Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-06 - AGENDA REPORTS - CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT (2)TO: FROM: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor Hamilton "Clyde" Smyth an( George A. Caravalho, City Manage! DATE: May 6, 1997 it SUBJECT: CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS: REQUEST FOR POLICY DIRECTION During the previous six (6) months, staff has provided the City Council with an overview of Santa Clarita's Code Enforcement Section. On two occasions staff has discussed with the City Council the primary and secondary services provided by this Section, the City's present policy by which Code Enforcement Officers respond to formal complaints on a reactive basis, and the process and potential personnel costs that would be associated with the introduction of "Proactive Code Enforcement." (The above information is contained in the October 1, 1996, Code Enforcement Study Session Report, and the March 11, 1997, City Council Code Enforcement Follow-up Report. Both items are available in the City Clerk's Reading File). Based upon the City Council's desire for a more proactive Code Enforcement Program, at the March 11, 1997 regular meeting of the City Council, staff was requested to: ■ Differentiate between services provided by the Sheriff's Department and the Code Enforcement Section; ■ Develop a proposed "Proactive Enforcement Program" to complement existing Code Enforcement functions; ■ Examine the possibility of budgeting more overtime for the Code Enforcement Section, in lieu of hiring additional staff to administer a Proactive Enforcement Program; and ■ Explore the option of providing weekend services as part of a Proactive Code Enforcement Program. Finally, in previous discussions regarding opportunities to provide for Proactive Code Enforcement services, the City Council has requested that staff investigate ways to address the following issues: Substandard Properties Illegal Signs Illegal Construction For the purposes of this report staff would like to: 1) differentiate between the services provided by Sheriff's Deputies and the Code Enforcement Section; 2) describe the present workload currently being undertaken by the Code Enforcement Section; 3) define "Proactive Code Enforcement" and discuss its potential applications; and 4) provide the City Council with a recommended course of action. At the March 11, 1997 meeting, there were some questions regarding the types of services provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, and the City's Code Enforcement Section. Staff was asked to describe: 1) the specific services that are provided by Sheriff's Deputies; 2) the specific services that are provided by the City's Code Enforcement Officers; and 3) the areas in which these services overlap. Overall, the Sheriff's Department is responsible for the enforcement of all municipal, state and federal laws within the incorporated City limits that relate to criminal activity and traffic enforcement. Conversely, the Code Enforcement Section oversees matters relating to the public safety and welfare, and maintains the responsibility for enforcing most City legislation. Areas of enforcement include: 1) the Santa Clarita Municipal Code; 2) the Unified Development Code (UDC); and 3) the Uniform Building Code. Additionally, the Code Enforcement Section. utilizes limited chapters of the Los Angeles County Code and the Califomia Vehicle Code during the course of its regular activities. There are specific sections of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code that the Sheriffs enforce on their own, or in conjunction with the City's Code Enforcement Section. It is important to note that Sheriff's Deputies will generally enforce those specific provisions of the City's Municipal Code that have been requested by the City Council and City Manager. At.this time, the Sheriff's Department is solely responsible for the enforcement of the City's Anti -Solicitation, Truancy, and Curfew Ordinances. In all instances, enforcement of these City adopted ordinances falls directly upon Sheriffs Deputies working within the incorporated portion of Santa Clarity In addition to exclusive enforcement of these ordinances, both Sheriff's Deputies and Code Enforcement Officers provide overlapping service in the enforcement of the "Public Peace and Welfare" (Graffiti measures and the Noise Ordinance), "Vehicles and Traffic," "Business Licensing," and "Parks and Other Public Places" Titles of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Finally, regarding issues of "overcrowding" within residences, it is important for the City Council to note that complaints of this nature are not addressed by the City Code Enforcement Section, or any other City Department. All complaints received by the Code Enforcement Section involving overcrowding are directly referred to the Los Angeles County Health Department for corrective action. 9 11 . 