HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2017 Item 10, Codron Meeting Date: 3/7/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Anne Schneider, Chief Building Official
Teresa Purrington, Code Enforcement Supervisor
SUBJECT: PROCESS TO DEVELOP CODE ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES FOR
PROACTIVE AND COMPLAINT-BASED ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the status of Community Development Department code enforcement
activities in the City of San Luis Obispo and provide staff with direction on the development of
revised code enforcement priorities for the 2017-19 Financial Plan.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On February 16, 2017, the City Council provided staff with direction to stay further
implementation of the Rental Housing Inspection Program (RHIP). An Ordinance to repeal the
program is scheduled for introduction during the March 7, 2017, City Council meeting. The
RHIP was developed and implemented as a result of ongoing work on developing proactive code
enforcement activities in support of “Neighborhood Wellness” budget goals. This report provides
status updates on Community Development Department’s code enforcement activities and
recommends a process to revise priorities for CDD code enforcement activities should the RHIP
ordinance be repealed.
Specifically, staff is seeking Council direction on five key questions, as follows.
Council Direction Item #1: Does the City Council support the use of the “Consult” level of public
engagement to gain feedback from the public on revised code enforcement priorities and approaches to
achieving compliance with standards and regulations?
Council Direction Item #2: Are there specific code enforcement programs/approaches that the Council
would like staff to focus on or exclude during the effort to revise priorities, with the baseline being the
ideas presented at the February 16, 2017 workshop or that have otherwise emerged?
Council Direction Item #3: Does the City Council wish to evaluate modifying existing enforcement
tools to promote health and safety objectives, including changing the City’s cost recovery objectives for
code enforcement? Increased cost recovery associated with its code enforcement activities could be a way
of supporting current or additional proactive approaches, such as renter/property owner education efforts,
or to support program staffing.
Council Direction Item #4: Should mandatory fines be associated with violations rather than using
discretion to determine when to issue a citation and collect a fine?
10
Council Direction Item #5: The City’s experience with respect to the most common types of violations
will inform the priorities it proposes to the City Council in the future. Are there any types of violations
that the City Council does not consider a priority for enforcement?
DISCUSSION
Over the past fifteen years, the City of San Luis Obispo has engaged the community in an
ongoing conversation about neighborhood wellness and actions that the City can take to improve
the livability of neighborhoods. Attachment A includes an overview of the Major City Goals
adopted by the Council, including a listing of some of the key outcomes from those work efforts.
As the City considers how to recraft the Community Development Department’s code
enforcement program in the wake of the scheduled repeal of the RHIP, it is important to consider
the path the City has followed to get to this point.
The concept of proactive code enforcement has always been at the forefront of neighborhood
wellness discussions. The RHIP is a proactive inspection program. Its repeal sets a boundary for
what the community will find acceptable with respect to proactive inspections going forward
(e.g. no mandatory interior inspections). The City’s proactive code enforcement programs are
more encompassing than just building and planning violations and include ranger patrols, storm
water compliance and neighborhood services. The neighborhood services program is in the
Community Development Department which employs two specialists in the position of Code
Enforcement Technician 1 that patrol neighborhoods for compliance with the City’s property
maintenance standards. These standards address visible storage/trash in the yard, waste
containers left out, tall weeds, broken fences and yard parking. In the past, these were
community and council priorities to address neighborhood blight.
Going forward, staff is proposing a public engagement process to identify the best options for
proactive and complaint based code enforcement priorities, and is asking the Council to direct
staff to move forward with that process.
Public Engagement
In August, 2015 the City Council endorsed the “Public Engagement & Noticing Manual” which
guides staff when engaging the public on City projects or policy initiatives (Action Plan Matrix
and Outreach Tools - Attachment B). There are three levels of engagement outlined – inform,
consult, collaborate. Staff recommends a “Consult” level of public engagement on this topic.
This would mean that staff would meet with the community or special interest group members
over proposed changes/new initiatives as they are developed.
Following the workshop at the Vet’s Hall on February 16, the City Council identified a number
of suggestions presented by staff and the community that were of interest. Attachment C includes
the complete proposals from community members that were presented at the February 16, 2017
meeting. In summary, these ideas include:
10
1. Self-Certification or voluntary inspection program as part of business license
application/renewal.
