The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrder 026 - Rev Code Enf Manual 2014 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of October 20, 2014 _____________________________ DATE: October 14, 2014 FROM: John Griley CDD 541-617-4708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2014-026 Adopting the Revised Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes County Community Development Department (CDD) Code Enforcement Program operates according to established policies and procedures. The current Policy and Procedures Manual was originally established in 1996. The manual had not been formally reviewed or amended since 1997. The CDD Work Plan included an action item, carried over from previous years, to update the manual. Since May 2013, CDD staff met several times with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to discuss, review and update the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) and to seek BOCC direction on the public review process. On August 27, 2014, the BOCC conducted a public hearing on the proposed Manual update. Subsequently, on September 24, 2014, the BOCC held a work session to provide final direction to staff on the revised Manual. The most notable change was to remove the policy to prohibit the issuance of permits for properties with a code violation. Instead, the BOCC directed staff to convene a group of parties to explore text amendment concepts to address this issue in a separate process. Attached are the revised Manual per BOCC direction, a memorandum identifying and describing the changes since the prior version, and an Order adopting the Manual. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: MOTION: Approve signature of Order No. 2014-026. ATTENDANCE: John Griley, Nick Lelack DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: CDD; Legal Counsel M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Code Enforcement Staff – John Griley, Tim Grundeman; Lori Furlong - Supervisor DATE October 20, 2014 RE: Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2014-026 Adopting the Revised Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Summary This agenda item is for consideration of signature of Order Number 2014-026 adopting the Deschutes County Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Manual – October 20, 2014 Revision. Background The Deschutes County Community Development Department Code Enforcement Program operates according to established policies and procedures. The current Manual was developed in the mid-1990s, adopted in 1996, and amended in 1997. The manual had not been formally reviewed or amended since 1997. For the past few years, the CDD Work Plan has included an action item to update the Manual to “reflect current practices”, remove outdated sections, and review/discuss long-standing program policies. Since May 2013, CDD staff has met several times with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to discuss, review and update the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) and to seek BOCC direction on the public review process. The BOCC conducted a public hearing on the revised draft Manual on August 27, 2014. At the hearing CDD staff provided an overview of the Manual review process, provided information related to program operations and objectives, and presented a decision matrix for BOCC consideration of long standing policy with respect to complaints, compliance and penalty. Following the staff presentation, BOCC heard testimony from eight private individuals or entities. Six public written comments were subsequently submitted prior to the closing of the written record. On September 24, 2014, CDD staff met with the BOCC in a work session to review and discuss hearing comments and testimony, and long standing core operating policies. From this discussion the BOCC directed staff to prepare a final revised Manual for adoption by Order. BOCC made no changes to core policies in the work session, and directed staff to change the following: 1. Remove a policy provision on Restricting Issuance of Development Permits on properties with uncorrected code violations. (This 1996 policy has never been implemented.) Exploration on a potential County Code text amendment authorizing the restriction of development permits on illegal-non-conforming properties will be made via the CDD Planning Work Plan. (Note: The BOCC directed staff to convene a group of people who testified at the public hearing to discuss whether a text amendment concept to address this issue could be developed and, if so, to present and discuss the concept with the BOCC at a work session in 2015. The BOCC will then determine next steps, if any.) 2. Include a procedural requirement alerting and specifying consideration of the State’s prohibition on local laws governing farm and forest practices (ORS 30.934 and 30.935) when investigating code violation complaints. (This new procedure is found under Establishing the Elements of a Violation under the Investigation procedure section on page 12 of the revised Manual.) 3. Include new provisions requiring the notification of complaining parties on the status of complaint investigation. (New procedures are found under Report of Field Investigation in the Investigation procedure section on page 14, and in the Notice of Resolution provision in the Resolution of Code Complaints section on page 22.) Recommendation Adoption of Order No. 2014-026 PAGE 1 OF 1- ORDER NO. 2014- 026 For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Adopting the Revised Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual * * * ORDER NO. 2014-026 WHEREAS, Deschutes County Community Development Department (“CDD”) Code Enforcement staff initiated revisions to the CDD Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual to update the manual that was developed in 1995, adopted 1996, and amended in 1997; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”) held a public hearing on August 27, 2014, and directed CDD staff to make further revisions to the manual; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that the updates to the CDD Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual to be in the best interest of the public because the updated policies and procedures will provide for a more efficient and clear code enforcement program; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The revised Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual, attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference herein, is adopted. Dated this _______ of October, 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON _____________________________________________ TAMMY BANEY, Chair _________________________________________ ANTHONY DEBONE, Vice Chair ATTEST: ______________________________ Recording Secretary _________________________________________ ALAN UNGER, Commissioner REVIEWED ______________ LEGAL COUNSEL Deschutes County Community Development Department Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual October 20, 2014 REVISION 2 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................... 3 I. MISSION ...................................................................................................................................... 4 II. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 4 III. INTERPRETATION ........................................................................................................................ 5 IV. CODE ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY ............................................................................................. 5 A. Enforcement Levels ................................................................................................................................. 5 B. Sequence of Enforcement ...................................................................................................................... 5 C. Criteria for Choosing Level of Enforcement ........................................................................................... 5 V. PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ......................................................................................... 6 A. Priority Cases ........................................................................................................................................... 