Nevada County Grand Jury • 2001-2002

Code Compliance Department Reason for Investigation The Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint that the Code*

Published: July 02, 2002 19 pages Consolidated Report

View Original PDF

⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.

⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.

Findings 14 findings

Quoting from the Code Compliance Manual: a. Potential violations can come to the attention of Code Compliance through the public, community groups, other agencies, and Board of Supervisor referrals. Code Compliance works with communities and neighborhoods to resolve key enforcement issues; it is Code Compliance's sole authority to decide complaints or violations to pursue based on the priority system and staff resources. b. Code Compliance is Strictly a complaint driven process. c. Compliance is the goal; enforcement is to be used after all other options have failed.

The manual has five priorities. Building without a permit, as well as health and safety complaints are listed as top priorities.

There are as many as 11 separate letters/notices, including a Stop Work Order, which can be sent to correct a violation of non-permitted building.

Included in the notices is a "Warning Notice of Code Violation" which states that infractions are punishable by a mandatory fine of $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second, and $500 for the third and subsequent violations within a 12-month period, plus penalty assessments.

The Code Compliance Department has a backlog of more than 1000-code violation cases.

Citizen complaints have increased dramatically over the past year from approximately 50 per month to 100-200 per month.

Other counties use strict code enforcement, along with code compliance, to fully comply with existing codes.

Schools and fire districts receive separate funds when building permits are issued. As an example, an average 2000-square-foot home generates $4280 in school mitigation fees.

The Grand Jury was unable to get clear information on approximately how much money is lost to schools and fire districts due to non-permitted building.

F10

If a property owner builds without a permit, and no complaint is filed, property taxes on improvements may not be collected.

F11

The Assessor's Office generally does not communicate with the CDA regarding non- permitted building improvement assessments.

F12

The CDA has budgeted the purchase of a "Land Use Module" software package, which could facilitate communications between departments.

F13

At present, there are 2.5 full-time employees in the Code Compliance Department.

F14

A fee based cost recovery plan recently implemented by the Code Compliance Department would at least partially generate revenues to offset the cost of hiring two additional full-time employees. See the county government website http://docs.co.nevada.ca.us/dscgi/ds.py/View/Collection-3217 for additional information. . . CONCLUSIONS 1. An unknown, but potentially substantial, amount of money is not being collected for property taxes, mitigation fees, special district fees, and Building Department fees.

Recommendations 4

R1

The Board of Supervisors should approve the "Manual of the Code Compliance Department", dated March 2002, after it has been revised as follows: a. Streamline the process to correct a violation of any non-permitted building. b. Require Nevada County CDA employees to file official complaints if they observe code violations. c. Make use of legal enforcement in more difficult cases. d. Spell out in detail all fees, fines, and penalties that need to be paid by violators of non-permitted building as well as all other code violations. e. Increase amounts for mandatory fines and penalties to punitive levels. f. Include the cost recovery plan in the manual.
R2

Code Compliance Department staffing should be increased to reduce the backlog of open cases.
R3

The Assessor's Office should improve communication with the CDA to facilitate gathering information regarding non-permitted structures.
R4

If the county cannot get resolution on a violation resulting in a substantial amount of money, a lien should be placed on the property in question to cloud title.

Conclusions 16

CL1

An unknown, but potentially substantial, amount of money is not being collected for property taxes, mitigation fees, special district fees, and Building Department fees.
CL2

In the past, code enforcement for non-permitted building in our county has been ineffective and practically non-existent.
CL3

The "Strictly by complaint" directive has failed to resolve the large problem of non- compliance to code. Surveillance by CDA employees has been discouraged, if not eliminated altogether.
CL4

Use of law enforcement, as a backup, in the more difficult cases has been all but eliminated.
CL5

The recently developed Code Compliance Manual is a much-improved policy document. However, it does not spell out in detail that all regular county fees need to be paid by violators of non-permitted building, in addition to all mandatory fines and penalty assessments.
CL6

The process to correct a violation of non-permitted building appears to be too bureaucratic and cumbersome. The paperwork going back and forth is immense, eleven different letters and notices should not be needed in order to establish violations and to get them settled.
CL7

The mandatory fines for egregious violations ($100, $200, and $500) of non-permitted building appear to be too nominal to be punitive. Fines should be a hefty percentage of all regular county fees, especially for second and subsequent violations. This should deter property owners from building without permits.
CL8

Stronger penalties and fines would increase monies for additional code compliance officers.
CL9

More personnel and surveillance are needed to curtail and eventually eliminate the rampant increase in non-permitted building and other code violations.
CL10

The recently implemented cost recovery plan could provide more personnel for code compliance and enforcement.
CL11

The Grand Jury commends the Code Compliance Director for having developed a reasonable and thoughtful manual which, after being strengthened by the points outlined by the Grand Jury, will go a long way in improving the substandard handling of code violators in this county.
CL12

An unknown, but potentially substantial, amount of money is not being collected for property taxes, mitigation fees, special district fees, and Building Fees. RESPONSE: Partially disagree with the findings. As indicated under Findings #8, 9, and 10, we recognize there is some loss of funds relative to non-permitted buildings. We believe this to be a small amount though we have no empirical data to support our conclusion. We do know that there are over 9000 permits, which are approved, on an annual basis in this county. We believe the vast majority of buildings are permitted, and those that are not are usually identified by staff review in either CDA or the Assessor's offices on site follow-ups. We have indicated a willingness to study this issue more closely over the next fiscal year.
CL13

In the past, code enforcement for non-permitted building in our county has been ineffective and practically non-existent. RESPONSE: Disagree with findings. When the CDA finds a building to be unpermitted, we will work with owner to bring the building in compliance, including the proper permitting.
CL14

The "Strictly by complaint" directive has failed to resolve the larger problem of non- compliance code. Surveillance by CDA employees has been discouraged, if not eliminated altogether. Response to Grand Jury Report - 7/05/02 Page 5 RESPONSE: Partially disagree with findings. Employees are encouraged to work respectfully and Our approach has been to bring violators into voluntary courteously with the public. compliance. If we can not get voluntary compliance we will use other code enforcement tools available to staff. Staff is not discouraged to identify large problems, which need to be mitigated. However, in terms of our current workload, we must balance issues based on the priority list established in Code Compliance as well as our available resources. This was the basis for reallocating staff in Code Compliance and requesting 1.5FTE new positions in the new budget year.
CL15

Use of law enforcement, as a backup, in more difficult cases has been all but eliminated. RESPONSE: Partially disagree with the findings. We use the full continuum of laws, ordinances, and policies at our disposal. We make every effort to work with violators to bring them into voluntary compliance. We will use law enforcement only in the worst case scenario if the circumstance warrants their use.
CL16

The process to correct a violation of non-permitted building appears to be too bureaucratic and cumbersome. The paperwork going back and forth is immense, eleven different letters and notices should not be needed in order to establish violations and to get them settled. RESPONSE: Partially disagree with findings. The Grand Jury received a draft copy of the Code Compliance Manual. In the final draft, the total number of letters and notices will be reduced down to seven. It should be noted other requirements exist because of the potential involvement of the courts and the necessary documents required to present a case.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Nevada County County

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.