2. Education program for landlords and tenant’s rights and responsibilities.
a. Annual mailer to all residents:
i. Rights and Responsibilities.
ii. Ensure protection from retaliation.
iii. Encourage submission of unresolved health and safety issues on included
checklist.
3. Amnesty program with reduced permitting cost to incentivize property owners to make
corrections.
4. Cal Poly & City form coalition to jointly address and potentially fund solutions.
5. Revamp complaint driven code enforcement process.
a. Shift staff from RHIP to address renter/neighbor complaints1.
b. Aggressively go after slumlords or properties with known issues.
c. Create 311 program like S.F. for complaints.
Attachment D includes a review of code enforcement programs managed by comparable cities,
including Paso Robles, Monterey, Santa Maria, and Santa Barbara. The Council may find this
information helpful as it considers alternatives for the City to consider going forward.
Over the next several weeks, staff will consider a variety of alternatives for how these or similar
programs could be implemented, including the cost of implementation and how those costs could
be addressed. With that information in hand, staff will consult with community members for the
purpose of developing a recommendation to the City Council that can be implemented during the
2017-19 Financial Plan.
Council Direction Item #1: Does the City Council support the use of the “Consult” level of public
engagement to gain feedback from the public on revised code enforcement priorities and approaches to
achieving compliance with standards and regulations?
Overall Approach to Code Enforcement
Currently, the City’s practice is to attempt to educate a property owner and/or tenant either
verbally or with a Courtesy Notice/Notice to Correct. Abating violations is code enforcement
staff’s priority and they are committed to helping the community when there are health and
safety issues. Staff carefully prioritizes violations and approaches each situation with an
understanding on the impact to the community and the needs and means of the property owner.
Code Enforcement Officers are trained and adept at the nuances of the enforcement to gain
compliance. They have the ability to identify the most critical health and safety issues to enable
property owners to prioritize steps to gaining compliance. In some cases, these corrections are
expensive, require professional assistance, and can result in financial impacts if bedrooms or
1 This would require the allocation of General Fund resources to supplant the loss of fees from the repeal of the
Rental Housing Inspection Program. Maintaining all of the staff currently funded with fees would require
approximately $414,874 per year.
10
whole units are eliminated to comply with City requirements. In the case of commercial
properties, similar situations occur with businesses siting in locations where the y are not allowed
under the Zoning Regulations, or when spaces are converted from one building code occupancy
class to another without the proper permits.
1. Property Maintenance/Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance (NEO) Violations
The City typically learns about violations in two ways, either complaints are received or
violations are discovered during routine patrols in neighborhoods. For properties where it is the
first time a violation is noted, staff attempts to make contact with the tenant/property owne r to
educate them about the Municipal Code violation and available remedies (e.g. trash cans are
required to be taken in from the curb within 24 hours of pick-up). If immediate contact cannot be
made, a Courtesy Notice is sent. For those properties where the violation is not corrected a
Notice to Correct is sent. Any person having a title interest in the property or a tenant may
request a Director’s review provided it is received 10 days from the date of the Notice.
If the violations are not corrected after the Notice to Correct, the Administrative Citation process
allows for citations to be issued every 10 days. The 1st citation would be $50, 2nd citation $100,
3rd and subsequent citations are $200 each.
City staff exercises discretion with respect to its decision to cite property owners for violations.
The decision to issue a citation often depends on the willingness of the property owner to
engage, recognize that the violation exists, and take steps towards correcting the problem. The
cost of these citations was established by the City Council to not be overly punitive, but to
motivate property owners and property managers to address identified problems quickly. In FY
2015-2016 2016 there were 720 cases opened for property maintenance/NEO violations, 241 of
those cases received citations totaling $40,800.
2. Building Code, Zoning Ordinance and all other violations of the Municipal Code
Traditional code enforcement is typically complaint driven, or reactive. Unpermitted
construction in progress may also be identified by various City staff, including building
inspectors in the field. If the violation is confirmed, a Notice of Violation is issued with a
timeline for correcting the violation of 30 days. These types of violations often require plans
and/or permits which can take time to prepare. Staff requests that the property owner/tenant
keep in contact every 30 days to ensure that progress is being made to address the violations.