6 B. Lower Priority Cases ................................................................................................................................ 6 C. Solid Waste .............................................................................................................................................. 7 VI. APPLICABILITY ............................................................................................................................. 7 VII. INITIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ........................................................................................... 7 A. CiƟzen Complaints ................................................................................................................................... 7 B. ObservaƟon by Code Enforcement Staff ............................................................................................... 8 C. ProacƟve Code Enforcement .................................................................................................................. 9 D. Permit/Approval CondiƟon Monitoring by CDD Staff ........................................................................... 9 E. Report by County Staff ............................................................................................................................ 9 F. Report by County Commissioner ......................................................................................................... 10 G. InformaƟon from Official County Records ........................................................................................... 10 VIII. RECORDING COMPLAINTS .......................................................................................................... 10 IX. NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................................ 10 X. INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................................... 11 A. Preliminary MaƩers .............................................................................................................................. 11 B. Establishing the Elements of a ViolaƟon .............................................................................................. 11 C. Assignment of InvesƟgaƟon and Enforcement Responsibility ........................................................... 12 D. Field InvesƟgaƟon ................................................................................................................................. 12 E. Report of Field InvesƟgaƟon ................................................................................................................ 13 XI. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES ..................................................................................................... 14 A. Voluntary Compliance ........................................................................................................................... 14 B. NoƟce of ViolaƟon ................................................................................................................................ 15 C. CitaƟon and Complaint ......................................................................................................................... 16 D. InjuncƟons ............................................................................................................................................. 17 E. Permit RevocaƟon ................................................................................................................................. 18 F. Nuisance Abatement ............................................................................................................................ 19 G. Dangerous Building Abatement ........................................................................................................... 19 H. InvesƟgaƟve Fees .................................................................................................................................. 19 I. AssisƟng Enforcement by Other Regulatory/Licensing Agencies ....................................................... 19 J. Civil PenalƟes ......................................................................................................................................... 20 K. County Cost Recovery ........................................................................................................................... 20 L. Liens ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 XII. RESOLUTION OF CODE COMPLAINTS .......................................................................................... 21 XIII. AMENDMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE Code enforcement in Deschutes County is a high priority for the Board of County Commissioners (“Board”). The Board believes the policies and procedures in this manual will enhance code enforcement and thereby the quality of life in Deschutes County. In August 1994, the Board established the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Task Force to study County Code Enforcement, to recommend improvements to the program and to idenƟfy statutory or County Code changes that may be required to increase the effecƟveness of County Code enforcement. The task force included ciƟzens, representaƟves of the construcƟon and real estate industries, representaƟves of the state court system and law enforcement, County Legal Counsel, managers of the County's Community Development Department (“CDD”) and the County's Code Enforcement staff. The task force met three Ɵmes during 1994. In January of 1995, they presented a report to the Board containing their recommendaƟons. The Board accepted those recommendaƟons, and directed County staff to begin to implement them. Among the recommendaƟons was the development of a County Code Enforcement policy and procedures manual. The key task force recommendaƟon in 1995 was the implementaƟon of a more "proacƟve," or County‐iniƟated, Code Enforcement program. Such a program would begin simultaneously with adopƟon of the manual and would apply to County Code violaƟons occurring on or aŌer the effecƟve date of the manual. This recommendaƟon effecƟvely created a two‐pronged approach to code enforcement— somewhat different policies and procedures for violaƟons occurring before, and aŌer, the effecƟve date of the manual. The intent of this approach was both to increase code enforcement aŌer giving the community ample noƟce of the County's new, "tougher" enforcement policy, as well as to set enforcement prioriƟes and manage the County's Code Enforcement workload in a manner that is realisƟc, clear and credible to the community. The original policies and procedures manual reﬂected this new approach. The County amended the manual in 1997 to reprioriƟze the criteria in SecƟon IV and to reclassify and add enforcement staff. Since then, the County added Deschutes County Code (“DCC”) Chapter 1.17 to adopt the required administraƟve hearings process required by ORS 455.157 adopted by the State Legislature in 2009 for building and specialty code violaƟons. The County also amended Chapter 1.16 to add an addiƟonal injuncƟve remedy once a violaƟon is cited into Circuit Court. In 2014, CDD staff reviewed the manual and suggested changes to the Board, which reviewed the staff‐proposed changes and made addiƟonal revisions. Prior to the 1995 manual, code enforcement was primarily reacƟve, generated by complaints. However, the complaint‐driven system was not effecƟve by itself in stemming the Ɵde of County Code violaƟons in the County. With the adopƟon of the original manual, CDD staff, with the assistance of County Legal Counsel, law enforcement and the court system, and within available resources, was able to undertake more proacƟve efforts to idenƟfy County Code violaƟons and to obtain compliance as well as respond to ciƟzen complaints. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 3 Similar to the 1995 manual, the proacƟve efforts under this 2014 manual will focus on the following areas: Timely monitoring and enforcement by County staff of permit and approval condiƟons; RevocaƟon of permits for non‐compliance; Abatement of nuisances and dangerous buildings; If allowed by the DCC, restricƟng issuance of permits on property with uncorrected County Code violaƟons; AssisƟng in related code enforcement by other agencies; and Civil procedures to obtain compliance and to recover the County's code enforcement costs I. MISSION The mission of Code Enforcement in Deschutes County is to protect the health and safety of the County's residents and visitors, and the livability of the community, by assuring compliance with the County's land use, environmental and construcƟon codes. The County will assure County Code compliance both by encouraging voluntary compliance and by sancƟoning code violators who do not comply. II. PURPOSE The purpose of the Deschutes County Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (hereaŌer "manual") is to provide wriƩen guidelines for: A. The prioriƟzaƟon of code enforcement cases; B. IniƟaƟon and invesƟgaƟon of code violaƟon complaints; C. Enforcement of the County Code through voluntary compliance; D. ProsecuƟon of code violators who do not comply; E. SancƟoning of code violators and the assessment of ﬁnes and penalƟes; and F. Recovery of the County's invesƟgaƟon and enforcement costs. These wriƩen guidelines are intended to increase consistency and predictability within the County's Code Enforcement program, and to educate the County's ciƟzens and property owners about code enforcement and the consequences of violaƟng the County Code. 4 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual III. INTERPRETATION This manual describes the standard policies and procedures for code enforcement, and should be interpreted so as to maximize both the efficiency of County Code enforcement and compliance with County Code. This manual should be followed unless otherwise directed by the Director of the CDD or the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"). IV. CODE ENFORCEMENT PHILOSOPHY Policy. The County's policy is to enforce compliance with County Code in all cases of reported and veriﬁable code violaƟons. However, the County has limited code enforcement resources. Consequently, the County has established, through this manual, both a priority ranking for code enforcement and procedures designed to maximize available code enforcement resources. Code Enforcement should follow the priority ranking set forth in SecƟon V of this manual. It also should be ﬂexible enough to allow the level of enforcement that best ﬁts the type and circumstances of the code violaƟon(s), within clear and objecƟve criteria set forth in this manual and consistent with the prioriƟes. A. Enforcement Levels. The levels of enforcement available to the County are: 1. Mediated seƩlement of code violaƟon complaints; 2. NoƟce of violaƟon (hereaŌer "NOV"); 3. Double‐fee permits required for code compliance; 4. Obtaining voluntary compliance; 5. Sheriff’s Office warning; 6. Permit revocaƟon; 7. CitaƟon and prosecuƟon of violaƟon in state court; 8. Civil penalƟes through County administraƟve hearings; 9. Dangerous building abatement; 10. PeƟƟon for injuncƟon in circuit court; 11. AssisƟng in enforcement by other regulatory and licensing agencies; 12. Nuisance abatement; 13. County cost recovery. B. Sequence of Enforcement. The levels of enforcement are not mutually exclusive, and may be used alone or in sequence or combinaƟon with other levels. However, in most code violaƟon cases, the County will use the code enforcement levels in the sequence they appear in Paragraph A. C. Criteria for Choosing Level of Enforcement. Some code violaƟon cases may have aggravaƟng circumstances requiring a different sequence for enforcement acƟvity than that set forth in Paragraph A. The County may choose a different sequence if one or more of the following circumstances is present: Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 5 1. The code violaƟon is severe (e.g., deviates greatly from the Code); 2. The violaƟon poses a signiﬁcant threat to public health and safety, or to the environment; 3. The violaƟon may cause economic harm to individuals or to the County as a whole; 4. The physical size or extent of the violaƟon is signiﬁcant; 5. The violaƟon has existed uncorrected for a signiﬁcant period; 6. There is a previous history of complaints and code enforcement on the subject property and/or with the alleged code violator; 7. There is good potenƟal for combining enforcement acƟon on the violaƟon with other violaƟons; 8. The relaƟve beneﬁt of code enforcement outweighs its cost; 9. There is good potenƟal that the violaƟon(s) can be established and successfully prosecuted; and 10. There is liƩle likelihood of obtaining voluntary compliance. V. PRIORITIES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT Policy. County staff shall aƩempt to invesƟgate and resolve all code violaƟons within budget and staffing restraints. However, because of limited code enforcement resources, there may be Ɵmes when all code violaƟons cannot be given the same level of aƩenƟon and some code violaƟons may receive no aƩenƟon at all. In circumstances where not all code violaƟons can be invesƟgated, the most serious violaƟons, as determined under the prioriƟes set forth in this secƟon and the criteria for enforcement in SecƟon IV(C) of this manual, should be addressed before the less serious violaƟons are addressed, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. However, complaints alleging both priority and non‐priority violaƟons should be processed together to maximize efficiency. A. Priority Cases. The Board has established the following prioriƟes for CDD code violaƟons: 1. ViolaƟons that present an imminent threat to public health and safety; 2. ViolaƟons affecƟng rivers, streams and/or adjacent riparian areas; 3. Solid Waste Code violaƟons and Building Code violaƟons consisƟng of ongoing non‐permiƩed construcƟon or failure to obtain permits for construcƟon started aŌer the effecƟve date of this manual; 4. Land use violaƟons. B. Lower Priority Cases Policy. Complaints alleging code violaƟons that do not fall within the priority ranking above should be processed in the order in which the complaints are received, and as Code Enforcement resources allow. ExcepƟon. At the discreƟon of Code Enforcement staff, complaints may be processed in any order that maximizes the efficiency of enforcement. 6 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Procedure. All complaints concerning a parƟcular type of code violaƟon (e.g., non‐permiƩed manufactured homes in manufactured home parks), or all complaints of violaƟons occurring in a parƟcular geographic area, may be processed together, regardless of the order in which the complaints are received. C. Solid Waste. The County Solid Waste Department may engage any other County Department/ Office to administer its Code Enforcement program for County solid waste code violaƟons. VI. APPLICABILITY Policy. This manual applies to all code enforcement carried out by CDD, its employees and agents. Except as otherwise provided, the policies and procedures in this manual apply to all alleged code violaƟons whether or not they existed or were known by the County on the effecƟve date of this manual. The policies and procedures in this manual supersede any conﬂicƟng County policies and procedures. Non‐Applicability to Covenants, CondiƟons and RestricƟons. Many subdivisions and planned communiƟes are subject to private, recorded covenants, condiƟons and restricƟons (CC & Rs). The County's policy is not to enforce private CC & Rs. Non‐Applicability to Private Legal AcƟon. CiƟzens may undertake private legal acƟon to enforce County Code, including civil liƟgaƟon against the alleged code violator, as well as personally ﬁling citaƟons and prosecuƟng County Code violaƟons in court. The policies and procedures in this manual do not apply to private legal acƟon to abate violaƟons. Neither should they be interpreted to suggest that the County will parƟcipate in such private legal acƟon. VII. INITIATION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT Code enforcement may be iniƟated by any of the following methods: A. CiƟzen Complaints. Any person may make a complaint to the County alleging one or more code violaƟons. 1. Form. A ciƟzen may iniƟate a complaint by submiƫng a leƩer to CDD, compleƟng the complaint form approved by the County and available online, or by contacƟng CDD. If a ciƟzen submits a complaint by phone or wriƩen communicaƟon other than a completed complaint form, County staff shall complete the complaint form. If the County receives a wriƩen complaint other than the County‐approved complaint form, the wriƩen complaint shall be aƩached to a complaint form completed by County staff. To be invesƟgated, a ciƟzen complaint must contain all informaƟon required on the complaint form. