Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2018 Item2 - Staff Report Administrative Review Board Agenda Report Meeting Date: 11/5/2018 Item Number: 2 DATE: November 4, 2018 FROM: Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Prepared By: Kelly White, Legal Assistant/Paralegal SUBJECT: 2019-21 Financial Plan Major City Goals RECOMMENDATION To review the Final Draft of the 2019-21 Financial Plan Proposed Major City Goals of the Administrative Review Board and finalize that document before forwarding to the Finance Department for presentation to the City Council DISCUSSION Background Every two years, as part of the creation of a new Financial Plan for the City, Advisory Bodies are asked to propose Major City Goals to the City Council. At the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) Meeting on September 11, 2018, the ARB met and discussed what its proposal should include. At the end of that meeting, direction was given to staff to finalize the goals for its proposal and also to collect data in support of those goals, to be presented to the ARB for final review. That Final Draft is attached to this report. Goals What follows are the goals and narratives listed in the attached Final Draft, annotated with further explanation or data, when it was available. For some goals the narrative was the complete explanation for why it is being proposed, so no additional information is provided. 1. Consistency in enforcement of existing municipal code by citing officers; consistent interpretation of existing municipal code by hearing officers when reviewing citations that are appealed; and raising fines for administrative citations. The goal of more consistent enforcement and adherence to the municipal code by citing officers and hearing officers would be to increase education of the public as to what the requirements of City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle the municipal code are and to reinforce that the City’s commitment to consistent enforcement and review when it comes to violations of the municipal code related to neighborhood wellness. With the ongoing, excellent efforts of Police Department, Office of Neighborhood Outreach, the suggestion is for citing officers and hearing officers to support that outreach through increased attention to consistency in enforcement and administrative appeals review. The ARB also suggests review of the level of administrative citation penalties. 2. Increase the cost to appeal to the Administrative Review Board and establish a fee to appeal to a Hearing Officer. Increasing the cost to appeal to the Administrative Review Board so the amount more closely covers the administrative cost of processing the appeal, with the goal of removing more of the financial burden on the City. Currently, the fee to appeal an administrative citation to the ARB is $281. Appeals heard by the ARB follow the steps in the chart below, with costs for each step approximated next to it in the table. The estimated, approximate cost to process an appeal submitted to the ARB is $222 - $661 1. Processing Steps Done by Approx. Time Approx. Cost ($) Appeal received by Clerk’s Office, logged and scanned to file Deputy City Clerk or Admin Assistant 5 min 2 Appeal file established, data collected from appeal and reviewed by City Attorney’s Office staff, with appeal then being either: 1. Rejected as late or in some way invalid 2. Returned to appellant as incomplete with the possibility to correct 3. Routed to City staff in the citing department for collection of the administrative record Legal Assistant 5-30 min** 2 - 11 1 The low-end approximations are based on the Step 1 rate to pay the City staff member with the lowest rate overall of those who perform the task. The high-end approximations are based on the Step 1 rate to pay the City staff member with the highest rate overall of those who perform the task. Most staff work at rates higher than Step 1. Applying the actual rates of each staff member, as well as weighting their rate with the benefits they receive, would push both ends of the scale higher. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Administrative record collected by staff in the appropriate department and saved to the appeal file Various* 15–30 min** 5 - 15 Legal Assistant coordinates with ARB members to confirm a hearing date; issues a formal Notice of Hearing to the appellant Legal Assistant 15-30 min** 5 - 11 Staff in the appropriate department draft a report for inclusion in the ARB agenda Various* 30–60 min ** 12 - 36 Counsel to the ARB drafts two resolutions; one in support of granting the appeal and one denying it Attorney 30–60 min ** 100 - 200 Legal Assistant prepares and posts the agenda Legal Assistant 15–30 min 5 - 11 Hearing held. Attended by: • Three ARB members (volunteers) • Counsel to the ARB (Attorney) • Staff Liaison to the ARB (Legal Assistant/Paralegal) • City staff member presenting their report • Recording Secretary (City Clerk or Legal Assistant/Paralegal) Various 15-60 min 0 50 – 200 7 – 27 6 – 36 n/a or 11 - 43 Decision voted on by ARB members at hearing and resolution finalized by Legal Assistant for signature of the ARB Chair. ARB Chair Legal Assistant 15-30 min 0 5 - 11 Notice of Decision issued Legal Assistant 15-30 min 5 - 11 Minutes drafted Recording Secretary 30-45 min 13 -33 Records maintained for possible further appeal and, later, proper destruction Legal Assistant 15 min 5 Additional questions from appellants will arrive throughout the process, usually by phone call Various 0-15 min*** 0 - 9 * Which City staff member issued the administrative citation determines which department/division holds the documents that make up the administrative record. ** Variances mostly are