Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1016 CC REG ITEM 10BTO: AGENDA REPORT CITY OF NOORPARK The honorable City Council ITEM ��• g• ~, FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Development, /'� DATE: September 30, 1996 (CC Meeting of October 2, 1996 ) / SUBJECT: Consider Issues and Staffing Levels Relating to Cod J Enforcement Program f1 BACKGROUND Councilmember Brown requested an agenda item regarding additional code enforcement staffing. This report provides an overview of issues and background related to Code Enforcement for Council consideration. As new Director of Community Development, I would prefer the opportunity to more fully review and evaluate the Code Enforcement program. However, if it is determined to add staffing there are several options Council may wish to consider. Attached is a report to the City Council dated August 28, 1992, (see attachment 1) outlining the Code Enforcement Work Program and on page two of that report the priority list for Code Enforcement Officers. These priorities may be summarized as follows: 1. Investigate complaints within one working day. 2. Investigate overcrowding 3. Investigate and abate substandard and dangerous buildings. 4. Coordinate with other public agencies. 5. Assist police in abatement of abandoned vehicles and illegally parked vehicles. 6. Investigate and abate illegal uses and signs. 7. Investigate and abate minor public nuisance violations. 8. Investigate Home Occupations and street vendors. C10FFICE \WPWINIWPDOCS \CCRPTS\CESTFPRG. W PD 000148 Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 2 9. Investigate Planned Development and Conditional Use Permit violations. In fiscal year 1994/95, subsequent to the 1992 report, the Code Enforcement staff was reduced from two officers, supported to a significant degree by a full -time secretary, to one officer supported by a part -time clerical aide. Prior to October, 1990, the City had operated with one Code Enforcement Officer. It is my understanding that after this reduction that Code Enforcement would become more reactive in nature, rather than proactive. That is, Code Enforcement would respond primarily to complaints or problems which came to their attention. There was much less opportunity for proactive patrol. In addition, Code Enforcement has also assumed additional responsibilities, such as issues related to mandatory refuse collection, Home Occupation Permits, and more stringent Sign Code enforcement. The priorities have remained the same as indicated in the 1992 report. Staff attempts to respond to complaints within one day. Due to vacations, heavy workloads (especially relating to court cases), other significant cases, and lack of clerical support staff (due a vacancy which has been difficult to fill), staff has at times fallen behind. In the last couple of months, some minor complaints had been delayed as much as two to three weeks. At present, staff generally initiates an investigation within one working day. However, actual notice of violation may still lag the initial investigation. Approximately seventy (70) percent of the Code Enforcement cases relate to overcrowding, Housing Code violations, and property maintenance violations. The Code Enforcement program has several significant issues at the present time. The most significant is how the City deals with persons who do not comply with staff's request for correction. As the Council knows, we have a number of cases where people have not complied with requests for correction. In the past the City has prosecuted misdemeanor criminal complaints against such persons. In some of the pending cases, this may not be very effective, as this relies primarily on correction of the violation as a condition of probation. In addition, this process can be fairly expensive in terms of City Attorney and court costs as well as staff time. The City Attorney has advised there may be limited ability to recover C:\ OFFICE \WPWIN \WPDOCS \CCRPTSWESTFPRG. WPD 00014 Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 3 costs in these situations. Some of the most significant of the currently pending cases involve substandard and unsafe buildings, for which abatement, or demolition, of the structures may be the most appropriate method. However, this also may be very expensive. Demolition and removal of material to the dump could be in excess of $10,000 per structure, not including administrative and staff time. Although, a lien may be placed against properties for these costs, unless the property changes hands it can take seven years for the City to acquire the authority to directly recover these costs. Most of the structures identified for potential abatement involve absentee landlords who are collecting rent from persons living in these structures. However, there is very little in the way of alternatives for housing for people living in these units, because of the relatively high cost of housing in the City. If these structures were ordered vacated and abated, the people living in them may have nowhere else to live, without assistance from social services agencies. Another significant category is property maintenance violations. One time abatement of these may provide a temporary solution, however, the problem often reoccurs. We have used prosecution in some of these cases, however, we have found the problems still reoccur and violation of probation may result in incarceration, but not correction of the violation. One recent case staff has dealt with was an organization which occupied a commercial structure and made interior modifications without ever obtaining zoning clearance, building permits or building occupancy. Responding to a citizen complaint, staff investigated and notified the organization and the building owner of the need for appropriate permits. The organization has indicated they