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 7 2. Anonymous Complaints Policy. The County's policy is to not accept anonymous County Code violaƟon complaints. The County believes that anonymous complaints are not as reliable as those made by complainants who are willing to idenƟfy themselves. In addiƟon, in many cases, the complainant's idenƟﬁcaƟon and tesƟmony in court may be necessary for successful prosecuƟon of Code violators and Code Enforcement. ExcepƟons. The County recognizes there may be cases jusƟfying an excepƟon to this policy. These are cases where the nature of an anonymous complaint reliably suggests the existence of code violaƟons presenƟng an imminent threat to public health and safety or to the environment, which threat easily may be veriﬁed by County staff. In such cases, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, County staff shall accept the anonymous complaint and invesƟgate it. 3. ConﬁdenƟality Policy. The County's policy is to maintain the conﬁdenƟality of Code Enforcement complaint ﬁles and computer records, including the idenƟty of the complainant, to the extent legally possible. The County believes it is important to maintain this conﬁdenƟality to assure effecƟve invesƟgaƟon and prosecuƟon of code violaƟons. In addiƟon, the County recognizes that some complainants do not want their names disclosed to the alleged code violator for fear of retaliaƟon. However, in some cases it may be necessary for successful prosecuƟon and enforcement for the complainant to be idenƟﬁed and to tesƟfy in court. ExcepƟons. In cases where the County chooses to cooperate with, or defer to, federal or state agencies for code enforcement, the contents of the ﬁle may be disclosed, as necessary, to the other agency. Procedure. In order to maintain the conﬁdenƟality of Code Enforcement complaint ﬁles and the idenƟty of the complainants, while assuring effecƟve prosecuƟon and enforcement and compliance with state law, the following procedures apply. a. Code Enforcement ﬁles will be maintained as conﬁdenƟal ﬁles throughout invesƟgaƟon, violaƟon prosecuƟon and/or other types of code enforcement to the extent legally permissible. b. The contents of Code Enforcement ﬁles will not be disclosed to anyone other than County staff who have a reason to know about and who are involved in the invesƟgaƟon, or to similar staff of an agency with which the County is cooperaƟng. The contents of the ﬁle will not be disclosed to any other person absent court order, unƟl: 1) the invesƟgaƟon is complete and a citaƟon discovery request is made; or 2) the ﬁle is closed and disclosure is made pursuant to the public records law. B. ObservaƟon by Code Enforcement Staff. Code Enforcement staff oŌen observe addiƟonal potenƟal County Code violaƟons while conducƟng complaint invesƟgaƟons. Such observaƟons may form the basis for addiƟonal invesƟgaƟon and enforcement acƟon. Policy. The County's policy is that Code Enforcement staff document any potenƟal code violaƟons the staff observes on property that is the subject of their current invesƟgaƟon. Code Enforcement staff shall invesƟgate documented addiƟonal potenƟal violaƟons. If substanƟated, staff may address noted addiƟonal violaƟons. Staff may also document and address code violaƟons observed on any property adjacent to the subject property, which violaƟons are observable from the subject property. 8 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual C. ProacƟve Code Enforcement. Within available code enforcement resources, the County may undertake a number of County‐iniƟated procedures for proacƟve code enforcement. These procedures may include: 1. InvesƟgaƟons and prosecuƟons of code violaƟons in parƟcular geographic areas; 2. InvesƟgaƟons and prosecuƟons of code violaƟons of a parƟcular type throughout the County; 3. Timely and regular follow‐up by CDD staff for compliance with condiƟons and requirements for permits and approvals; 4. ReporƟng by County staff of code violaƟons observed while conducƟng County business; 5. ExaminaƟon and comparison of County ﬁles for evidence of code violaƟons; 6. RevocaƟon of permits and approvals for failure to comply with requirements or condiƟons; 7. CooperaƟon with code enforcement by other regulatory and licensing agencies; and 8. CooperaƟon with uƟlity companies to terminate service, to the extent authorized by law, to non‐permiƩed uses on property. D. Permit/Approval CondiƟon Monitoring by CDD Staff. The County rouƟnely issues land use, environmental and construcƟon permits with a variety of requirements and condiƟons, and Ɵmelines for meeƟng them. For example, a land use approval may require landscaping the site by a certain date, and building permits expire if construcƟon progress and inspecƟons are not made within periods set by state law. Code violaƟons occur when these permit and approval condiƟons are not Ɵmely met. Policy. The County's policy is that CDD staff may conduct Ɵmely and regular monitoring of condiƟons of approval and similar permit requirements for all permits and approvals. Procedure 1. All persons issued permits or approvals shall be given wriƩen noƟce of the consequences of failure to comply with requirements and condiƟons, including potenƟal code enforcement. 2. If any permits and approvals are found not to be in compliance with condiƟons of approval or other permit requirements, staff in the appropriate CDD division assigned to the permit or approval monitoring shall undertake appropriate acƟon to obtain compliance. 3. If the assigned CDD staff are unable to obtain compliance within a reasonable Ɵme established for that purpose, they shall report the violaƟon to Code Enforcement and shall noƟfy Code Enforcement staff of any enforcement acƟon already taken. 4. Upon receipt of staff noƟﬁcaƟon of non‐compliance the case may be forwarded to Sheriff’s Office for citaƟon pursuant to SecƟon XI.C of this manual. E. Report by County Staff. In many cases, County staff may be in a unique posiƟon to observe potenƟal code violaƟons. For example, a property appraiser in the Assessor's office may be the only person able to observe new construcƟon for which there is no permit. Policy. Any County staff member may report to Code Enforcement staff possible Code violaƟons observed while conducƟng County business. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 9 Procedure. Reports by County staff under this subsecƟon shall be made on a complaint form provided by CDD Code Enforcement Staff. F. Report by County Commissioner. A member of the Board may report a potenƟal code violaƟon, or may request that Code Enforcement staff invesƟgate a ciƟzen report of a potenƟal code violaƟon. The commissioner may complete a complaint form or report the alleged violaƟon in any other wriƩen form. If a Board member submits a wriƩen report other than a complaint form, that report shall be aƩached to a complaint form completed by Code Enforcement staff. G. InformaƟon from Official County Records. PotenƟal code violaƟons may be discovered by examining the County's own official records. For example, cross‐referencing between the Assessor’s records and CDD's records may reveal construcƟon or land use acƟvity without necessary permits or approvals. CDD staff may also discover code violaƟons by comparing the County's own land use, environmental health and construcƟon permit records with each other. Policy. CDD staff may regularly compare all perƟnent County records to idenƟfy potenƟal Code violaƟons. Procedure. Code violaƟons discovered through comparison of informaƟon in County ﬁles shall be reported to Code Enforcement on a complaint form. VIII. RECORDING COMPLAINTS All complaints received by Code Enforcement shall be recorded in CDD's computer system. The Complaint Record is the official record of the complaint and its invesƟgaƟon and resoluƟon. The Complaint Record shall include the following minimum informaƟon: 1. An assigned complaint number; 2. The tax map number and tax map for the subject property; 3. Which Code Enforcement staff is assigned to the case; 4. The complaint form; 5. DocumentaƟon of invesƟgaƟon; 6. Assessor's informaƟon on the subject property. IX. NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION When Code Enforcement iniƟates invesƟgaƟon, it may provide noƟce to any CDD division, other County department, or federal or state agency that may have an interest in the alleged code violaƟon. 