due to the complexity of the appeal, but can also be caused by errors, either in the appeal or in the administrative citation process *** While some appellants never contact any City staff, others call frequently City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle Chart Color Meaning City Staff Hourly Rates Used* Identical step required for appeals heard by a Hearing Officer ARB Members (volunteers) Deputy City Clerk Admin Assistant 0.00 23.45 20.08 Similar step involving less people or formality required for appeals heard by a Hearing Officer Legal Assistant Attorney Legal Assistant/Paralegal City Clerk 21.76 200.00 26.89 43.35 Various: Supervising Accounting Assistant Accounting Assistant II Code Enforcement Technician I Code Enforcement Officer I Code Enforcement Supervisor Neighborhood Outreach Manager S.N.A.P. - Student Neighborhood Assistance Program 25.36 21.14 22.26 29.64 35.66 35.66 12.55 *Does not include benefits In line with that increase, the ARB suggests requiring the fines for administrative citations appealed for Hearing Officer review to be paid up front and held until the Hearing Officer issues a decision to prevent the filing of appeals solely for the purpose of delaying payment of penalties and resulting “no show” appellants and unnecessary burdens on volunteer Hhearing Oofficer time. Review of an appeal by a Hearing Officer is currently free. If the appeal was granted, the fine would be returned to the appellant. As indicated in the chart for processing appeals to the ARB, most steps are also required to process appeals to a Hearing Officer. While the Hearing Officer process may be less complex and require coordinating less people, the City receives far more appeals for Hearing Officer review than for ARB review. • Of the 173 appeals received in 2017, none were heard by the ARB. • So far in 2018, of the 119 appeals received, 2 have been heard by the ARB. By collecting the fine upfront, instead of charging a processing fee for Hearing Officer review, the City can (1) hopefully reduce the number of appeals filed to delay payment, (2) reduce volunteer Hearing Officer and paid City staff time spent processing such appeals, and (3) increase collection of fines for administrative citations issued. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 2017 Administrative Citation Information Only administrative citations issued by Police Officers and Community Development/Code Enforcement staff (those issued by Finance can be included in future reporting). Police Department Number of First Citations Issued ($350) 262 Number of Second Citations Issued ($700) 48 Number of Third Citations Issued ($1000) 3 2017 Dollar Value of All Admin Citations Issued by the Police Department Paid by those Citied Balance Sent to Collections $128,300.00 $87,125.00 $41,175.00 Community Development/Code Enforcement (dollar amounts not included, but can be in future reporting) Total First Second Third Fourth Number of Code Enforcement Issued Citations 144 70 33 22 19 Number of Neighborhood Wellness Issued Citations 175 95 33 21 26 Indigent appellants may submit a financial hardship waiver request through which an appellant could be heard by the Administrative Review Board or a Hearing Officer without having to pay a fee. The availability of a hardship waiver is common in City appeal processes and the one envisioned here would be similar to that used in the parking citation review process. It would keep the administrative citation appeal process open to all, while discouraging those who would manipulate the process from doing so. 3. Enforce the requirement of individual rideshare operators (such as driver-contractors for Uber and Lyft) to have a business license issued by the City. It was confirmed with our Finance Department that other cities, such as San Francisco, have a process by which they receive a list of driver-contractors operating in their jurisdiction in order to enforce the cities’ requirement that each driver-contractor have a business license. The list is provided to the cities by the parent corporation and then utilized by the cities to enforce the code. City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle The goal of this effort would be to increase safety of users by having, at minimum, a list of driver- contractors operating in the City and making the driver-contractors aware that they are on such a list and subject to business license requirements. While the Finance Department is aware of the process followed in other cities, they were unable to gain the cooperation of those in other cities, or the rideshare corporations, required to implement the process here. The idea would be to return to those contacts outside the City and with greater force push for the sharing of information. 4. Expand education of homeowners regarding their obligation to have a business license if they are renting a room, Accessory Dwelling Unit or home, as a step towards stricter enforcement. It is the belief of the Administrative Review Board that a majority of homeowners within the City are unaware that they are required to have a business license in order to rent rooms in their home, or to rent Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) or homes that they own. There have been recent educational efforts around ADUs, but the global applicability of the business license may not be well understood. Also, enhance education regarding the differences in requirements between long-term and homestay (short-term) rentals. The goal of greater education would be greater compliance, with the follow-up being increased citations for non-compliance. Attachments 1. Final Draft of the 2019-21 Financial Plan Proposed Major City Goals of the Administrative Review Board