HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-11-17 - AGENDA REPORTS - CODE ENFORCEMENT (2)TO:
FROM:
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Mayor Heidt and City Council Mei
George A. Caravalho, City Manag(
DATE: November 17, 1998
SUBJECT: CITY PROSECUTORICODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES — FOLLOW-UP TO
THE OCTOBER 6, 1998 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDED ACTION
That Council receives this report, and discuss the future utilization of Code Enforcement
Resources with staff.
At the October 6, 1998 City Council Study Session, questions were raised among the City
Council regarding the issue of a "City Prosecutor," and the level of proactive efforts currently
undertaken by the City's Code Enforcement Division. As a follow-up to the October 6, 1998
Study Session, staff would like to take this opportunity to review these issues with the City
Council and focus upon the future utilization of Code Enforcement resources.
CITY PROSECUTOR - OVERVIEW
On October 6, 1998, the City Council received a presentation from the City Attorney's Office
that discussed how the services provided by a "City Prosecutor" benefit municipal agencies. To
briefly review, a City Prosecutor may be employed by the City to pursue the prosecution of
municipal code violations to achieve compliance. When necessary, a City Prosecutor is called
upon to address abatement issues related to graffiti or substandard properties, to file
injunctions on behalf of the City, as well as pursue criminal filings against an individual, and/or
public or private agency.
As stated above, the role of a City Prosecutor encompasses much more than the prosecution of
municipal code violations related to zoning, noise, signage or substandard property issues. In
the past, Santa Clarita has regularly utilized the services of it's contractual attorney staff to
represent the City's interests in a variety of matters ranging from development outside the
incorporated City, to the enforcement of the City's Refuse Franchise Agreements. In short,
through it's contract with Burke, Williams & Sorenson, Santa Clarita employs and has
full-time access to a City Prosecutor to safeguard the general health, safety and
welfare of their constituents.
City Prosecutor/Code Enforcement Services
November 17, 1998
Page 2
CITY PROSECUTOR vs. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Prior to discussing the similarities between the City Prosecutor and District Attorney options,
staff feels it is important to share information with the City Council that describes the Code
Enforcement Section's annual accomplishments. During the last three fiscal years, Santa
Clarita's Code Enforcement officers processed approximately 1,400 cases annually, with the
majority of these cases resulting from concerns raised by residents or business owners of this
community. Due in large part to the "can do" attitude and strong customer service philosophy
embraced by the City's Code Enforcement Section, more than 99% of all cases reported are
resolved directly with the individual property owner in a voluntary manner. Simply put, in
any given year approximately 12 to 14 of the cases processed by the Code Enforcement Section
require an office conference with an attorney and the violator, and even fewer proceed to the
point where further legal action is taken.
On occasion, circumstances do arise that require the City to employ a legal remedy to address
an issue of concern. When confronted with such issues, historically Santa Clarita has elected
to retain the services of the Los Angeles County. District Attorney's Office to address such
matters. Much like a City Prosecutor, the use of the District Attorney's Office to pursue
prosecution of municipal code violations represents an approach that is largely utilized by other
contract cities to address problems facing their communities.
The similarity in services provided by a City Prosecutor (via a private legal firm or a directly
employed City Attorney) and the District Attorney's Office are such that there is little
discernible difference. As with a City Prosecutor, the District Attorney's Office has and will
pursue any matter that involves the enforcement of Santa Clarita's Municipal Code at the City s
request. Again, this type of prosecution service extends to issues such as zoning violations,
substandard properties, signage and noise ordinance violations.
With the exception of costs and timing issues, both options provide a similar high quality of
service to the City. In terms of cost, the District Attorney's Office provides the City with an
enforcement option that is more cost effective than working through the City Attorney's office.
However, when responding to issues that are deemed an imminent threat to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community and require an immediate response, utilization of the City
Attorney's Office is the preferred method of staff.
In cases of extreme urgencies, the City Manager may determine that it is more appropriate to
utilize the City Attorney in a traditional "Prosecutor" role. In -such cases, the City Manager may
by-pass the City's normal enforcement process and direct the City Attorney's Office to pursue
the issuance of an injunction at the Superior Court Level ' address issues deemed to be an
immediate danger to the general health, safety & welfare of the community. .
In the final analysis, the limited number of case files requiring legal assistance, coupled with
the cooperative nature of our community and staff, does not warrant the funding of a full-time
City Prosecutor. It is staffs recommendation that the City continue to utilize the District
Attorney's Office to address municipal code violations, while maintaining the flexibility to call
upon the City Attorney's Office to pursue significant matters as they arise.