10 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual X. INVESTIGATION A. Preliminary MaƩers. At the beginning of each invesƟgaƟon, the following shall be established: 1. JurisdicƟon. The property upon which the alleged code violaƟon has occurred must be land over which the County has code enforcement jurisdicƟon. 2. Zoning. The zoning of the subject property shall be determined. 3. Permit Status. The status of any land use, environmental health, construcƟon or other similar permits on the subject property shall be determined. 4. Property Ownership. All persons with a recorded legal interest in the subject property should be idenƟﬁed. These persons should include the owners, contract purchasers, lessees and lienholders or other security interest holders. 5. Other PotenƟally Responsible Persons. In addiƟon to the persons listed in subparagraph 4 of this paragraph, any other persons potenƟally responsible for the alleged code violaƟon(s) should be idenƟﬁed. These persons could include tenants, construcƟon and landscape contractors and excavators. 6. IdenƟﬁcaƟon of Applicable Code Provisions. The Code Enforcement staff, with the assis‐ tance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, shall idenƟfy the perƟnent provisions of the County Code that may have been violated according to the complaint. 7. Prior Complaint History. The Code Enforcement staff shall examine CDD records to determine the existence and status of any prior or exisƟng code violaƟon complaints on the subject property or concerning the alleged violator. B. Establishing the Elements of a ViolaƟon. Before a NoƟce of ViolaƟon (“NOV”) is sent, it must be determined whether the complaint, if true, establishes a code violaƟon. If it does not, the case should be resolved by ﬁle closure as provided in SecƟon XII of this manual. The Code Enforcement staff, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, and aŌer any necessary ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon, shall determine if the following elements have been established. 1. Responsible Person. The person or persons who are reasonably believed to have commiƩed the code violaƟon, or who are or may be legally responsible for the alleged code violaƟon, have been idenƟﬁed. 2. Alleged ViolaƟon Occurred or is Occurring. A complaint may allege a code violaƟon that occurred in the past (e.g., construcƟon without a permit) or that occurs only intermiƩently (e.g., surfacing sewage from a drain ﬁeld, or periodic non‐permiƩed commercial acƟvity in a residenƟal zone). Code Enforcement staff shall determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged violaƟon occurred or is occurring. Such grounds may be established either by personal observaƟon by Code Enforcement staff or by reliable evidence from a complainant. If Code Enforcement staff determines that reasonable grounds do not exist, no enforcement acƟon should be taken unƟl the complainant or the Code Enforcement staff has had a reasonable opportunity to develop such grounds. If no reasonable grounds are developed within a reasonable period, the case should be resolved by ﬁle closure as provided in SecƟon XII of this manual. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 11 3. Relevance of Statute. In some instances, a complaint may allege a code violaƟon on property subject to other protecƟons. A common example is the State’s prohibiƟon on local laws governing forest and farm pracƟces (ORS 30.934 and 30.935). Code Enforcement staff shall, with the assistance of other CDD staff and County Legal Counsel as necessary, consider the relevance of statutes in substanƟaƟng a County Code violaƟon. If Code Enforcement staff veriﬁes conﬂicƟng relevance under the law, the case should be resolved by ﬁle closure as provided in SecƟon XII of this manual. C. Assignment of InvesƟgaƟon and Enforcement Responsibility Policy. The responsibility for ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon and code enforcement should be assigned to the CDD staff most able and qualiﬁed to conduct the invesƟgaƟon and undertake appropriate enforcement acƟon. For example, alleged violaƟons of environmental health codes may best be invesƟgated and resolved by County Sanitarian. However, all code enforcement acƟvity should be coordinated with Code Enforcement staff and all NOV's and Voluntary Compliance Agreements (VCA) will be draŌed by Code Enforcement staff. Procedure 1. Assignment. Assignment of ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon and Code Enforcement responsibility shall be made by the CDD Director, on a case‐by‐case basis or pursuant to standing policies in this manual or elsewhere. The following criteria shall be used for assignment of responsibility: a. The nature of the code violaƟon(s) alleged in the complaint; b. The knowledge and experƟse needed to invesƟgate the alleged violaƟon; c. The history of prior code enforcement on the subject property or with the alleged violator; d. The status of permits and approvals on the subject property; and e. the workload of the relevant CDD division staff and the projected Ɵmeline for invesƟgaƟon and resoluƟon of the complaint. 2. CoordinaƟon. Whenever responsibility for Code Enforcement acƟvity is assigned to CDD staff other than Code Enforcement staff, such staff shall consult with Code Enforcement staff and keep them advised of their acƟviƟes. When CDD staff other than Code Enforcement staff is assigned to invesƟgate a code violaƟon complaint for which a Complaint Record has been created, such staff shall enter into the record a report of any acƟon undertaken to invesƟgate or to obtain compliance. D. Field InvesƟgaƟon 1. Purpose. The purposes of Code Enforcement ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon are: a. to verify the existence and severity of code violaƟons; b. to document code violaƟons by means of wriƩen notes, photographs, witness interviews, etc.; c. to obtain supporƟng evidence such as photographs, measurements, names and statements of potenƟal witnesses, etc. 2. CoordinaƟon. Whenever responsibility for ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon is assigned to CDD staff other than Code Enforcement staff, the coordinaƟon and noƟﬁcaƟon described in Paragraph C(2) of this secƟon shall occur. 12 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 3. PreparaƟons and PrecauƟons Policy. Code Enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff, as well as members of the public, should not be exposed to unreasonable risks of violent confrontaƟon or injury during the course of ﬁeld invesƟgaƟons. Code Enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff shall take whatever acƟons are reasonable and necessary to minimize the known risk of violent confrontaƟon or injury to themselves or others in conducƟng their ﬁeld invesƟgaƟons. Procedure a. Law Enforcement Assistance. When appropriate, Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff should contact the Sheriff's Office to determine if there have been previous criminal complaints or invesƟgaƟons concerning the subject property or alleged code violator, and whether, in the opinion of the Sheriff's Office, a ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon would present any threat to the safety of Code Enforcement staff, other staff, the alleged code violator or other persons present during a ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon. Code Enforcement staff or another assigned CDD staff person may request law enforcement assistance in conducƟng the ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon, and may postpone such invesƟgaƟon unƟl law enforcement assistance is available. b. Announced/Unannounced Field Visits. At the discreƟon of Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff, a ﬁeld visit to the vicinity of the subject property may be conducted with or without prior noƟce to the property owner, occupant or alleged code violator. The determinaƟon of whether or not to give prior noƟce shall be made on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The