If the property owner or tenant feel the Notice of Violation was issued in error, they may request
a Director’s review of the violation. If no effort is made to correct the violation at the end of the
30 days, the administrative citation process starts. The first administrative citation process allows
for citations to be issued every 30 days. The 1st citation would be $100, 2nd citation $200, 3rd
citation $500 and if still not corrected after 90 days, fines increase to $500 daily.
As with citations for NEO violations, staff exercises discretion with respect to its decisio n to cite
property owners for violations. Staff’s focus is on working with the property owner to make the
necessary corrections, and when property owners communicate with staff and actively work to
10
solve problems and correct violations, fines can be avoided. In FY 2015-2016 there were 306
cases opened for code enforcement violations, 30 cases received citations totaling $9,800.
3. Other Remedies
In addition to the administrative remedies discussed above, the City has other enforcement tools
in order to address more egregious health and safety violations. The City can file a civil lawsuit
in order to enjoin (stop) a particular use or action, to abate a nuisance, to appoint a receiver, to
enforce a settlement agreement, amongst other things. In addition, The City may also prosecute
such violations criminally either as a misdemeanor or an infraction. The California Health and
Safety Code and Building Code also provide additional enforcement tools such as the ability to
“red-tag” a structure when it is determined to be unsafe to occupy, and the ability to
administratively abate a nuisance. Again, these remedies are reserved for the more egregious
health and safety violations.
Council Direction Item #2: Are there specific code enforcement programs/approaches that the Council
would like staff to focus on or exclude during the effort to revise priorities, with the baseline being the
ideas presented at the February 16, 2017 workshop or that have otherwise emerged?
Staffing Resources and Cost Recovery
As the City Council considers a path forward, it should keep in mind the resources currently
allocated to code enforcement activities. The table below identifies the current staffing in the
program. The funding amount for staffing is General Fund $96,901, Local Revenue Measure
Funds $266,853 and Rental Housing Program Fees $414,874. However, when the Rental
Housing Program Fee is eliminated as a funding source, resources will need to be reduced, trade -
offs will need to be made, or cost recovery objectives for code enforcement will have to be
strengthened. The following chart outlines the staff positions dedicated to code enforcement in
Community Development:
Title # of
Positions
Funding
Source/Budget
Area of Responsibility
Code Enforcement
Supervisor
1 Rental Housing
Program Fees/
Supervises all aspects of Code
Enforcement
Code Enforcement Officer
I/II
2 1 General Fund
1 Local Revenue
Measure Funds
Building Code and Zoning
Ordinance compliance,
unpermitted construction
Code Enforcement
Technician II
2 Rental Housing
Program Fees
Rental Housing Inspections
Code Enforcement
Technician I (formerly
Neighborhood Services
Specialists)
2 (currently
one vacancy)
Local Revenue
Measure Funds
Neighborhood Enhancement
Ordinance (Municipal Code
Section 17.
Administrative Assistant 1 Rental Housing
Program Fees
Supports all Code Enforcement
Staff and activities
Currently, the Community Development Department budgets around $50,000 in revenue
annually for code enforcement activity outside of the RHIP, but has only actually col lected
10
$28,000 on average over the last five years. From July 2015 to June 2016 was the only year that
the department reached its budgeted revenue projection for code enforcement. If additional code
enforcement resources are needed to accomplish City Council and community priorities, then a
new fee/fine structure with higher fees that escalate through the code enforcement process more
quickly would likely be needed to offset the additional program costs.
Council Direction Item #3: Does the City Council wish to evaluate modifying existing enforcement
tools to promote health and safety objectives, including changing the City’s cost recovery objectives for
code enforcement? Increased cost recovery associated with its code enforcement activities could be a way
of supporting current or additional proactive approaches, such as renter/property owner education efforts,
or to support program staffing.
Council Direction Item #4: Should mandatory fines be associated with violations rather than using
discretion to determine when to issue a citation and collect a fine?
