Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1996 1120 CC REG ITEM 10BAGENDA REPORT CITY OF MOORPARK TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Nelson Miller, Director of Community Developme t f OK 1- 4 . DATE: November 18, 1996 (City Council Meeting of November 20, 1996) SUBJECT: Consider Issues and Staffing Levels Relating to Code Enforcement Program On November 4, 1996 City Council conducted a Study session to consider Code Enforcement issues. At the meeting there appeared to be consensus from the Council to further consider addition of secretarial staff to the Community Development Department to assist the Code Enforcement program and provide more time for the Code Enforcement Officer to be in the field. There also appeared to be a desire to streamline the processes involved in Code Enforcement. City Council also indicated they wanted a schedule regarding implementation of these changes. The Community Development Department previously had a secretary position, in addition to the Administrative Secretary, who primarily assisted in Code Enforcement, and processing of Home Occupations and solicitor's permits, which have also been administered by Code Enforcement. This position had been recommended by the Organization and Management Study prepared for the City in 1990. The position was eliminated from the Community Development Department, at the time of budget cutbacks a couple of years ago. It is recommended that a secretary position be re- authorized for the Community Development Department to primarily assist in Code Enforcement. For six months, beginning January 1, 1997, it is estimated to cost $16,425 for salary and related costs for a secretary position. This, combined with streamlining of the procedures, would allow the Code Enforcement Officer to spend more time in the field and directly on violations. There appears to be three options for funding of additional staff for Code Enforcement: 1. Allocate funds from the Redevelopment Agency 2. Charge to the Community Development Fund 3. Allocate General Fund reserves for the additional costs C\ OFFICE \WP W[N\W PDOCS \CCRPTS\CESTFPRS. WPD Code Enforcement Program November 13, 1996 Page 2 As has been discussed elsewhere the Redevelopment Agency funds are already committed to various projects and on -going maintenance and operations costs and there are not expected to be funds available for other uses for three to four years, depending on the growth in assessed valuation of the properties in the Redevelopment Project Area. Code enforcement is currently charged to the Community Development Fund. However, as discussed in the Budget message for this fiscal year, the Community Development Fund balance has declined significantly in recent years and the intent for this fund is to be self - supporting. The Code Enforcement program typically has not generated revenues and therefore additional expenditures against this fund will adversely affect the intent for this fund to be self supporting. For this reason, code enforcement was previously a General Fund program. Additions to the program would seem to be most appropriately funded from the General Fund. The City Manager concurs with this, but is concerned with the potential impact on the General Fund with the passage of Proposition 218. Procedures City Council also discussed streamlining the processes and increasing the utilization of citations for violations of the Code, which are not corrected in a timely fashion. This specifically included: 1. Prioritization of complaints, with varied time frames depending on severity 2. Procedure for response to complainants, both upon receipt of complaint and upon resolution of complaint 3. Specified time frames for investigation and compliance 4. Modifications to methods and focus of investigations and notice to violators 5. More proactive actions, especially regarding certain violations readily visible, such as parking on lawns, accumulation and storage of materials and vehicles, and illegal uses 6. Authorization to the Code Enforcement Officer to issue citations, without further approvals, based upon specified criteria, such as certain violations or repeat violations. 7. Review of increased actions by other agencies The Code Enforcement Officer is currently on medical leave, recovering from surgery, and is not expected to return for another two to four weeks. Response to complaints and follow up on existing cases is presently being handled by the part-time clerical aide, who was recently hired, and contract Building and Safety staff on a temporary basis. We are already proceeding to informally implement some of these directions, however, also remaining cognizant of minimizing additional costs related to temporary use of contract staff. On return of the Code Enforcement Officer, staff can prepare formal policies, procedures, and an evaluation of the potential for cost recovery of certain actions for Council review after the first of the year. The program can also be more structured to provide more statistical information on types and numbers of complaints, cases, contacts or inspections, citations, and court actions; time accounting; attorney costs, and coordination with other agencies. This also involves consideration of trade -offs of the time spent relating to monitoring and reporting versus enforcement actions. C:\ OFFICE \WPWINIWPDOCS \CCRPTS \CESTFPR5. WPD Code Enforcement Program November 13, 1996 Page 3 In order to streamline the processes and place more emphasis on enforcement, as opposed to voluntary compliance, the following interim procedures can be implemented. The staff will work to develop formal procedures for future adoption. 