HomeMy WebLinkAboutCode Enforcement Backup InfoCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DESCHU1'ES COUNTY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County' Commissioners
FROM: Tom Anderson, Community Development Director
RE: Staff Report - Code Enforcement Program Discussion
DATE: April 12, 2010
The Board of Commissioners has requested a policy discussion of the current code
enforcement program administered by Community Development (CDD). It is the
understanding of staff that the Board would like to consider more aggressive punitive
actions in certain scenarios where a property owner has demonstrated a willful disregard
for existing state and county code rules and requirements. This report will provide a brief
background of the program, statistics on current operational workload and performance,
and discussion options for modification of the program.
BACKGROUND
In the 1980's and first part of the 1990's, CDD's code enforcement program was
comparatively aggressive. Staff carried badges and had the ability to issue citations.
However, over time the program came under increasing pressure from parts of the
community for what were perceived by some as strong arm tactics. There were
demonstrations outside of the CDD building along those lines. The two Code
Enforcement Officers eventually feared for their safety and left county employment. They
were not replaced and for several years following this, the program was not adequately
organized or completely effective, with duties shared between CDD and the Sheriff's
Office. In response, a 'Code Enforcement Task Force' was formed to discuss how best
to conduct code enforcement in the county. The result was the drafting of a 'Code
Enforcement Policy and Procedures Manual', which was discussed by the Board in 1995
through a number of public meetings and eventually adopted, with an effective date of
January 1, 1996. Although certain elements of the document have evolved in practice
over time, it still largely shapes how code enforcement is conducted today. The central
themes of the document are:
• Proactive code enforcement
• Prioritization of cases
• Response to citizen complaints
• Voluntary compliance
• Prosecution of offenders who do not comply
• Punishment and fines
• Recovery of costs
• Rejection of anonymous complaints
• Complaints from county employees
CDD recognizes the age of the manual and has included in its work plan for several
years the goal of performing a comprehensive update, which would recognize current
practices and provide an opportunity for both the public and policy makers to discuss the
effectiveness of the program and any desirable modifications to philosophy and
practices. Staffing limitations however have so far prevented that from occurring.
CURRENT PROGRAM
A report on the 2009 performance of the code enforcement program was recently
prepared which includes workload trends, case type volume, case resolution times and
compliance rates. The report is attached.
Highlights from the report:
• After many years of steady increases, new reported violations decreased in 2008
then stabilized in 2009.
• An increasing percentage of new cases are generated through proactive code
enforcement.
• Cases are fairly evenly divided between Building, Environmental Health (septic
systems), Land Use and Solid Waste Code violations.
• Case resolution times have been gradually improving (decreasing) over the past
three years.
• Although historically averaging about 75%, cases resolved through voluntary
compliance have been increasing the past three years -78% in 2007, 82% in
2008, and 86% in 2009.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
• Should the frequency of citation issuance be increased in cases of willful
disregard for code regulations?
o Discussion: The desired outcome of a decrease in instances of willful
disregard for the codes should be weighed against the increased
time/cost of CDD, Sheriff and Legal Dept staff time. Also, it should be
noted that issuance of a citation does not guarantee conviction in circuit
court.
• Should other punitive measures be undertaken to decrease the frequency of
blatant code violations?
o Multiple citations
o Lobby legislature for increase in fine amount
o Public posting of violations/citations
o Use of Nuisance Code/Abatement
o Other?
• Should an update of the Procedures Manual be placed at a Higher Priority in the
Work Plan?
o Discussion: Short of delays in the processing of active cases, it is not
expected that staff time will be available for this work until Fall, 2010.
• Should the Building Official be given more direct guidelines for issuance of Stop
Work Orders?
• Other Direction?
0,
R 3
%;:<4
0 3
O c
tu 0_ =
m „82:
CI M� �
=11o 9� di
(15. 2 0 3
tom W =0 2
%< M
13= rPip
M
0
X lumit
LiunoD salnypsaa
ii
c
m
z
cn
z
rn
m
0
cnc
m
m
m
m
m
-o
r-
0 0
m
m
z
m
r
r
z
m
m
M3IAMI NUYS OV -
PROACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFORT
> z z
C TI
0
min
0 s
m z m
cn z
r 0
m o0
Dc
>G)
z"
vD
�'
0 z
oc cn
cnIn
0
r
c
z
n
0
r
z
n
rn
rn
z
cn
rn
z
0
-o
r
z
rn
z
AJVlAIVIflS IftJVJDOId
w
01
Cn
(0
01
O
01
00
N
CA O
N RINI
w
O
00
0)
CA)
00
00
N
w
O
O
N
cW
01
00
N
0
CI
N W
O
1
Cn
'ocn
c0
co
00
w
N
Go
m 0
FP 0
r.
M .�
AJBWWn9 Almoy
N
0)
N
01
N
0
CD u)
CD
N
Z
-0
n
0 a z
CD
n CD
cn
CD
N
0)
w
0)
N
CO
0
n
CD
Sa n
�
CD
0
w
CD
0,)
.
0
33
v
•
C31
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
v 74
E. m: co
� a 1::.
co ,y
Fir I,
Ico
03
!.%1 =
—.
0
—.
z
(12let
el.UOWUOJ!AU3
N
7
CD n
CD cn
CI CD
Cn
N
O
O
co
0
a)u)
CD
--i
%<
73
CD
0c
3
3
N
N
C�)
04)CD
w Oes CD ea
00
w
O
N
N
01
c
0
0)
O
CO
C1
0
C1
00
0
0
00
0
CO
0
00
CA)
c:*)
01
0
0
CI)
(/)CD
30,)
0
a
CO -.4
0)
00
CO
0
0)
0
00
Co
0
0)
3.
CO
0
O
0
0
0
0)
0
z
0
30
v'
n
CD