Current Code Enforcement Activity
As of February 1, 2017, there were 238 open code cases (186 are for violations related to
substandard housing, building, plumbing, electrical or similar structural or zoning issues, four are
from rental housing inspection and 48 are for property maintenance issues). Code Enforcement
Officers average 78 open code cases per month per person. Code Enforcement Technician I
average 24 open code cases per month per person.
The following chart shows the number of code enforcement cases opened and closed in the last
five years.
779
1136
695
865
1026
793
1113
704
788
1017
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Cases Opened/Closed By Year
Cases Opened Cases Closed
10
The following are a list of the most common types of violations code enforcement staff receives
complaints for:
Unpermitted Construction
Illegal Uses/Use Permit Violations
Property Maintenance/Safe Housing
Property Maintenance/Neighborhood Enhancement Ordinance
Noise Ordinance Violations
Sign Ordinance Violations
Business License Compliance (addressed when found in conjunction with another
violation)
Council Direction Item #5: The City’s experience with respect to the most common types of
violations will inform the priorities it proposes to the City Council in the future. Are there any
types of violations that the City Council does not consider a priority for enforcement?
Conclusion
The Council should consider the input it has received from residents, community stakeholders
and staff to provide direction regarding its particular interests in the areas of program scope and
cost, as well as the scope of public outreach. Any direction that the City Council is able to
provide at this time will assist staff in its efforts to meet the mark with future recommendations.
It is anticipated that staff will be return within 180 days with recommendations on this issue.
CONCURRENCES
The Police Department and Fire Department concur with the information and recommendations
presented in this report. Any recommendations brought forward will consider the City’s
obligation to meet and confer with the San Luis Obispo City Employees Association over
impacts on wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment that may arise as a
result of action on such recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact associated with new code enforcement priorities will be identified and
discussed as specific proposals and actions are contemplated and presented to the community,
and ultimately to the City Council for a decision. There is no fiscal impact associated with the
“Consult” public engagement process regarding code enforcement priorities because existing
staff resources and department budgets will be used to accomplish this phase of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do nothing. The City Council could direct staff not to update code enforcement
priorities. This action is not recommended because the conditions that precipitated the
decision to implement a Rental Housing Inspection Program still exist. Healthy and safe
housing is an important resource for any community, but particularly one where housing
supply is restricted. Renters of substandard units often have few alternatives for
10
replacement housing when they find themselves in an unsafe circumstance. If the City
Council followed this alternative, code enforcement activities (other than Neighborhood
Services) would revert back to a complaint-based system and staff would use the
priorities last adopted by the City Council to guide enforcement activities.
2. Don’t expand public engagement. The City Council could direct staff not to “Consult”
with the community and simply return to the City Council with a recommendation for
updated priorities going forward. This alternative is not recommended because the
process for developing and recommending new priorities will likely identify issues that
could be resolved before a recommendation is provided to the City Council, which would
ultimately facilitate implementation of a sustainable program.
Attachments:
a - Overview of Major City Goals regarding Code Enforcement Priorities
b - Action Plan Matrix and Outreach Tools
c - Proposals from Special Meeting
d - Review of Other Cities Code Enforcement
10
Previous Policy Direction on Code Enforcement Priorities
The following outlines the previous policy direction staff has received on the code enforcement
program and priorities. Since the City’s first Code Enforcement Officer was hired in
FY 2003-2005 – Major City Goal
Improve the neighborhoods and neighborhood involvement by continuing to implement the
neighborhood wellness program, including consideration of a rental inspection ordinance.
• Key Outcomes Associated with this Goal:
o A contract Building Inspector position was funded to support high demand for
construction inspections, which allowed a full-time Code Enforcement Officer (who
was also a building inspector) to stay focused on code enforcement activities.
o Staff was directed to evaluate a cost recovery program for code enforcement efforts as
a strategy to reduce and deter repeat offenders while generating increased revenues,
and present findings and recommendation to the City Council.
The objective was to recover “unreasonable” costs incurred by the City in
responding to code violations reported to or discovered by staff, including
management of the code enforcement cases and efforts leading to correction of
violations.
Council Actions in support of the Goal:
o Council adopted a resolution establishing a code enforcement fee in the amount of $264
and directed staff to collect an additional investigation fee equal to double the
construction permit fee for those properties which require two written notices to correct
a code violation. (Staff report from April 20, 2004 is available in the Council Reading
File.)