1 • 1 Dnli OLWIV I QtNIMN ViaLOKKU/' � ►Y 11.1►I During staff's previous discussions with the City Council, we have talked about issues relating to Proactive Code Enforcement and the impact to existing staff. As previously mentioned, most Code Enforcement services are executed in a manner that is predominantly reactive to formal complaints received by the City. In all cases, a response to the specific cause for concern is predicated by the receipt of complete and accurate information from the requesting party. As a rule, the City does not accept anonymous requests, except in cases of extreme safety concerns. For purposes of this report, examples of "Extreme Safety Concerns" include: 1) illegal dumping of hazardous material; 2) unpermitted construction involving electrical wiring, mechanical defects, etc.; and 3) walls or other structures posing an immediate threat to safe passage along a public right of way. Finally, in the course of their responsibilities, the City's Code Enforcement Section currently does process a limited number of proactive case files. The type of proactive work currently addressed by the Code Enforcement Section includes: a) unperrnitted construction observed while in en route to inspections for reactive files; b) monthly removal of signs posted illegally within the public right of ways; and c) parking, handbill distribution and vendor monitoring of City facilities. Presently, the City's Code Enforcement Section is comprised of one (1) Senior Code Enforcement Officer, and two (2) Code Enforcement Officers. Based upon an average work year (taking vacation and sick time usage, and holidays into consideration), each Code Enforcement Officer spends approximately 1900 (non -overtime) hours each fiscal year processing case files. Additionally, through the fust three quarters of Fiscal Year 1996/97 Code Enforcement staff has averaged over 20 hours of overtime each week. Based upon these figures, on average the Code Enforcement Section spends approximately 6,700 hours each fiscal year processing case files that are predominately reactive in nature. As a collective whole, the Code Enforcement Section processes and completes approximately 1,400 cases each fiscal year, or approximately 466 cases per officer. Based upon these figures (and the information provided above), the average Code Enforcement case file takes approximately five (5) working hours to investigate and resolve. It is important for the City Council to note that this figure merely represents the "average" amount of time spent per case; and that while some cases may only require a couple of hours, there are specific cases that require several weeks or months to resolve. As depicted above, Code Enforcement's present workload requires an additional 1000 hours of paid overtime in order to process case files that are predominately reactive. For Fiscal Year 1996/97, staff anticipates that the Code Enforcement staff will work approximately 1000 hours of overtime, at a estimated cost to the City of $31,000. These overtime costs assume a median "regular time" hourly staff rate of $21.06 per hour that, billed at time and one half, works out to an "overtime" hourly staff rate of $31.59 per hour. Finally, by the conclusion of Fiscal Year 1996/97, staff estimates that the Code Enforcement Division will exceed its budgeted overtime allowance by $22,000 (more than three times the budgeted amount). To address this issue, the City Council has previously approved the creation of a new Code Enforcement Officer position. The creation of a third Code Enforcement Officer position, to be filled by June 2, 1997, will provide a full time staff member that will focus fifty percent (50%) of their time on.typical Code Enforcement case work, and fifty percent (50%) of their time on NPDES/ Storm Water Enforcement. This position will be funded 50% from General Fund Monies, and 50% from the NPDES/Storm Water Utility. Once fully trained (potentially a six to twelve month process), staff anticipates that this additional half-time position will allow the Code Enforcement Section to significantly reduce current overtime costs. The City would then be in a position where the annual Code Enforcement Overtime Budget of $9,000 could be utilized to provide services to the newly annexed areas of Northbridge, Lockheed, North Valencia, Seco Canyon, Towsley Canyon, Vista Del Canon, and Hunters Green. Based on the additional half-staff Code Enforcement position, an approved overtime budget for FY 1997/98 of $9,000, and the completion of the above annexations cases, staff anticipates that the Code Enforcement Section will receive and process approximately 1,500 case files next fiscal year. 17:T L 1 1 ► I: i I Dias WM1114 1 Pursuant to the City Council request, staff has developed a proposed "Proactive Enforcement Program" to complement existing Code Enforcement functions. At this time staff would like to define what is meant by the term "Proactive Enforcement," outline the potential issues that the City's Code Enforcement Section could address in a limited proactive manner, and finally provide the City Council with a recommended course of action. To begin, staff would like to define the term "Proactive Enforcement." The.development and implementation of a Proactive Code Enforcement Program would allow the City's Code Enforcement Officers to actively seek out potential violations and initiate corrective action in a manner that DOES NOT require a formal request for action from a resident. In order to administer a true Proactive Code Enforcement Program which does not appear selective or discriminatory in nature, the program should be administered in a uniform and organized manner throughout the City. This type of full-scale program would entail the continual inspection and monitoring of every house, of every block, of every neighborhood within the City limits. Complete and comprehensive proactive enforcement of this nature would demonstrate to the community that the City has a vested interest in the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents in ALL neighborhoods. Based upon projected staffing level and the associated cost with this approach, at this time staff does not recommend consideration of this approach. Before staff proceeds any farther, the potential amount of time that staff could spend processing proactive enforcement cases warrants some additional discussion. In a previous portion of this report, staff explained that an average code enforcement case file (that is reactive in