Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Enforcement Update M E M O R A N D U M Date: 05/14/2014 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Code Enforcement Staff – John Griley, Tim Grundeman; Lori Furlong - Supervisor RE: Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update ______________________________________________________________________________________ Summary Community Development Department (CDD) Staff met with the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) in March 2013 to discuss the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual (Manual) and to seek direction on the BOCC review process. The manual had not been formally reviewed or amended since 1997. The CDD Work Plan includes an action item, carried over from previous years, to update the Manual. Last year, the BOCC directed staff to perform the following tasks in the sequence listed: 1. Complete the internal review and prepare a draft Manual update; 2. Conduct a BOCC work session to present and discuss the draft Manual update; 3. Conduct a BOCC public hearing on the draft Manual update; and 4. BOCC adoption of the Manual Update as proposed or modified by the BOCC following public comment/testimony. The CDD Code Enforcement team (CDD staff, Sheriff’s Office, Legal Dept.) has coordinated to prepare the draft Manual Update for the BOCC’s consideration. Staff has also surveyed other Oregon Jurisdictions for base level understanding of how our procedures are similar or differ. Staff seeks BOCC direction on whether to: 1. Initiate a public hearing on the draft Manual update as proposed by staff or modif ied by the BOCC at this work session; or 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to initiating a public hearing. Background Please find in the attached presentation a Code Enforcement program performance report. The report includes workload trends, case resolution and compliance rates. Highlights from the report are: New reported violations have normalized since a dip experienced in the past recession. Staff continues with a proactive Code Enforcement program. Case resolution timeframes continue to improve. Voluntary compliance continues near 85% of all cases, up from a historic average of about 75%. Update Highlights Please find attached the draft Manual update. An explanation of the draft changes is included in the attached slide presentation. The draft incorporates changes reflective of current practice s. Side by side comparison of changes is possible by viewing the existing procedures manual available on the County Website (see http://www.deschutes.org/Community-Development/Property-Violations-Code- Enforcement.aspx ). Changes can be summarized as: Updates reflective of current practice or operational environment. Update reflective of current procedural law. Updates to eliminate redundancy if procedures are addressed in other County policy. Updates reflective of pending text amendments. Policy & Practices Discussion Items Please find below a list of the key code enforcement policies and practices identified by staff and raised by the public over the past several years. This is likely only a partial list. Other issues may be identified by the BOCC and the public. Should Code Enforcement accept anonymous complaints? (Matrix #1) Should CDD staff initiate cases based on observation of a code violation discovered while on County business? (Matrix #1) Should complainant information be more (or less) rigorously protected? (Matrix #1) Should confidentiality policy be amended to encourage disclosure or identification of complainant when the complainant is the County or other public agency? (Matrix #1) Should the frequency of citation issuance be increased in cases of willful disregard for the code? Should other punitive measures be taken to decrease the frequency of blatant code violations? (Matrix #2) Should a timeline for compliance be developed? (Matrix #2) Should fines be progressive? Should fines differ based on severity or degre e of issue? (Matrix #3) Should the potential to restrict development permits on properties with pending code violation cases be retained in the manual? (Matrix #3) BOCC Direction Staff seeks direction on next steps: 1. Initiate a public hearing on the draft Manual update as proposed by staff or modified by the BOCC at this work session; or 2. Revise the draft Manual update per BOCC direction at this meeting and schedule a follow-up work session prior to initiating a public hearing. 1 Code Enforcement Procedures Manual Review May 19, 2014 2 Year 2013 Code Enforcement Activity and Efficiency Report Case Initiation Summary Cases Opened New Proactive Cases Total New Cases Percent Change Over Previous Year 2011 181 7 188 (16%) 2012 252 24 276 47% 2013 241 13 254 (8%) 3 Case Turnaround Total Cases Closed 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 360 Days 2011 197 10% 22% 50% 77% 2012 257 13% 26% 62% 77% 2013 264 8% 21% 64% 86% 4 Compliance Voluntary Warning Citation Injunction 2011 85% 11% 4% <1% 2012 85% 10% 5% <1% 2013 84% 13% 3% <1% 5 March 13, 2013 BOCC Work Session (Summary) Staff to return after internal review. Proposed areas for review (post staff review): 1. Complaint Policy (anonymous complaints, confidentiality). 2. Voluntary Compliance/ Timelines for Compliance 3. Penalty and Fines 6 UPDATE CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL 7 What We’ve Changed … •Updates to reflect current practice or current operational environment (e.g. updates to sequence and levels of enforcement; removed procedure for working off fine, publication of citations, etc.) •Updates to reflect procedural law (e.g. removed text on warrants and bail. ) 8 What We’ve Changed (cont.) •Removed sections on stop work orders, financial hardship, file maintenance, restrictions on permits for accessory structures, media contact. •Stop work orders are a function of the Building Official. When utilized the Building Official coordinates with CE in resolution. •The County has an existing policy on financial hardship/ fee waiver. •The County has an existing policy on file maintenance. •County zoning code contains restrictions on development permits for accessory structures on undeveloped property. •Media Contact section removed. Procedures are currently addressed in County communications procedures. 