intend to relocate rather than make the necessary corrections and obtain the proper permits. The building owner will have to bear the cost of correcting any violations. The difficult economic times in recent years have increased these types of violations and also made obtaining compliance much more difficult. A comprehensive program structured to address different types of violations, including voluntary compliance, infractions possibly using an administrative procedure similar to parking violation for lesser offenses, misdemeanor complaints for more serious offenses, and abatement for other violations would appear C:\ OFFICE \WPWIN\WPDOCS�CCRPTS\CESTFPRG. WPD 0(01' ;() Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 4 to be the most appropriate course of action. However, resolution of the long- standing and more serious violations may be very expensive in the short -term for the City. While abatement and perhaps administrative processes may offer cost recovery, this may take several years to recover these costs. In the meantime the City might need to budget an additional $40,000 - $70,000 annually to pursue physical abatement of these violations, plus staff costs. There are also social impacts associated with these courses of action. The foremost of these is displacing people from the residences in which they live. In addition, many of the violations, especially related to property maintenance and Housing Codes, involve persons who have a different standard of acceptable living than is generally acceptable in the community. This is particularly the situation with several of the pending cases involving elderly persons and persons who come from different cultures. One suggestion that has been discussed is changing the focus of the City's effort to concentrate only on those violations visible from outside the structure, specifically as it relates to residential uses. One concern with this approach is that the symptoms of the problem will simply be changed from one area to another, as we address the various symptoms, if the root cause of the problem is not addressed. We have also found in several instances, that the most severe property maintenance cases are also related to criminal activities, especially with drugs. Additional staff would provide assistance in more aggressively dealing with the symptoms of many of the violations in the City. However, it is recommended that this should be combined with a comprehensive review of the Code Enforcement Program priorities and the City's response to long- standing violations and persons who are unlikely to comply with City Codes whatever methods are followed. �011t "*IZN Council may wish to some of the following options in their considerations on this program: l: Restructure of the current program: A. Review and revise priorities, including types of C:\ OFFICE \WPWIN \WPDOCS\CCRPTS \CESCFPRG. WPD 000L�3 Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 5 violations (i.e. emphasis on exterior of structure and property visible to the public) B. Procedures, especially with respect to enforcement actions where voluntary compliance is not successful. C. Authority for pursuit of alternative actions where voluntary compliance is not successful. 2. Amount and type of additional staffing: A. Hire additional Code Enforcement Officer. This would entail annual costs of about $55,000 for salaries and benefits. It is also recommended that additional clerical support be provided for greatest effectiveness. Hiring a full -time Secretary to replace the existing part -time Administrative Aide would add another annual cost of $25,000. This would return Code Enforcement to approximately the previous staffing level at a total additional expenditure for this fiscal year of approximately $41,000 and about $83,000 for next fiscal year. This is exclusive of start -up costs for training, purchase of a vehicle (or reassignment of vehicle which originally was purchased for Code Enforcement and was transferred to the Housing Program), related equipment, uniforms, and supplies. B. Another option would be to replace the part -time clerical aide with a full -time secretary. This could allow the Code Enforcement Officer to spend a far greater amount of time in the field, rather than so much time in the office. A secretary could also provide assistance and back -up in the Planning Department. This could be accomplished for an expenditure of about $22,000 this fiscal year and about $32,000 next fiscal year. C. A part -time officer could be contracted through the Building and Safety Department. This would provide stronger emphasis on Housing Code and other Building Code issues. A part -time officer might cost about $46,000 annually, or about $32,000 this year. There would also be the issue of additional clerical support, which if contracted might add $24,000 annually or about $17,000 this fiscal year. These costs do not include any C;\ OFFICE \WPWIMWPDOCS \CCRPTS\CESTFPRG. WPD 0001 Code Enforcement October 2, 1996 Page 6 administrative costs, which could add another fifteen percent, or another $10,000 annually. This option could total $56,000 for this fiscal year and $78,000 for next fiscal year for a part -time officer and part -time clerical. If Council determines to proceed with any of these options they may wish to direct staff to proceed and attempt to find General Fund savings to fund the added costs, or fund from General Fund reserves and also commit to funding the positions for next fiscal year so that an adequate commitment could be made to either staff or a contract. There would be a training period and learning curve for any new staff, such that it would not be recommended for only a six month period. It is recommended that City Council schedule a Study Session to further discuss the Code Enforcement Program, priorities, processes and procedures. If this is Council's intent it would be helpful to provide direction as to issues to be further addressed. Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachment: Council Report dated August 28, 1992 C: \OFb'ICE\WPWIN \WP WCS \CCRPTS \CESTFPRG. W PD ()002,53 TO: FROM: DATE: ITEM 11. t . MOORPARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 '00PPARK, CALIFORNIA - Clty Cougdl Meettng of -, 1992 ACTIO M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council i William Phelps, Director of Community Development August 28, 1992 (CC Meeting of 9 -9 -92) SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT WORK PROGRAM Backound WP Staff is requesting City Council direction regarding the code enforcement work program and priorities. The City Council last considered code enforcement priorities at your meeting of November 21, 1990. At that meeting, the Council took action to receive and file a Code Enforcement Activity Report and to consider code enforcement priorities when the City addressed the issue of City goals and priorities. Subsequently, the City Council did adopt a Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 1991 -92 and has reviewed a draft Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 1992 -93 ((Council action was to table discussion on 1992 -93 goals and objectives - until after the State budget is adopted). Attached is an excerpt from the draft for Fiscal Year 1992 -93 which identifies code enforcement objectives. The Code Enforcement objectives listed constitute specific work tasks to be completed during the next year, and do not establish priorities for standard code enforcement responsibilities such as investigation work in response to complaints. Staff has, therefore, included in the Discussion section of this memorandum a draft list of priorities for consideration. For the Council's information, the Community Development Committee did discuss code enforcement priorities at a meeting on July 6, 1992. A memorandum addressed to the Code Enforcement Officers was subsequently prepared which outlined revisions to code enforcement procedures based on recommendations from the Committee (see attached memorandum dated August 5, 1992). The procedures listed in that memorandum were not ranked numerically in order of priority. dat- 08- 28- 92 111:57amC :\WP5I\CEO\M9 -9CC PAUL W LAWRASON JR. JOHN E. WOZNIAK Mayor Mayor Pro Tern SCOTT MONTGOMERY ©ERNARDO M.PEREZ Councilmember Councilmember 000IL54 ROY E. TALLEY JR. Councilmember Printed On Kerr o.4 D The Honorable City Council August 28, 1992 Page 2 Discussion The purpose of establishing code enforcement- priorities is to determine how the Code Enforcement Officers' efforts should be targeted. Obviously, some discretion is necessary to allow Code Enforcement Officers to move quickly to deal with dangerous situations to protect the public health and safety. Also, there is a need to accomplish day -to -day responsibilities including, but not limited to, the processing of Home Occupation Permits; Peddlers, Itinerant Merchants and Solicitors Licensing; updating the Bail Schedule; assisting in ordinance revisions; and developing policies and procedures. Following is a draft list of priorities. Priority List for Code Enforcement Officers: 1. Investiaate all complaints received. Goal should be to initiate investigation within one working day from the time the complaint is received. 2. Investi atelov re c'rowa7i�nra-- and related violations in residential areas of the City. Residential areas where there is a history of overcrowding related complaints, such as the downtown and other residential areas of the City where there is no controlling homeowners association, should receive the most attention. 3. Investigate and abate substandard and dangerous buildings with assistance from Building and Safety to obtain compliance in situations where there are substandard and dangerous buildings as determined by structural hazards, inadequate sanitation, faulty weather protection, and other unsafe housing conditions. 4. Coordinate enforcement efforts with other Public agencies to resolve unsafe and /or unsightly conditions such as hazardous materials storage or disposal violations, and improper solid waste disposal. 5. Assist City police in the investi ation and abatement of abandoned vehicles and illegally arked vehicles. Parking enforcement shall be targeted in residential areas surrounding Moorpark College at the beginning of each semester. Parking enforcement in commercial shopping areas will be, done only if complaints are received, violations are observed while investigating other complaints or permit violations, or if determined necessary by the Director of Community Development. dst- 08- 28- 92111 :57amC:\WP51 \CSO \N9 -9CC 00W.5 6 The Honorable City Counc-1 August 28, 1992 Page 3 Directed enforcement of parking concerns may be periodically performed by Code Enforcement Officers to supplement City Police efforts. 6.- Investigate and abate illegal uses and signs including abatement of illegal and unsafe signs in the public right -of- way should be targeted. 7. Investigate and abate minor public nuisance violations including but - not - limited to barking dogs and inadequate landsca a and p property maintenance.-_. 8. Investigate Home Occupation Boutique Sale, SmokincTOrdinance, Newsrack and Peddler Itinerant Merchants and Solicitors violations. 9. Investicrate Planned Develo merit and Conditional Use Permit violations. Goal should be to conduct periodic reviews with the focus on businesses where there is a history of violations. Recommendation Direct staff as deemed appropriate. Attachments: 1. Excerpt from Draft Mission Statement, Goals and .- Objectives for Fiscal Year 1992 -93 2. Memorandum to Code Enforcement Officers dated 8 -5 -92 - WP /DST dst- 08- 28- 92 1I1:57aW : \WP51 \C60 \M9 -9CC 0000 56