FY 2005 – 2007 – Other Council Objectives
Continue neighborhood services programs and move forward with Neighborhood
Wellness/Community Participation Plan.
• Key Outcomes Associated with this Goal:
o Existing staff continue to work with Neighborhood Services Team in the Police
Department in collaboration with neighborhood groups and the Student Community
Liaison Committee.
FY 2007 – 2009 – Major City Goal
Increase building and zoning code enforcement to promote neighborhood wellness and community
appearance.
• Key Outcomes Associated with this Goal:
o Added a full-time regular Code Enforcement Officer funded by the local revenue
measure.
o Expanded existing 0.5 FTE Permit Technician to 0.75 to provide needed administrative
and clerical support for the expanded code enforcement program.
• The following Code Enforcement priorities were developed in collaboration with
neighborhood groups and the Student Community Liaison Committee and established as
part of the Council-approved Neighborhood Wellness Work Plan:
o Illegal Conversions
o Property Maintenance Standards (Neighborhood Preservation)
10
Attachment 1 – Code Enforcement Priorities
Page 2
o Working Without a Permit
o High Occupancy Residential Use Permits
o Sign Violations
o Tall Fences or Hedges (Safety Violations, e.g. visibility at driveways and intersections)
FY 2011 – 2013 – Major City Goal
Embrace and implement pro-active code enforcement and Neighborhood Wellness Policies.
• Key Outcomes Associated with this Goal:
o Shifted responsibility for enforcement of all neighborhood code violation to the
Community Development Department, including enforcement of the Neighborhood
Enhancement Ordinance which was previously conducted by Police Department SNAP
employees.
o Two new Neighborhood Services Specialist positions added to augment enforcement
of code and parking violations in the neighborhoods, including proactive enforcement
of:
Illegal conversions of non-habitable space to living areas
Fence height violations
Unpermitted fraternities and sororities and “satellite housing”
Improper trash can placement
Debris or furniture in front yards, on roofs, or in public areas
Overgrown shrubs or yards
Neighborhood parking, including front yard parking violations
Other violations as defined in the neighborhood enhancement ordinance
Council Actions in support of the Goal
o Council adopted a Resolution amending the Administrative Citation Guidelines to
implement proactive code enforcement, reduced fines for NEO violations, and adopted
an Ordinance to amend Municipal Code Section 1.24 – Administrative Citations.
o The new administrative citation procedures:
Clarify and changed noticing requirements for visible storage and maintenance,
front yard paving, furniture on roofs and broken and dilapidated fences.
Reduced the timeline from 30 to 10 days or a reasonable amount of time necessary
to abate NEO violation and 30 days for Building Code or complex Zoning Code
violations.
Implement a right to review/appeal process of the interpretation of the code.
FY 2013 – 2015 – Major City Goal
Continue and enhance neighborhood wellness initiatives – continue to support proactive code
enforcement, pursue a residential rental inspection program; improve street cleanliness; increase
public safety enforcement, and support neighborhood-led initiatives.
• Key Outcomes Associated with this Goal:
o Code enforcement activities continued based on priorities previously established by the
Council.
o Implemented a lien process to recover uncollected fines and incurred costs.
o Researched and conducted public outreach to develop a program outline and draft
ordinance for Rental Housing Inspection Program.
10
Attachment 1 – Code Enforcement Priorities
Page 3
FY 2015 – 2017 – Other Important City Objectives
Neighborhood Wellness – Improve neighborhood wellness, work with residents, Cuesta, and Cal
Poly; increase public safety, code compliance, and collaborative solutions.
• The Administrative Citation Guidelines and Administrative Citations Ordinance were
amended to align City policy with proactive enforcement of the Neighborhood
Enhancement Ordinance.
Council Actions in support of the Goal
Adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapters 1.20, 1.24 and 15.02 and adding new
Chapter 2.30 to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to streamline the administrative
citation appeals process and create the Administrative Review Board.
• Implement the Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance.
Council Actions in support of the Goal
Adoption of an Ordinance creating the Rental Housing Inspection Program.
10
The toolkit is organized into three sections. Follow the three steps below to develop your
engagement plan.
1. Action Plan Matrix
Use this section to identify the level of complexity and communication objective of your
item. Once you’ve identified your communication objective, review the corresponding
Outreach Tools.
2. Outreach Tools
This section notes various elements that can be of use to you in communicating with the
public (city website posting, e-notification, Open City Hall, community meetings, etc.)
Each element is described in the glossary, and hyperlinked tools have corresponding
templates, checklists and instruction on best practices for outreach events.
3. Audience
Move to page 8 to determine your target audience(s). How significantly will this item
affect people, and with that in mind, who should be notified and possibly involved?
Consider if your item affects the entire city, or use the lists provided to review specific
neighborhoods and/or certain special interest groups that may be affected. Determine
whether media should be notified.
The toolkit only works when you add your judgment to the process. Nothing is simply
black and white when it comes to outreach and engagement. It’s all about communication.
Communicate with your colleagues; communicate with stakeholders (they can often be the
best help) and work from a plan that may need adjusting as time goes on.
HOW TO USE THE TOOLKIT
4
10
INFORM CONSULT COLLABORATE
• One way communication –
outreach to citizens.
• Provide public with
balanced and objective
project/issue information to
increase awareness and/or
understanding of problems,
alternatives and solutions.
• Get ideas on finite number
of options / limited time
discussion.
• Take public feedback on
project or other issue
proposal.
• Interactive process
that incorporates
recommendations as much
as possible.
• Partner with the public to
develop alternatives and
identify preferred solutions.
• May be open ended.
STAFF LEVEL
Normal procedures,
existing program,
services delivery
DEPARTMENT HEADS,
CITY MANAGER
New program, expansion
of existing program
ADVISORY BODIES
(i.e., land use issues,
development projects)
CITY COUNCIL
New laws, major plans,
significant issues (i.e.
drought strategy)
Yes Maybe Not Required
1
1
2
3
4DECISIONMAKING: LEVEL OF COMPLEXITYCOMMUNICATION OBJECTIVE
Follow the steps below to find your outreach tool plan.
Cross tab the level of complexity with communication objective
ACTION PLAN MATRIX
5
10
INFORM
CONSULT
COLLABORATE
EXPECTATION ADDITIONAL
Official notice (if legally required)
• Legal ad in newspaper
• Postcards to neighboring owners/tenants
• On-site signage
E-notification (including affected neighbors)
Website posting
Applicable advisory bodies
Key contacts, liaisons
Social media (if applicable and available)
Utilities billing insert – flyer
Community Calendar
Signage
Paid media (newspaper, radio, TV, social media,
digital, outdoor/transit)
Informational materials (should also be available
digitally on website, e.g. flyer, fact sheet, PowerPoint,
postcard, door hanger, banner, poster)
City website posting
Awareness Walk
Press release/Media notification
Neighborhood meetings
EXPECTATION ADDITIONAL
All of the “Inform” expectations listed above
Hearing (if legally required)
Social media (if applicable and available)
Utilities billing insert – survey
Mailed survey
Telephone survey
Study session
Focus group
Special events with opportunities for interaction
Awareness walk
Open City Hall (web based)
Neighborhood meetings
EXPECTATION ADDITONAL
All of the “Inform” and “Consult” expectations listed above
Open City Hall (web based)
Community Outreach Event (workshop, open house,
neighborhood meeting, etc.)
Utilities billing insert – survey
Mailed survey
Telephone survey
Study session
Focus group
Special events with opportunities for interaction
Awareness walk
Committee formation
Refer to glossary for tools descriptions
*Bold indicates detailed descriptions available on page 11.