nature of the alleged violaƟon; 2. Whether or not prior noƟce will make detecƟon and documentaƟon of the alleged violaƟon more difficult; and 3. Whether or not prior noƟce will unnecessarily increase the known risk of violent confrontaƟon or injury to Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff. c. Entering Upon Property or Premises Policy. It is the County's policy that Code Enforcement staff and other assigned CDD staff shall not enter upon private property or premises to conduct a ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon without authority to enter. Procedure. Code Enforcement staff may enter unposted property to seek permission to invesƟgate on the premises. Unless permission is granted, the invesƟgaƟon shall be conducted from public roads or property where permission to enter has been granted. If Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff does not have permission or other authority to enter upon property or premises, and entry upon the property or premises is necessary to conduct the invesƟgaƟon, Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall consult with County Legal Counsel about obtaining a search warrant. E. Report of Field InvesƟgaƟon 1. Report. Upon compleƟon of the ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon, Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff shall complete a report of invesƟgaƟon in the Case Record. The report shall include the following informaƟon: Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 13 a. Name of invesƟgator; b. Date, Ɵme and place of ﬁeld visit; c. Code violaƟon(s) observed; d. If no code violaƟon(s) observed, an explanaƟon; e. Witnesses, if any, interviewed; f. Evidence, if any, obtained (e.g., photographs); g. Discussion, if any, of violaƟon with owner, occupant or other responsible person; h. AcƟon necessary, if known, to correct violaƟon; and i. Recommended enforcement acƟon. 2. Complainant NoƟﬁcaƟon. Upon compleƟon of the ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon, Code Enforcement staff shall noƟfy complainants of the status of complaint invesƟgaƟon. This noƟﬁcaƟon should include informaƟon on whether a case will be opened, the reason a case will or will not be opened, and name and contact informaƟon of the staff member assigned the Code Enforcement case. XI. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES A. Voluntary Compliance Policy. The primary objecƟve of CDD Code Enforcement is voluntary compliance. Staff encourages voluntary code compliance by providing code violators and other responsible persons with informaƟon about the County Code and an opportunity to comply with the County Code within reasonable Ɵmeframes and with liƩle or no penalty. The County believes that voluntary compliance generally is less expensive for all parƟes and of a more saƟsfactory and lasƟng nature than involuntary compliance. Notwithstanding this objecƟve, the County believes that allowing Code violators the opportunity to voluntarily comply any Ɵme during code enforcement, or outside reasonable Ɵme limits for such compliance, may actually result in abuse of this opportunity in order to delay compliance. Therefore, it is the County's policy to limit the Ɵme frame during which Code violators may come into voluntary compliance with liƩle or no penalty. Procedure The following procedure shall apply whenever a code violator brings his or her property into compliance during the code enforcement process: 1. Compliance Timing and Staff Response Timing of Compliance DisposiƟon AŌer complaint/ before citaƟon File closed. ApplicaƟon of permit invesƟgaƟve fees where applicable. AŌer citaƟon/before trial or hearing before hearings officer CDD recommends dismissal of citaƟon, no cost recovery, applicaƟon of permit invesƟgaƟve fees where applicable. At Ɵme of trial or hearing before hearings officer CDD recommends prosecuƟon, convicƟon or guilty plea, maximum ﬁne or civil penalty, injuncƟon, cost recovery, applicaƟon of permit invesƟgaƟve fees where applicable. 14 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 2. Limited Time Frames. OpportuniƟes for voluntary compliance, where provided, shall be of limited duraƟon. The facts in each case differ. Therefore, Code Enforcement staff shall consider the appropriate Ɵme frame for compliance on a case‐by‐case basis. 3. Time Extended by Voluntary Compliance Agreement. Following the issuance of a NOV, if the alleged violator admits the violaƟon(s) and requests extended Ɵme for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator shall sign a "Voluntary Compliance Agreement in a form acceptable to the County." The agreement shall provide that, in exchange for the extended Ɵme for voluntary compliance, the alleged violator agrees to abate the violaƟon(s) by a speciﬁed Ɵme, and, if voluntary compliance is not obtained during this extended Ɵme, to waive hearing in any subsequent violaƟon proceeding and consent to entry of judgment and imposiƟon of penalƟes, costs, injuncƟon, and/or such other relief as is deemed appropriate. B. NoƟce of ViolaƟon 1. When Sent. When Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff determines there are reasonable grounds to believe a violaƟon did or does occur, based upon the informaƟon in the complaint and any ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon, an NOV shall be sent on a standard form approved by the CDD Director or in a leƩer or noƟce sent by the appropriate CDD division staff. 2. To Whom Sent. A NOV shall be sent to all persons liable for the violaƟon under Deschutes County Code. 3. How Sent. NOVs shall be sent by cerƟﬁed mail to the best available address for the persons described in SubsecƟon 2 above. 4. Follow Up. If, within 15 days of the mailing of the NOV, the liable persons have not contacted Code Enforcement staff, Code Enforcement staff shall determine the next step in the code enforcement process, including warning and/or citaƟon. 5. Compliance. If the Code Enforcement staff determines that the required correcƟons have been made or the liable persons have provided evidence that no violaƟon exists, the date and method of compliance shall be noted in the Complaint Record and the case shall be resolved by ﬁle closure pursuant to secƟon XII of this manual. 6. CorrecƟve AcƟon. In some cases, correcƟve acƟon may consist of both applying for and obtaining necessary permits or approvals. In such cases, the permit or approval applicaƟon alone will not be sufficient to assure compliance. The liable person must complete the applicaƟon process, including all appeals, within a reasonable Ɵme and not allow the applicaƟon to expire. Once permit approval is obtained, the liable person must complete all permit condiƟons prior to the expiraƟon of any permit approval. Policy. All code violaƟon cases shall remain open unƟl all permit condiƟons and other required correcƟve measures are completed. Procedure 1. Where the required correcƟve acƟon consists of both applying for and obtaining permits or approvals, Code Enforcement staff, in consultaƟon with other appropriate CDD staff, shall determine a reasonable Ɵme frame for applying for and obtaining the necessary permits or approvals. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 15 2. If at any Ɵme during the process for obtaining necessary permits or approvals the alleged violator fails to meet the reasonable Ɵmelines established by Code Enforcement and such failure does not result from the acƟons of others, Code Enforcement staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this secƟon. 3. If the alleged code violator is not granted the necessary permits or approvals, Code Enforcement staff shall cite the alleged violator pursuant to Paragraph C of this secƟon unless (a) the alleged code violator enters into a wriƩen agreement with the County to comply with the County Code within a Ɵme frame established by Code Enforcement staff, or (b) a lender has begun foreclosure proceedings and, in the opinion of Code Enforcement staff, is likely to address the violaƟon within a reasonable Ɵme aŌer the foreclosure. C. CitaƟon and Complaint 1. Non‐Compliance. Where voluntary compliance cannot be obtained by CDD within a reasonable Ɵme frame, Code Enforcement staff may cause a citaƟon to issue or may iniƟate administraƟve enforcement hearing proceedings in accordance with County Code. 2. Field InvesƟgaƟon Required. No citaƟon to state court or citaƟon or noƟce for administraƟve enforcement hearing proceeding shall be prepared unless and unƟl a ﬁeld invesƟgaƟon has veriﬁed the existence of a Code violaƟon. 