City Prosecutor/Code Enforcement Issues
November 17, 1998
Page 3
Presently, the City's Code Enforcement Section is comprised of one (1) Senior and three (3) 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 1,900
(non -overtime) hours each fiscal year processing case files. Additionally, through the first
quarter of Fiscal Year 1998/99, Code Enforcement staff has averaged approximately 16 hours
of overtime each week. Based upon these figures, on average the Code Enforcement Section
spends approximately 8,400 hours each fiscal year processing case files.
Collectively, the Code Enforcement Section processes and completes approximately 1,400 cases
each fiscal year, or over 350 cases per officer. The types of cases investigated by Code
Enforcement are broken into seven (7) different categories and range from construction matters
to zoning/land use issues. In reviewing these categories, during each of the last three fiscal
years approximately 63% of Code Enforcement's total workload.have been in response to
reported zoning/land use, substandard conditions and miscellaneous violations.
Based upon these figures (and the information provided above), the average Code Enforcement
case file takes approximately 5.8 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.
Most Code Enforcement services are executed in a manner that is in response to formal
complaints received by the City. It is the City's policy to accept requests for service .from
residents in person, by telephone, fax, or mail. This is in contrast to the County of Los Angeles,
which will only accept formal requests for service in writing. Additionally, City staff generally
conducts an initial inspection within three working days of receiving a compliant, as opposed
to the County's response time of approximately three or more weeks.
Finally, in the course of their responsibilities, Code Enforcement currently does process a
moderate amount (approximately 10% to 15%) of proactive case files. The type of proactive
work currently addressed by Code Enforcement includes: .
• Non -permitted construction and grading in progress on private property
• Substandard property conditions observed on private property by members of the Sheriffs
Community Interaction Team
• Scheduled removal of signs posted illegally within major public right of ways
• Illegal dumping observed on private or public property
• Parking and vending/soliciting violations at City facilities
• Imminent life -safety hazards observed within the public right of ways.
City Prosecutor/Code Enforcement Issues
November 17, 1998
Page 4
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
At the conclusion of the October 6, 1998 Study Session, both the City Council & Planning
Commission indicated their desire to continue discussing issues related to the Code Enforcement
Section. At that meeting, staff left with the impression that a portion of the City Council was
interested in potentially increasing Code Enforcement's level of proactive enforcement within
the Community.
If the City Council's desire is to expand the current level of proactive enforcement, staff can
definitely develop ways to make this request a reality. Staff however, feels it is important for
the City Council to understand that any increase to the level of proactive enforcement already
provided by the City would impact Code Enforcement's current and future ability to provide
timely service to the community.
An enforcement policy that places a greater emphasis on proactivity would require either
additional staff resources, or a reduction in the level of customer service. Reductions could
range from an increase in the time that it takes staff to investigate a complaint, to accepting
only written requests for.Code Enforcement services. While staff does not view this as a viable
option, in the absence of additional staff resources, increased proactive measures can only be
accomplished through reducing the level of responsiveness to our residents.
With this information in mind, staff would like to take this opportunity to outline key issues
that must be addressed by the Code Enforcement Section in the immediate future. The
information below is meant to provide the Council with a "snapshot assessment" of future Code
Enforcement activity, and.the potential manner in which these issues can be addressed.
• The City's Code Enforcement Section currently ad*mes several key community issues.on
a proactive basis. Staff feels that these existing proactive efforts, combined with a citizenry
that is extremely active in reporting suspected violations_ to, staff, has created a proactive
enforcement program that effectively addresses the issues that are most important to our
community. Therefore, staff believes increased proactive enforcement is not warranted at
this time.
• During the next 12 to 18 months, staff is projecting that Code Enforcement's workload will
significantly increase as a result of the City's annexation efforts, growing population, and
projected increased construction activity.
• The Code Enforcement Section is scheduled to begin enforcement of the City's Sign
Ordinance in November of 1999. Once enacted, staff strongly believes that. additional Code
Enforcement resources will be needed to address issues of illegal signage, while maintaining
a high level of responsiveness to other code enforcement issues.
City Prosecutor/Code Enforcement Issues
November 17, 1998
Page 5
Enforcement issues emerging during the next 12 to 18 months will necessitate the need to
devote additional personnel resources to the Code Enforcement Section. In staffs opinion, the
most appropriate utilization of additional personnel resources would be to address enforcement
issues relating to future annexations, population, construction and the pending sign ordinance.
GAC:KMT
h:\ce\111798