9 What We’ve Changed (cont.) •Modification of procedure related to injunction. This change updates manual to reflect a DCC 1.16.040 text amendment approved by ordinance in 2013. 10 What Remains … •The most often identified policy concerns 11 Matrix Topic #1 Complaint Policy County Initiation vs. Citizen Complaint Initiation Anonymous Complaints File Confidentiality Proposed change for public sector or County initiated complaints (not confidential) 12 Matrix Topic #2 Voluntary Compliance/ Timelines for Compliance Voluntary Compliance vs. Enforcement Action Emphasis Discretionary vs. Defined Timelines 13 Matrix Topic #3 Penalty and Fines Restricting Development permits 14 Where to from here … 15 BOCC Direction Initiate a public hearing on the draft CE Policy & Procedures Manual update as proposed or modified by the BOCC OR Revise the Manual update based on BOCC direction and conduct a work session before initiating a public hearing 16 Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update, 5/19/2014 1 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL UPDATE MATRIX TOPIC #1 Policy Issue Existing Procedures Other Jurisdictions Staff Recommendation BOCC Options Complaint Policy Origin of Complaints County initiation vs. citizen complaint initiation Anonymous Complaints Should CDD accept anonymous complaints? Confidentiality Policy Should file information be made available to the public before a case is closed? Primarily Complaint Driven – 95% of cases are complaint based – 5% originate from proactive CE reviews CDD does not currently accept anonymous complaints (except in matters of public health and safety). CE files are confidential until case is closed, unless otherwise released under citation discovery. One variation to this policy might be to make public County/public sector initiated complaints, but preserve the confidentiality of privately- initiated complaints until the case is resolved/closed. Case file is scanned and available via County website once the case is resolved. (CDD receives few requests for a copy of complaint after the case is closed.) All Prioritize Complaint Based Enforcement How we differ… • Some allow staff initiated investigation. • Some allow anonymous complaints. • Some jurisdictions minimize complaint focus by separating complaint from investigation (e.g. complaint is not part of the case record). • File confidentiality varies. Some jurisdictions release current investigation files upon records request. • Some jurisdictions protect confidentiality more rigorously (e.g. release by court order only). The core policy issue is whether CDD accepts anonymous complaints. Staff suggests that complaint based code enforcement reflects public priority. There is also inherent objectivity in complaint based enforcement. The question then becomes the extent to which files should be kept confidential. • Continue with existing practice & procedure with respect to privately initiated complaints • Consider expanding criteria for when anonymous complaints might be accepted • Make public County/public sector initiated complaints immediately Citizen driven investigation necessitating some level of file confidentiality or Staff initiated investigation or Somewhere in between and Should confidentiality policy be amended to encourage disclosure or identification of complainant when the complainant is the County or other public agency? Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update, 5/19/2014 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL UPDATE MATRIX TOPIC #2 Policy Issue Existing Procedures Other Jurisdictions Staff Recommendation BOCC Options Voluntary Compliance Voluntary Compliance vs. Enforcement Action Emphasis Timelines for Compliance Discretionary vs. Defined timelines Objective is voluntary compliance. Flexibility with time, not with Code. Citations utilized when violations not corrected within a reasonable time. Injunction as a last resort. How we differ… Not significantly • Voluntary Compliance is a universal objective. • Most jurisdictions exercise discretion on time allowed. Public health and safety is the guiding factor in determining time frames. [One of six surveyed (Redmond) has a specified timeline (goal) for compliance]. Voluntary Compliance is the norm. Enforcement action (i.e. citation) does not necessarily prompt quicker resolution and is generally costlier for all. It also does not guarantee fine imposition. Ultimately, enforcement action is sometimes necessary and must be effective when indicated. Despite best intentions, resolution time frames vary. Circumstances faced by owner are a key factor. • Continue existing procedure with respect to compliance • Develop procedure for implementation of fines when indicated • Incorporate more rigorous analysis of statistics on resolution timeframes to ensure staff efficiency Carrot or Stick and How to limit the number of carrots? Code Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual Update, 5/19/2014 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL UPDATE MATRIX TOPIC #3 Policy Issue Existing Procedures Other Jurisdictions Staff Recommendation BOCC Options Penalties and Fines Citations used as compliance tool. Court rarely imposes fines. County presently amending fine schedule/procedure to reflect State rules. Fines for building code violations not to exceed $1,000/day. Fines for all other violations up to $2,000/day. How we differ… • Others per day penalty on initial violation are mostly less than that allowed under State rules (OARs). • Some have specific policy for fines on repeat violation. Some amass multi- day penalties. Others take a progressive approach where continuing violations prompt greater penalty. Staff recommends group discussion. Status quo or Penalty based on severity and whether violation impacts public health and safety. Additionally, Should fine schedule be progressive? Restrictions on Development Permits The existing manual provides for future restriction on development permits on properties with pending code violations (See section XI.I). Implementation of this policy would require a code change. How we differ… • Some jurisdictions have implemented this policy. Staff recommends group discussion. Should the potential to restrict development permits on properties with pending code violation cases be retained in the manual?