3. Form. All citaƟons to state court shall be on a uniform citaƟon which conforms to ORS 153.045 through ORS 153.051. CitaƟons or noƟces for administraƟve enforcement hearing proceedings shall be on the form required by County Code. 4. Issuance of CitaƟon. Any person authorized by County Code SecƟon 1.08.025 may issue a citaƟon. The person issuing the citaƟon must personally observe the conduct or circumstances consƟtuƟng a violaƟon. 5. Service. All citaƟons to state court shall be served in accordance with ORS 153.154. CitaƟons or noƟces for administraƟve enforcement hearing proceedings shall be served in accordance with County Code. 6. Seƫng Arraignment/AdministraƟve Hearings. For citaƟons to state court, the officer serving the citaƟon shall set the date for arraignment. For citaƟons or noƟces for administraƟve enforcement hearing proceedings, Code Enforcement Staff shall set the date for the hearing in accordance with the County Code. 7. Arraignment in State Court a. Purposes. The purposes of arraignment are to: 1. Allow the defendant to enter a plea to the citaƟon; 2. Resolve any jurisdicƟonal issues; 3. Set a trial date if the plea is not guilty; and 4. If the plea is guilty, allow the defendant, the Sheriff’s Office Deputy and other County Code Enforcement staff the opportunity to provide informaƟon to the court regarding penalƟes and related maƩers. b. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County Legal Counsel shall not represent the County at arraignment unless the defendant has legal counsel at arraignment. 16 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 8. Failure to Appear at Arraignment. If the defendant fails to appear at arraignment, Code Enforcement staff may request that the court enter a default judgment in favor of the County and impose penalƟes against the defendant. 9. Trial. If the defendant pleads not guilty to the allegaƟons in the citaƟon, Code Enforcement staff shall request that the court set the maƩer for trial at the earliest available date. a. Burden of Proof. The County has the burden of proving at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegaƟons in the citaƟon. b. Responsibility of Code Enforcement Staff. At trial, the responsibility of Code Enforcement staff is to prosecute the case by presenƟng evidence, calling witnesses and offering any relevant documents and other exhibits in support of the citaƟon. c. Appearance by County Legal Counsel. County Legal Counsel shall not represent the County at trial unless the defendant is represented by legal counsel at trial. 10. Fines a. Schedule. The schedule of maximum ﬁnes for County Code violaƟons is set forth in DCC 1.16.010. b. Amount. If the defendant is convicted, Code Enforcement staff shall request that the court impose a ﬁne in an amount consistent with the County Code. 11. Suspension of Fines. The Circuit Court has authority to suspend the imposiƟon of all or a porƟon of a ﬁne. In some cases, the court may wish to suspend imposiƟon of a ﬁne or a part thereof on the condiƟon that the defendant comply with County Code within a speciﬁed Ɵme period. a. Policy. It is the County's policy to increase the effecƟveness of code enforcement acƟvity and the incenƟves for code compliance by discouraging any suspension of ﬁnes in County Code violaƟon cases. b. Procedure. If a defendant is convicted, Code Enforcement staff and/or County Legal Counsel shall advise the court of the County's policy against ﬁne suspension and shall ask the court not to suspend imposiƟon of ﬁnes. 12. CollecƟon and DistribuƟon of Fines. Fines imposed by the court for County Code violaƟons are collected by the State Court Administrator and are remiƩed in part to the County. a. Policy. It is the County's policy that all ﬁnes imposed for County Code violaƟons and remiƩed to the County should be used to pay the costs of County Code enforcement. b. Procedure. All ﬁnes imposed by the court for County Code violaƟons and remiƩed to the County shall be deposited in the County General Fund and transferred to the CDD Revenue Fund for budgeƟng and expenditure in the Code Enforcement program. D. InjuncƟons Policy. Code Enforcement staff shall seek injuncƟons from the court in cases where other methods of code enforcement may be inadequate or have been unsuccessful. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 17 Procedure 1. When Sought. Code Enforcement staff may contact County Legal Counsel to obtain/ coordinate injuncƟons in any case in which: Code violaƟon(s) present an imminent threat to the public health and safety or to the environment; or Code violaƟons have not been corrected within a reasonable Ɵme aŌer a defendant was found by the court or County Hearings Officer to be guilty of a code violaƟon. 2. By Whom. Pursuant to DCC 1.16.040, Code Enforcement staff (or County Legal Counsel if appearing in the case) may request that the court order injuncƟve relief and/or abatement as part of the penalty in a code enforcement proceeding. AlternaƟvely, County Legal Counsel may iniƟate a separate legal acƟon for injuncƟve relief and/or abatement of a violaƟon. 3. How Enforced. AŌer issuance of an injuncƟon, if the defendant fails to comply within the Ɵme period speciﬁed in the injuncƟon, the Sheriff’s Office or CDD staff shall request that County Legal Counsel iniƟate civil contempt proceedings against the defendant. E. Permit RevocaƟon. Certain County Codes authorize the revocaƟon of permits or approvals for failure to comply with their requirements or condiƟons. Policy. To maximize code compliance, the County shall revoke permits and approvals to the extent authorized by law in appropriate cases. RevocaƟon of permits are parƟcularly appropriate in cases in which correcƟve acƟon may not be effecƟve in bringing the subject property into code compliance due to the nature of the violaƟon and the deliberateness of the code violator's acƟons in violaƟng the Code. Procedure 1. Report to Code Enforcement Staff. If the County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a parƟcular type of permit determines that the condiƟons or requirements of a permit or approval have not been met, that staff member shall inform Code Enforcement staff of such violaƟon, and Code Enforcement staff shall enter the informaƟon in the Code Enforcement electronic ﬁles. 2. RevocaƟon Procedure. The County staff responsible for monitoring and/or reviewing a parƟcular type of permit shall determine whether to undertake permit revocaƟon proceedings as authorized under the applicable County Code provisions. The following factors shall be considered: a. Whether the criteria for permit revocaƟon set forth in the applicable County Code provisions exist; b. The severity of the deviaƟon from the permit or approval requirements or condiƟons; c. The deliberateness of the deviaƟon from the permit or approval requirements or condiƟons; and d. Whether compliance can be achieved more effecƟvely through other code enforcement methods. 