1. Investigation, Notice, and Citation A. First Notice. At time of investigation of complaints, or noticing violations, effort will be made to contact violator and give them written Courtesy Notice of Violation, or leave a notice on the property. The Notice will also include a time specified by which to correct the violation, as indicated below:. 1) One day for minor temporary uses such as parking, temporary signs, or trash receptacles improperly stored. Violations which represent a serious health hazard, such as raw sewage, hazardous materials, unsecured pool, or unsafe structure would also be given one day. 2) One week for violations such as trash and debris, securing an abandoned structure, or uses without zoning clearance. 3) Two weeks for construction without permits or most other violations. B. Second Notice. After the period specified, a reinspection would be completed. If the violation was not corrected a second notice would either be given personally to the violator, or a copy would be mailed to the violator and the property owner, if different than the violator. The same period as specified for the first notice would be given to correct the violation. C. Citation. If upon a second reinspection the violation has still not been corrected, an infraction citation would be issued. This would be a substantial change in policy, as currently City Manager approval is required for all citations. This suggested policy would allow automatic citation for someone who has failed to comply after two notices. This would be like a parking ticket, which the violator can pay a fine and the infraction is cleared. It provides an incentive, but no guarantee that the violation would be corrected. 2. Citation for second offenses. If the same violation occurs at the same location within one year it is also suggested that the Code Enforcement Officer be automatically allowed to issue a citation. 3. Citation without notice. For violations of soliciting without a permit and advertising of vehicles for sale on the street or private property, other than the owner's property, it is suggested that violations be subject to immediate citation. 4. Misdemeanor prosecutions. These currently require City Council approval to initiate. It is suggested that City Council may wish to authorize these for persons who have already received two citation for the same offense within a year. Other prosecutions would continue to be authorized by the City Council. Several issues identified in the staff report for the November 4, 1996, Study Session were not specifically addressed, or any consensus reached by the Council. These include: 1. Should staff and the City Attorney investigate adoption of a process similar to the process C'.\ OFFICE IWPWIMWPDOCSICCRPTSICESTFPR5. WPD Code Enforcement Program November 13, 1996 Page 4 used for parking citations, which do not involve filing with the court system? (The City Attorney has indicted this now may be possible for Municipal Code violations. The process for these violations is entirely handled by the City. Any hearings are conducted by a Hearing Officer employed by the City. Consequently, all fines are retained by the City. This would provide one means of greater cost recovery. This contrasts with the current infraction process, in which most of the fines are retained by the County.) 2. Should use of a separate attorney for code enforcement be investigated? (This issue has previously been raised regarding possible benefits, including potentially lower rates, local offices, faster service, and attorneys who specialize in code enforcement issues, however, this might involve more attorney hours, and consequently greater overall cost, devoted to code enforcement.) 3. Can an expedited process be utilized for approval of initiation of misdemeanor actions? 4. Should abatement of public nuisances and dangerous structures be considered in lieu of prosecution of complaints? Some other issues for City Council consideration include: 1. Should business registration be required for all property owners who rent their properties to others, including single - family homes? (This is required by some other jurisdictions.) 2. Should an annual inspection program and fee be required for residential rental property? (Again, some jurisdictions require this, especially where many of the issues relate primarily to rental properties. Both of items 1 and 2 provide a source of funds to administer such expanded code enforcement activities.) 3. Priorities, processes, and types of violations should be further reviewed to ensure that Council desires to commit the necessary resources and follow - through to resolve cages where owners do not cooperate in resolution of violations? 4. What procedure or process should be utilized, prior to initiation of enforcement actions, to ensure that City Council desires to proceed with actions, when it may involve putting people out of their residences or businesses, or filing criminal or legal actions? 19 yC�Z1 1/ 11 ► 1 : 1 Adopt Resolution No. 96 _, authorizing a budget amendment approving an interfund transfer from General Fund Reserves to the Community Development Fund and appropriate $16,425 to personnel services categories for salaries and benefits. 2. Direct recruitment for a secretary position in the Community Development Department to assist in the Code Enforcement Program Direct staff as deemed appropriate regarding other processes, procedures, and issues. Attachment: Resolution C:\ OFFICE \WPWIMWPDOCS \CCRPTS \CESTFPR5 WPD