nature) takes approximately five (5) working hours to investigate and resolve. It is important for the City Council to note that proactive case files normally require additional time to investigate and resolve. Based upon staff's previous experience in dealing with this type of case work, it should be reflected that an average proactive code enforcement case file requires approximately 7.5 hours to investigate and resolve. During previous discussions with the City Council, staff was asked to consider budgeting additional overtime hours as a way to process proactive case files. At this time, it is staff's opinion that budgeting additional overtime for the purpose of processing proactive is not an effective use of City resources. In comparing staff's overall productivity in terms of "regular hours" verse "overtime hours," Code Enforcement staff can process approximately 33% more case files when working at their regular hourly rate of $21.06 than they can at an overtime rate of $31.59 per hour. Additionally, staff was asked to consider modifying the Code Enforcement Sections' schedule in a manner that provided for proactive enforcement during the weekends. At this time the Code Enforcement Section does schedule some after hours and weekend enforcement activities, primarily to address illegal signage and potential Noise Ordinance violations. Should the City Council desire to do so, a modification to the Section's work schedule could be made to include regular weekend enforcement as part of a Proactive Code Enforcement Program. Pursuant to your request to address issues such as substandard properties, illegal construction, and illegal signage on a proactive basis, staff has developed the following Proactive Code Enforcement Program for the City Council's review and consideration. At this time staff suggests that, if the City Council should choose to pursue a proactive approach to code enforcement, that this approach be limited to the three areas of interest referenced directly above. For the purpose of this discussion, the following options that will be presented for your review have been divided into categories, and are based upon: 1) the current staffing and funding resources available to the Code Enforcement Section to conduct limited proactive enforcement; and 2) potential staffing and funding increases that would allow the City to conduct expanded proactive enforcement. LITIT"ITTIMELIMM11M, Based upon the current staffing resources allocated to the Code Enforcement Division (including the approved one-half Code Enforcement position scheduled to be filled on June 2, 1997), it is anticipated that the following level of case work can be accomplished each fiscal year: ■ Two (2) and one-half (.5) Code Enforcement Officers (@ 1900 regular hours per year) _ 4750 hours ■ One (1) full-time Senior Code Enforcement Officer (@ 1900 hours per year) _ 1900 hours ■ $9,000 in annual funding allocated to the Code Enforcement Section Overtime Budget (figured a median overtime rate of $31.59/hour) = 285 hours of available overtime ■ $4,500 in monies set aside to provide for anticipated District Attorney Services during Fiscal Year 1997/98 The above information is reflective of the proposed Code Enforcement Section Budget for Fiscal Year 1997/98: As previously mentioned, the incorporation of the additional half-staff position, along with an approved overtime budget of $9,000 will allow the City to process approximately 1500 case files for the year. Again, as the Code Enforcement Division currently does process some proactive case work, it is anticipated that 75-100 cases of the above total amount will be proactive in nature. Option # 2: Limited Proactive Enforcement If the City Council would like to provide resources to support a "Limited Proactive Enforcement" Program, then it would be staff's suggestion that: 1) The City Council direct staff to submit (through the 1997/98 Fiscal year Budget Process) a request for an additional full-time Code Enforcement position that would focus on proactive enforcement case files, and work requests generated from newly (and future) annexed areas, and enforcement of the City's Sign Ordinance (beginning in calendar year 1999). The creation of this position would allow the City to dedicate 20 to 30 hours of staff time each week to address proactive Code Enforcement issues. Based upon the "average" number of hours (7.5) that staff estimates will be required to process each individual proactive case file, it is anticipated that the potential modification would result in the processing of approximately 125 to 180 additional proactive case files each fiscal year. 2) If the City Council were to consider this option, staff recommends that this proposed position be funded in the following manner: a. Approve one (1) full-time Code Enforcement Officer during the Fiscal Year 1997/98 Budget Cycle; fund this new position for the final three months of the Budget Year (three (3) months salary and benefits); and approve the purchase of a vehicle. b. Beginning in Fiscal Year 1998/99, allocate full-time funding (twelve (12) months salary and benefits) on an "ongoing" basis. 3) If the City Council were to create this additional full-time Code Enforcement Position, one- time and annual costs to the City's General Fund would include: Fiscal Year 1997/98 Salary and Benefits (funding for three months) $15,205 Purchase of New Vehicle $25,000 General Fund Commitment for Fiscal Year 1997/98 $40,205 Fiscal Year 1998/99 Salary and Benefits (funding for twelve (12) months) $60,820 Annual Budget for District Attorney Services $4,000 Annual General Fund Commitment $64,820 That the City Council review and provide direction to staff on how they wish to proceed. h:�ce%D50697mpt