d Ordnance 1140 --NS was oub_ i shec
a= rec_uired by law in t`. i:EI•:S CHr,,D,, L�., ne >paper g. sera?
c _rcu lation printed and Cit•_� _
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 `-a•. her?°jrito set ny 'nand a-- _ ixec
:e oLfi.cial seal of the -izv I��. ;.snd Oaks,
_ f 4/ .
lo r.
-I lid O:'. r:::
1
EXHIBIT C
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY FEE CALCULATIONS
Item 1) Direct Department Costs
1992/93
A
B
23.430
Total Yr.
Total Med.
Leave
Applicable to
Position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salary
Benefits
Benefits
Totals
Code Enforcement Officer
35,093
15,464
17.690
59,501
Code Enforcement Officer
32,354
14,810
17.690,
55,507
Secretary (75% applicable)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16,552
8,266
17.690
29,208
Total
83,999
38,540
144,216
Item 2) Department Overhead, (Indirect Costs)
1991/92
23.430
Applicable to
City
sub-
Code Enf.
Item
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
Deductions *
total
Costs
Personnel
522,942
285,608
237,334
55,607
Maintenance and Operations
168,730
62,500
106,230
24,890
Capital
(Deleted -see
use allowance)
Fixed Overhead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Deleted -see
use allowance)
343,564
80,497
* Deductions
Personnel
1000 Associate Planner, 1000 of 1 Senior Planner, 100% Admin. Sect.
100% Direct Department Costs, 250 of Sect.
Maintenance and Operations
Professional Services have been deducted
C�
28- Jan -93
1 28- Jan -93
2 L
Total General Indirect Costs ERR
Q�"
28- Jan -93
Deductions 1) 80% Dep. City Clerk + Dep. City Clerk Ben., plus $5,500 for elections
2) Special Legal Services
3) Capital, (8600) + FO @ 600 + FO Ben + Act. Tech @ 60% + Act Tech Ben.+Act. Clrk @ 600+ Act Clrk. Ben
4) Capital + CDBG Salary, 20,700 + 60% Recept.+ 60% Rec. Ben
5) 100% Assit. to the City Manager Position + Ben.
Item 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/92
Budgeted
Total
Deprec.
Use
1989/90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs
Assets
Deduction
Net Costs %
applied
Total Costs
City Council
27,250
0.02
0
27,250
2%
545
City Manager
221,463
5)
64,859
156,604
50
7,830
City Clerk
125,238
1)
36,158
89,080
50
4,454
City Attorney
103,000
2)
15,000
88,000
0%
0
City Treasurer
1,280
0
1,280
5%
64
Finance
134,372
3)
95,376
38,996
10%
3,900
Administrative Services
359,082
4)
74,965
284,117
90
25,571
Total General Indirect Costs ERR
Q�"
28- Jan -93
Deductions 1) 80% Dep. City Clerk + Dep. City Clerk Ben., plus $5,500 for elections
2) Special Legal Services
3) Capital, (8600) + FO @ 600 + FO Ben + Act. Tech @ 60% + Act Tech Ben.+Act. Clrk @ 600+ Act Clrk. Ben
4) Capital + CDBG Salary, 20,700 + 60% Recept.+ 60% Rec. Ben
5) 100% Assit. to the City Manager Position + Ben.
Item 4) Use Allowance- as of 6/30/92
Total
Deprec.
Use
1989/90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990/91
1991/92
Assets
Percentage
Allowance
Buildings and structures 850,146
66956
832924
1750026
0.02
35,001
Improve. other than Buildings 524,058
8816
436101
968975
0.07
67,828
Office Furniture And Equip. 254,630
116084
116794
487508
0.07
34,126
Other equipment 52,767
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58482
66255
177504
0.07
12,425
1,681,601
250,338
1,452,074
3,384,013
149,380
Allocation Total Employees
36
Department Employees
which use City
Hall
Less Code Enforcemnt
Related Employees
2.75
Percent (6.25/36)
8%
Use Allowance Attributable to Department
(8% * $149,380)
11,411
2 28- Jan -93
28-Jan -93
SUMMARIES
Item
1,
Direct Costs
144,216
Item
2,
Indirect Costs
80,497
Item
3,
General Overhead
ERR
Item
4,
Use Allowance
11,411
Adjustment from Prior Year
--------------------------------------------------
- - - - --
Total Costs
ERR
Divided by Total Hours
(2080 * 5 Positions) 5720
RATE ERR PER HOUR