18 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual F. Nuisance Abatement. Chapter 13.36 of the Deschutes County Code (hereaŌer "Code") authorizes the abatement of County Code violaƟons that are deﬁned as "public nuisances." Policy. County Code violaƟons consƟtuƟng public nuisances may be abated pursuant to Chapter 13.36 of the Code and within available resources. Procedure. When County staff discovers or receives a veriﬁed complaint of a code violaƟon that may consƟtute a "public nuisance," staff shall provide the informaƟon to Code Enforcement staff who shall enter the informaƟon into the Code Enforcement ﬁle. Code Enforcement staff or other assigned CDD staff may consult County Legal Counsel to iniƟate nuisance abatement proceedings pursuant to Chapter 13.36 of the Code. G. Dangerous Building Abatement. Chapter 15.04 of the Code authorizes the abatement of buildings containing violaƟons rendering them "dangerous buildings" as deﬁned in the Code. Policy. County Code violaƟons that may render a structure a "dangerous building" shall be abated pursuant to Chapter 15.04 of the Code and within available resources. Procedure. When Code Enforcement staff or other CDD staff discovers or receives a veriﬁed complaint of code violaƟons in a structure that may render the structure a "dangerous building," the staff shall provide the informaƟon to Code Enforcement staff, who shall enter in the informaƟon into a Complaint Record. The Deschutes County Building Official (hereaŌer "building official") shall be noƟﬁed and shall promptly consult with County Legal Counsel to iniƟate abatement proceedings under chapter 15.04 of the code. H. InvesƟgaƟve Fees. Certain provisions of the state building code allow municipaliƟes administering and enforcing a building inspecƟon program to charge invesƟgaƟve fees for work commencing without the required permit. Policy. To maximize the incenƟves to comply with County Code, the County shall charge invesƟgaƟve fees, to the extent authorized with law, for permits sought for non‐permiƩed construcƟon or installaƟon. Procedure. Whenever County staff discovers or receives a veriﬁed complaint of non‐permiƩed construcƟon or installaƟon, the informaƟon shall be submiƩed to Code Enforcement staff, who shall enter the informaƟon into the Code Enforcement Complaint Record. To the extent allowed by law, the County shall charge invesƟgaƟve fees for the permit(s) necessary to comply with the County Code. I. AssisƟng Enforcement by Other Regulatory/Licensing Agencies. In some cases, County Code violaƟons also may consƟtute violaƟons of federal and/or state statutes or administraƟve rule. For example, surface mining without County land use approval may also violate state statutes and administraƟve rules governing mining, and performing building construcƟon without necessary permits may also consƟtute violaƟons of state statutes and administraƟve rules governing the conduct of licensed contractors. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 19 Policy. To maximize code enforcement and the incenƟves for compliance, County staff shall promptly advise the appropriate federal and/or state agency of County Code violaƟons reported or discovered that may also violate the statutes or administraƟve rules of that agency. The County shall also cooperate with federal or state agencies, to the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, to obtain voluntary compliance or to punish violaƟons. The County may defer invesƟgaƟon and prosecuƟon to the appropriate federal or state agency in cases in which, as determined by the CDD Director or designee, the federal or state agency enforcement procedure will result in more effecƟve correcƟon of the violaƟon(s). Procedure 1. ReporƟng. Whenever County staff discovers or receives a veriﬁed complaint regarding a County Code violaƟon that may also consƟtute a violaƟon of federal or state statute or administraƟve rule, the staff shall advise the appropriate federal or state agency. 2. CooperaƟon. To the extent authorized or required by law or by intergovernmental agreement, County staff shall cooperate with the federal or state agency to obtain voluntary compliance or to prosecute and punish violaƟons. That cooperaƟon may include sharing informaƟon, conducƟng joint invesƟgaƟons, appearing as witnesses and/or providing evidence in enforcement proceedings, and coordinaƟng the Ɵming of invesƟgaƟons and/or enforcement proceedings to maximize their effecƟveness. 3. Deferral to Other Agency. The County may defer some or all code enforcement to a federal or state agency, and forego County Code enforcement, where the Board, CDD Director or the Director’s designee determines that the federal or state enforcement acƟvity will be more effecƟve than County Code enforcement. In making the determinaƟon to defer to other agencies, the following factors shall be considered: The nature of the violaƟon and necessary correcƟve acƟon; The comparaƟve severity of the penalƟes available to the federal or state agency and to the County; and The comparaƟve Ɵme frames required for enforcement by the federal or state agency and by the County. J. Civil PenalƟes. Monetary penalƟes, injuncƟons and other remedies for County Code violaƟons may be assessed through a County administraƟve hearing procedure, separate from the ciƟng and prosecuƟon of County Code violaƟons in court. Policy. To increase the incenƟves for compliance or as required by state law, Code Enforcement staff may engage in County administraƟve hearing procedure for assessing and collecƟng civil penalƟes against County Code violators. Procedure. County staff may engage in the code enforcement administraƟve hearing process when, in the opinion of Code Enforcement staff, such a proceeding would more likely result in code compliance or County enforcement cost recovery. K. County Cost Recovery. The County incurs costs invesƟgaƟng code violaƟons and enforcing codes. They include the cost of personnel and equipment, legal advice and representaƟon, service of citaƟon, and administraƟve expenses. 20 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Policy. It is the policy of the County to maximize code enforcement and to increase the incenƟves for code compliance by recovering its reasonable code enforcement costs from code violators. Procedure. In determining whether to cite a code violator to court or to engage in the administraƟve hearings process, code enforcement staff may consider which process will result in the maximum cost recovery to the CDD. L. Liens. In many cases, the most effecƟve way for the County to recover its code enforcement costs, as well as to collect any civil penalƟes assessed through administraƟve hearings, is to ﬁle a legal claim for those costs or penalƟes against the property subject to code enforcement, or against other property owned by the code violator. Policy. It is the County's policy to assure recovery of its costs, as well as the collecƟon of civil pen‐ alƟes assessed through administraƟve hearings, by ﬁling claims for those costs and penalƟes in the form of liens on property subject to code enforcement, or upon other property owned by code violators. Procedure. In the appropriate cases, the County staff will explore with County Legal Counsel the means by which liens may be placed against the real property of the code violator for the collecƟon of code enforcement costs and civil penalƟes assessed through County administraƟve hearings. XII. RESOLUTION OF CODE COMPLAINTS Policy. It is the County's policy to aƩempt to reach ﬁnal, saƟsfactory resoluƟon of all code violaƟon complaints. However, the County recognizes that not all complaints may be resolved successfully, due to factors outside the County's control. These factors can include the indigence of the code violator, the lack of County or other resources to assist the violator, statutory limitaƟons on potenƟal ﬁnes or other penalƟes for code violaƟons, and the large number of complaints to be resolved. Therefore, the County shall focus its code enforcement resources on the code violaƟons that meet the prioriƟes set forth in SecƟon V of this manual, and aƩempt to resolve those violaƟons within a reasonable period. It is the County's policy not to close a case unƟl it is resolved. Procedure A. File Closure. A code violaƟon complaint will be resolved by ﬁle closure in the following cases: 1. When no code violaƟon is found aŌer invesƟgaƟon; 2. AŌer there is voluntary compliance; 3. AŌer the property owner and/or other responsible person has been found guilty of a violaƟon and has corrected the violaƟon(s); 4. AŌer an injuncƟon has been issued and the property owner or other responsible person has corrected the violaƟon(s); 5. AŌer invesƟgaƟon and prosecuƟon of the violaƟon(s) have been completed by a federal or state agency to which the County deferred code enforcement; 6. When the property on which the violaƟon exists is sold or transferred and a new Code Enforcement case is opened in the name of the new owner. Code Enforcement Procedures Manual 21 B. NoƟce of ResoluƟon. The County shall send wriƩen noƟce to the complainant when the complaint is resolved, describing the resoluƟon. C. Alternate Methods of ResoluƟon. The County may explore alternate methods to resolve Code violaƟons including mediaƟon. XIII. AMENDMENTS This manual may be amended when deemed necessary by the CDD Director and the Board. Amendments may be proposed by County staff, Board members and other interested persons. 22 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual