HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - OVERVIEW CODE ENFORCEMENT (2)AGENDA REPORT
City Manager
Item to be pre
Ruben M. Barrera
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: March 11,1997
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT"
DEPARTMENT: Building and Engineering Services
BACKGROUND
On October 1, 1996, Building and Safety presented the City Council with 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. Staffs report provides a summary of the
information compiled and several options for the Council's consideration. This item was held over
from the regular City Council meeting of February 25, 1997.
Volunteers/Part-Time Employees
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 Clarita 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: 4_1-7 .
A enda Item:-/#
FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT"
March 11, 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 allow
approximately 10 enforcement files per year to be referred to the District Attorney for office
conferences. 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, Substandard Conditions (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
FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW OF CODE ENFORCEMENT"
March 11, 1997 - Page 3
Planning Division's Sign Task Force is making an effort to significantly reduce the number of
legal 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 B.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 $4,000 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
$8,000 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 $12,000 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.
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.
ATTACHMENT
Agenda Report - Appendix
RMB:KLL:twb
mdwnn97repW.k11
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
DATE: March 11, 1997
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO "AN OVERVIEW CODE ENFORCEMENT":
ANALYSES OF SUB -TOPICS
DEPARTMENT: Building and Engineering Services
B.1, Volunteers/Part-Time Employees
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. Feld 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 donot 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"
March 11, 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.
Agency or Firm Name Attorney Fees Secretary Fees Misc. Charges*
District Attorney's Office
$72 per hour
$32 per hour
Not Applicable
Burke, Williams & Sorensen
$160 per hour
Not Applicable
Billing Varies
Dapeer & Rosenblit
$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 staff's current policy is to exercise a predominantly reactive mode in its daily
operations. This mode of action is characterized by staff 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"
March 11, 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 program would again require
multiplying 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:KLL:twb
wdee.R97r pbtkll
try czdc i'
�i„jn