Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - CODE ENFORCEMENT (2)BUSINESS DATE: February 25, 1997 City Manager Item to be pre Ruben M. Barrera SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT" DEPARTMENT: Building and Engineering Services In October 1996 Building and Safety presented an overview of the policies, practices, and procedures of Code Enforcement. At that time, Councilmembers expressed an interest in further examining the following three issues: Volunteers/Part-Time Employees, Legal Services, and Proactive Code Enforcement. This report provides a summary of the information staff compiled and several options for the City Council's consideration. Volunteers/Part-Time Em 1povees Staff first explored the use of volunteer assistance by contacting the City of Anaheim, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Santa Clarita's own Risk Management Office (see Appendix B.1.). The City of Anaheim's Code Enforcement Division implemented a "Volunteers in Pride" program in July 1996, and the City of Los Angeles's Street Use Inspection Division implemented a "Neighborhood Code Watch" program in October 1996. Written descriptions of these programs were obtained and reviewed. In both cases, volunteers were allowed to conduct inspections, photograph properties, and document conditions, but were not authorized to have extensive public contact (in order to reduce potentially hostile confrontations). They were not granted any formal enforcement authority beyond that of a private citizen. All issues in need of enforcement action were referred to full-time staff members. The Santa Clarita Risk Management Office indicated that volunteers would not be authorized/insured to drive City vehicles. The use of private vehicles without proper safety lighting and City markings could jeopardize the safety of volunteers (including "bounty" participants). when removing unpermitted signs within public right-of-ways and/or documenting municipal code violations on private properties. Based on the above information, volunteers would provide the most benefit to Santa Clarity by assisting with office -related assignments. The selection of at least one qualified individual to assume this assignment has commenced. Staff next explored the use of part-time employees. Code Enforcement Technicians could be used for either office or field assignments. These individuals would be authorized/insured to drive City vehicles, trained to have appropriate public contact, and would possess formal enforcement authority. Those factors would allow technicians to resolve a substantial number of lower -impact Continued To. -_I., t-9-7 Agenda Item:. FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT" February 25, 1997 - Page 2 issues (such as noise disturbances, setback encroachments, and home occupations) without referring them to the City's full-time staff. Consequently, full-time staff may be afforded the opportunity to pursue a limited amount of proactive enforcement (to be discussed later in this report). Staff is prepared to proceed with the recruitment of part-time Code Enforcement Technicians, subject to the City Council's policy and budget approval. Legal Services The City of Santa Clarita currently contracts with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for prosecutorial services and the private firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen for non -prosecutorial services. Deputy District Attorneys are used for prosecutions because of their familiarity with many of the Los Angeles County Code sections enforced by City staff and their cost effectiveness for the services provided. Their cost effectiveness is based on a comparison of the rates between the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and the firm of Dapeer and Rosenblit -- a code enforcement specialty firm that previously submitted a proposal for their services (see Appendix B.2.). The advantage to using one of the described firms as a City Prosecutor is that a private attorney may be more accessible and responsive to the needs of staff than a Deputy District Attorney. The 1996-97 Code Enforcement budget allocated a total of $4,000 for prosecutorial services through the County District Attorney's Office, which accounts for a maximum of 46 Deputy District Attorney hours and 17 Secretary hours (see Appendix B.2.). These amounts would typically allow 10 to 12 enforcement files per year to be pursued for prosecution. Although staff is currently reviewing a municipal code -civil fine program to provide another form of effective corrective action, the number of files requiring prosecution would presumably increase if proactive enforcement is approved by the Council. This will result in the need for a corresponding increase in the funding provided for such services. The budgeted amount for prosecutorial services would require a more significant increase if either of the private firms above received the contract for prosecutorial services. It is unlikely that the City would receive any additional revenue from criminal fines if a City Prosecutor was used instead of the District Attorney's Office. Because of these facts, combined with Code Enforcement's previous success in working with the District Attorney's Office, staff proposes that the current contract arrangement remain intact. Proactive Code Enforcement Code enforcement within the City of Santa Clarita is currently administered on a predominantly reactive basis. This type of enforcement is characterized by staff responding to formal complaints received from residents, business owners, internal government, external government, and various other sources. The City Council recently requested information on increasing proactive enforcement. During the October 1996 meeting, Councilmembers indicated that the highest priority enforcement categories are Construction Matters (Unpermitted Work), Health/Safety Concerns, SubstandardConditions(Buildings and Properties), and Sign Regulations. After reviewing the existing procedures for these categories, staff determined that any increase in proactivity should focus on Substandard Conditions (Buildings and Properties),. with secondary attention provided to Construction Matters (Unpermitted Work) and Sign Regulations. Substandard Conditions (Buildings and Properties) includes such public view issues as overgrown vegetation, graffiti, debris, and general maintenance. The 1996-97 midyear budget adjustment approving the addition of two Building Inspector positions is expected to partially absorb the need for increased proactivity related to Construction Matters (Unpermitted Work). Further, the Planning Division's Sign Task Force is making an effort to significantly reduce the number of legal FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT" February 25, 1997 - Page 3 non -conforming signs by November 14, 1999. This effort, coupled with the Code Enforcement Section's continuing monthly "sweeps" of illegal signs within public right-of-ways, should partially absorb the need for increased proactivity related to Sign Regulations. Finally, Health/Safety Concerns (such as hazardous material dumpings and illegal occupancies) is currently considered a priority enforcement area by staff. Section files within this category already receive a high response status on inspections, violation notices, prosecutions, and other corrective measures. Therefore, increased proactivity in this area is considered unnecessary at this time. As noted in the overview from October 1996, limited forms of proactivity may be viewed by some groups as selective or biased in nature (see Appendix 13.3.). In addition, any increase in proactive enforcement will require additional staff and legal services funding. Four specific options related to increased proactivity on Substandard Conditions, Construction Matters, and Sign Regulations have been identified for further consideration. A) No Increase (No increase in proactive enforcement on above categories). - No additional staff or District Attorney funding. B) Minor Increase (5-10% increase in proactive enforcement on above categories). - Additional staff (one volunteer and two part-time Code Enforcement Technicians) and District Attorney funding (approximately $1,000 annually). C) Moderate Increase (15-20% increase in proactive enforcement on above categories). - Additional staff (two volunteers, two part-time Code Enforcement Technicians, and one full-time Code Enforcement Officer) and District Attorney funding (approximately $2,000 annually). D) Major Increase (25-30% increase in proactive enforcement on above categories). - Additional staff (two volunteers, three part-time Code Enforcement Technicians, one full- time Code Enforcement Officer, and one full-time Administrative Clerk) and District Attorney funding (approximately $3,000 annually). At the Council's request, decision packages for staffing costs on options B, C, or D can be included in the 1997-98 budget review process. 1.1X8183kAi�riiDio U:VZi City Council review the follow-up report to "An Overview of Code Enforcement" and direct staff to pursue option B under the subheading of Proactive Code Enforcement. This authorization will allow for a minor increase in proactivity with a relatively minimal expenditure for additional staff and legal services funding. ATTACHMENTS Agenda Report - Appendix Agenda Report - Outline RMB:KLL:twb mdeeN197rept`3111 M awl 11i`1'.1_ 1 : IL.y1i II.$9 DATE: February 25, 1997 SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW CODE ENFORCEMENT": ANALYSES OF SUB -TOPICS DEPARTMENT: Building and Engineering Services B.1, Volunteers/Part-Time Emplgyees The City of Anaheim divides its volunteers into two classes: field personnel and clerical personnel. Typical field assignments include monitoring residential garage sales, removing unpermitted signs from public right-of-ways, documenting selected municipal code violations, and conducting special surveys. Field personnel are authorized/insured to drive City vehicles and are covered by the City's general liability policy. They are not, however, permitted to initiate any contact with the public (in order to avoid potential hostile confrontations). Typical clerical assignments include inputting computerized information, records filing, telephone answering, and performing related office assignments. Volunteers -- field and clerical -- do not directly pursue any enforcement actions, nor do they possess any formal enforcement authority beyond that of a private citizen. Therefore, all issues requiring enforcement action must be referred to the City's full-time staff. The City of Los Angeles designates its volunteers as field personnel. Typical field assignments include monitoring the curbside placement of refuse containers, removing unpermitted signs from public right-of-ways, documenting obstructions to pedestrians on sidewalks, and noting overgrown vegetation within parkways. _Field personnel are required to provide their own vehicles/insurance, although they are covered by the City's general liability policy. They are directed to make observations from their vehicles, have minimal contact with the public (to avoid hostile confrontations such as those previously experienced by staff), and refrain from pursuing issues within three blocks of their residences or businesses. Volunteers are authorized to send advisory letters to property owners, but do not possess any formal enforcement authority. Therefore, all issues requiring enforcement action must be referred to the City's full-time staff. Based on the above information, the City of Santa Clarita would likely use volunteers to perform clerical duties and part-time employees to perform field duties. Code Enforcement Technicians could be paid at a starting rate of $10.04 per hour, which is comparable to that of City Interns. Based on a part-time schedule of 20 hours per week, this pay rate would amount to an annual expenditure (including partial benefits and operations and maintenance) of approximately $12,920 per employee. In addition, there would be an initial capital outlay of approximately $6,070 per employee (for furniture, computers, and equipment) and $30,000 per every two employees (for "pool" vehicles). Staff also explored the use of additional full-time employees by contacting the Santa Clarita Personnel Office. Code Enforcement Officers could be paid at the current rate of $18.96 - $23.05 APPENDIX - FOLLOW-UP "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT" February 25, 1997 - Page 2 per hour. Based on a full-time schedule of 40 -plus hours per week, this pay rate would amount to an annual expenditure (including complete benefits, operations and maintenance, and overtime) of approximately $60,585 - $69,095 per employee. In addition, there would be an initial capital outlay of approximately $36,070 per employee for vehicles, furniture, computers, and equipment. Secretaries could be paid at the current rate of $14.17 - $18.26 per hour. Based on a full-time schedule of 40 -plus hours per week, this pay rate would amount to an annual expenditure (including complete benefits, operations and maintenance, and overtime) of approximately $43,290 - $51,780 per employee. In addition, there would be an initial capital outlay of approximately $6,070 per employee for furniture, computers, and equipment. B.2. Legal Services The following table compares the rates between the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, the firm of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, and the firm of Dapeer and Rosenblit -- a code enforcement specialty firm that previously submitted a proposal for their services. District Attorney's Office Burke, Williams & Sorensen Dapeer & Rosenblit Attorney Fees Secretary Fees Misc. Charges* $72 per hour $32 per hour Not Applicable $160 per hour Not Applicable Billing Varies $95 per hour Not Applicable Billing Varies *Examples of Miscellaneous Charges: duplicating, telecommunications, and meal conferences. The need for prosecutorial services would presumably increase under proactivity, considering that proactive files are usually generated on properties that are in most need of improvement. Staff estimates that the need for these services would increase exponentially, based on the degree of proactivity requested. The amount of funds allocated for these services would therefore also need to increase accordingly. B.3. Proactive Code Enforcement Code Enforcement staffs current policy is to exercise a predominantly reactive mode in its daily operations. This mode of action is characterized bystaff responding to formal complaints received from any one of a number of customers described in the October 1996 "Overview" report. Staffs response is predicated by the receipt of complete and accurate information from these customers. As a rule, staff does not accept "anonymous" requests (except in cases of extreme safety concern). The need for the above rule is based on the explicit direction of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. It is their opinion that staff cannot accept anonymous complaints in a reactive mode of operation. This is due to the fact that, presuming the appropriate protocol is followed, the alleged violator has a legal right to know the identity of his or her accuser. If staff is unable to provide the true identity of the customer, their efforts may be viewed as selective or biased in nature. APPENDIX - FOLLOW-UP "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT" February 25, 1997 - Page 3 In order to have a proactive enforcement mode which does not appear selective or biased 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, every block, and 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. This interest could be further reinforced through the enhancement of working relationships with neighborhood associations and community assistance groups. This mode of action would surely produce significant results in addressing properties in need of improvement, but it would also be an extremely costly endeavor. The program would not only include multiplying the current staffing level severalfold, but also procuring additional funds for the services of the District Attorney's Office, new vehicles, personal computers, communication devices, office furniture, and other equipment/supplies. Initiating less than the above measures on a proactive basis will likely provoke clear and public sentiment (from members of the media and legal professions) relating to discrimination and the possible violation of an individual's civil rights. This sentiment was extremely evident in the summer of 1991, when staff was directed by the City Council to initiate, and later cease, nighttime proactive enforcement of substandard housing/property conditions within the targeted areas of East Newhall, Atwood Addition, North Oaks, and Shadow Pines. During this period, the City received heavy scrutiny from the local media and the American Civil Liberties Union. If the City is prepared to accept and address this form of scrutiny, a limited form of proactivity could be implemented. Such a program would rely on the observations of staff to determine which properties were in the most severe need of enforcement action. For example, if while en route to a field meeting an officer noted a property with an extreme amount of junk and debris in the front yard, he or she could initiate enforcement action based on the determination that this property could potentially become the subject of a formal complaint. As with full-scale proactivity, this limited form of proactivity would produce some notable results, but would not be without additional costs. The current staffing level, procuring additional funds for the services of the District Attorney's Office, new vehicles, personal computers, communication devices, office furniture, and other equipment(supplies. Until the City Council provides the necessary direction and resources to administer one of the above programs, the Code Enforcement Section does not anticipate a perceivable increase in its degree of proactive enforcement. RMB:ELL:twb wd.e A97r pt4.0 UNFINISHED BUSINESS DATE: February 25, 1997 SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT": PRESENTATION OUTLINE DEPARTMENT: Building and Engineering Services I BACKGROUND ISSUES A. Volunteers/Part-Time Employees 1. Volunteers 2. Part -Time Employees B. Legal Services 1. District Attorney's Office 2. Private Law Firms C. Proactive Code Enforcement 1. Current Mode of Enforcement Action 2. Options Related to Increased Proactivity III CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION RMB:KLL:twb �M,w.