OUTREACH TOOLS
6
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Other Cities Code Enforcement Paso Robles Palm SpringsSanta CruzSanta MariaSanta Barbara -ZoningMontereyHow many code enforcement staff do you have?1 full-time and 1 part-time Community Service Officer4 officers, 1 secretary (overseen by building and safety supervisor, who also oversees plan checkers)2 full time Code Compliance Officers, 2 full time City Rental Inspection, 1 part time planner, 1 part time code compliance officer, 1 supervisor4 full-time officers AND 1 1/2 support staff, 1 Superviser , 1 Provisional Officer (PD) that is paid out of Code Compliance.2 Enforcement Programs, Zoning Enforcement: 3 full time, 3 half time, 1 supervisor.1 CCC, part time contract (for short term rentals, 2xweek). Building Division has Building Techs share). How is code enforcement funded?Police budget General Fund General Fund, cdbg money for blighted areas, code enforcement fund from fee collection.General Fund &, 1 position funded through Utilities (stormwater related code compliance)General Fund, for issues is vacation rentals, some officers dedicated full time vacation rentals ( full cost recovery with fees). General Fund, 1 Shrinking fund: community dev block grant, not citation intensive, administrative orders (appealable).How were your code enforcement priorities established? (Who was involved in establishment?)Complaint driven, and see things and initiate, calls for service, burglary reports, parking. Safety first. Aesthetics last. Children, community, animal safety first. Parking last."Threw darts at the wall," compliant basis. Sign enforcement big. Vacant buildings was big bc fire, but not anymore.Develop priorities in house, After Ghost Ship Fire, changed a lot. Re-prioritized. Our main challenge is illegal units, and life safety issues, followed by substandard & dilapidated housing, then nss stuff.Been around for a long time, tend to prioritize health, life and safety calls (ref from building). Do some proactive, but largely complaint driver. Range from failure to renew BL, unpermitted constructions, stormewater runoff, and nss issues)mainly complaint based, Z number z01-z26 categories of what we consider to be priorities. When complaint comes in we categorize. Examples include" ZO1 = immediate override, immediate life safety, Z02=prohibited signs, ZO10=stuff in setbacks Established in house with Council Considerations. Appearance importantprimarily complaint driven with exceptions to health, life safety.= issues. 6 Priorities established 16 years ago (under City Attorneys office), by city council. 1) Public Health and safety 2) Public Nusance, blight, graffiti 3) Public Resources protection (parks, rights of way, streets) 4) Development regs (zoning/planning). 5) commercial Reg (signs, BL) 6) everything else. Do you do public outreach or education regarding code enforcement priorities? If yes what types?Public events in park, national night out, field day, AG cross agencies events, senior housing speaking events, taught classes (CSI and some community services)No ("code enforcement volunteers" plenty of citizens report) Does take anonymous complaints.Santa Cruz is weird, politics are weird and funky, in last 12 years, many neighborhood group associations have been created like "Santa Cruz Neighbors". Community members who are fed up with homelessnes, drug use. (20 different Neighborhood associations, present and do proactive education at 2 annual get togethers). In 2 target areas (beach flats and lower ocean) where lots of substandard housing. We do 2 neighborhood cleanups a year. Hand out flyers, connect with neighborhood leaders. Work with Univerity, housing fair booth,Opportunity for ed. Housing Forum sponsored by UCSC.Walk and talks (Once a month CEO go out with police service techs, choose neighborhood and pass out flyers, issue PSA, until recently ran spanish radio ads. Officers invited to speak at Realtor meetings, Community watch meetings, HOA meetings. Staff table at Farmers market and job fairs throughout the year.Handouts and Online presence. No public meetings, no workshops. They have enough complaints coming in as is. Liason duties with neighboorhood organizations, NIP improvement take hotel tax tot and disperse to neighborhood groups. Guest appearances, PM, Real Estate, special hearings, planning or council meeting appearances, court appearances. What matrix do you use to measure performance?No stats, starting though. Super reviews calls for service or case load.supervisor follows up if cases are open w/o actions Case management software CRW with itrackit. Get metrix, how many cases completed, broken down by case turnaround, and by violation.cant say we have objective performance. Results oriented, each case is different and each residents ability to comply is different, remain resident friendly. Work to solve rather than enforce deadlines. When we get a case, a program called Tidemark keep tracks of every action on every case. Initial action on case first or "action taken", 2nd actions, sending out letter…track time, keep reports of how long. Also keeps track of number of cases closed. whatever the bosses want, the supervisor de jour, number of cases, number of case completed in time frame, priority following from Council. Results in compliance, "solve problems and not rock the boat"Do you collaborate with other departments on enforcement?Atascadero assist, network. Building and planning, health depart, Was under fire, now under building. Better bc talk to planners or builders. (do not animals) Usually planning contacts code. Engineering has own inspectors and sometimes asks for collab. Used to also collab w business license enforce, but now contract out. Great collab w police.All the time, work real closely with Building and PD, Fire. Public Works, Rental Housing, City Attorney.Al lot with Building for unpermitted, fire prevention bureau (fire in home), SM PD on abandoned props, drug abatement act cases, Park Rangers (problematic neighborhoods and props) Utilities 9significant dumping on public prop, Business License (went through old list of about 600 BL that had not been renewed, worked with list to update statistics. Public Works for right of way, Building and Safety for Building Items, illegal dwelling unit or plumbing issues, substandard housing issues, Go with Planning PD and Fire on joint inspections as well. (hoarders for example) Collaboration with PD, Building best. City Attorneys Office, Planning for zoning Regs, County Health Offices, APS, CPS, Harbor Security. Sustainabiolity coodinator (waste coordinator) 10
Other Cities Code Enforcement How many code enforcement staff do you have?How is code enforcement funded?How were your code enforcement priorities established? (Who was involved in establishment?)Do you do public outreach or education regarding code enforcement priorities? If yes what types?What matrix do you use to measure performance?Do you collaborate with other departments on enforcement?Chico GilroyVenturaGoletaSonomaPomona3 officers, 1 admin 2 full time officers, 2 part time officers (1/2 time or less). 1 part time clerical staff1 Supervisor 3 Code Enforcement Officers 1 Contract Code Officer 1 Code Technician 1 half time Admin 2. 1 permanent (recent), 1 contract through Willdan. Parking and code were combo previously. County took parking now. Was under neighborhood, now planningDirector and one officer. (Director happens to be City Prosecutor)1 Manager, 9 inspectors, 1 clerical60% through general fund, 40% through fed funding. CDBG funding. Some small charged to abandoned vehicle abatement.. predominantly funded through general fund. Fuding for half an officer came through their environmental program for trash collection.General Fund and Admin Citations General fund (he thinks). No good policy for admin cites and NOVs. New management.general fund and separate fund for admin notice and orders, new as of april 2015Moved from PD to Com Dev 2 years ago General fund and CDBG (grant money)It has evolved over time. Building code violations, illicit discharge violations, substandard housing take precedence. Prioritized on an individual basis. Life safety issues, work it's way down. Not aware of any official ranking of priorities. Annual update to City Council to confirm priorities. don't know. Council didn't want code to be aggressive. City Council, areas such as vacation rentals, leaf blowers espec. Gas blowers Challenged and to referendum to approve electric leaf blowers. Central plaza has farmers market great attention given to that. Rest is call in compliants, trash bins, tents.New manager as of Dec. Mostly city council, manager is given free reign to run it how he sees fit.Used to do more, had community cleanup events annualy. Still hold a "drop and dash" event on campus, where students recycle items they are not taking when they move out. No public outreach other than city website. Ability to place complaints through City website. Attend one Community Council Meeting quarterly to update them on what is happening in their area. Informational brochures.No. (Not yet, waiting for new planning director.) Education spurred from complaint based, NO proactive.Leaf blowers reached out to landscape businesses flyers. And somethingYes. Attend community meetings, civic groups, crime prevention, nothing on campus since Dec, probably not prior.No established KPI's. Not sure how performance is measured. Currently working to develop one. Currently based on the number of cases opened or closed by quareter. Number of code cases opened/closed per year. Number of days to initial contact.No stats, no tracking system. Paper. Un expected matrix is keeping track of funds recovered, fines penalties licenses. Made 100,000 dollars since april. City Council said new laws need new staff.Not done making one, will track stats esp. response time.Yes. Collaboration with fire, building, public works. Almost always. They collaborate with building, public works, traffic, police, etc. Code Enforcement handles all violations of the municipal code. City only incorp since 2002. Other departments reach out if they need enforcement.Other departments did not want to do indepth enforcement. Great working relationship will all departments. Located in police building.As much as can. Inland empirce code group, presentation by law firm on new weed laws and sign stuff, by CACEO10