2016-17 Final Grand Jury Report*

R1

33 of a Sierra County Jail, and concludes negotiations prior to the start of the 2017 WBCF contract to use video conferencing to the fullest extent possible in place of physical 34 35 transportation. The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors fund two additional full time 36

R2

sworn positions for patrol beginning in FY2017-18 to better cover a 24-hour, seven-day- 37 a-week patrol schedule and to offer more flexibility with vacations, sick days and long- 1 additional dispatcher/jailer in FY2017-18: Recommendation #2: CJRF is recommending the Sheriff's office and Board of 2 Supervisors consider funding an additional dispatcher / jailer position to help 3 handle the 911 communications workload. Continually having to use the 4 supervisor to temporarily cover routine dispatcher staffing vacancies in addition 5 to regular workload responsibilities is not an ideal approach for managing this 6 essential public safety function. Routinely having to reassign deputies from patrol 7 shift duties may also negatively affect incident response times, particularly if a 8 serious public safety situation occurs when patrol staff is covering dispatch 9 communications. The Grand Jury recommends that Sierra County Board of Supervisors consider a one- 11

R3

37 intensity, implement standard operating procedures for the fee studies in each Sierra 38 County department. In FY17-18, assign task of researching resource development through grant list-servs, REQUEST FOR RESPONSES 1 2 Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the following response is required: 3 Van Maddox, Sierra County Treasurer/Auditor/Tax Collector: respond to F1, F2, F3, F4 4 5 and R1, R2, R3 Sierra County Board of Supervisors: Peter Huebner, Chair; Paul Roen, Scott Schlefstein, 6 Lee Adams, and Jim Beard respond to F2, F3, F4 and R2, R3, R4 The Grand Jury invites the following individual to respond: 8 Tim Beals, Planning Director, Building Official 1 INVESTIGATION OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS 2 3 SUMMARY 4 5 6 Sierra County has a large backlog of building permit violations dating back to 1986 inclusive of 162 entries. Despite the best intentions of Building/Planning Department staff, resources have 7 not been available to manage the current workload simultaneously with addressing the violators. Based on interviews and document reviews, it appears that the violations are not a high priority 9 for the Board of Supervisors and that the general fund essentially subsidizes new construction at 10 11 a cost to current taxpayers. As an example, the egregious violations at the Loyalton Mobile Home Estates have recently 13 come in the spotlight as numerous health, safety and environmental hazards were documented 14 and the State of California has suspended the operating permit. High costs to Sierra County in 15 terms of law enforcement calls, health hazard mitigation (water, sewer, solid waste) and safety 16 concerns (child protection, environmental damage) have been significant and might well 17 18 illustrate the cost saving effect of prevention through timely permit management. 19 20 Sierra County citizens express concerns for unpermitted building activity as well as unresolved violations in their neighborhoods. The perception is that the County allows this illegal activity to 21 continue without resolution and thus diminishes the quality of life in Sierra County. 22 23 GLOSSARY 24 25 Egregious: conspicuously bad, extraordinary in some bad way 26 27 General Fund: In public sector accounting, the primary or catchall fund of a government, 28 government agency, or nonprofit entity such as a county. It records all assets and liabilities of the 29 county that are not assigned to a special purpose fund. 30 31 California Building Code: The California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) is authorized by California Building 32 33 Standards Law to administer the many processes related to the development, adoption, approval, publication, and implementation of California's building codes. 34 35 36 The California Building Standards Code, Title 24 serves as the basis for the design and construction of buildings in California. Improved safety, sustainability, maintaining consistency, 37 new technology and construction methods, and reliability are paramount to the development of 38 39 building codes during each Triennial and Intervening Code Adoption Cycle. 1 2 Code Enforcement Officer Definition: 3 "A Code Enforcement Officer is a sworn or non-sworn inspector, officer or investigator, employed by a city, or county, or city and county, who possesses specialized training in, and 4 whose primary duties are the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations 5 of laws regulating public nuisance, public health, safety, and welfare, public works, business 6 activities and consumer protection, building standards, land-use, or municipal affairs." 7 8 Code Enforcement Definition: "Code Enforcement is the prevention, detection, investigation and enforcement of violations of 9 statutes or ordinances regulating public health, safety, and welfare, public works, business 10 activities and consumer protection, building standards, land-use, or municipal affairs." 11 Red tag: The term "red tag" is often used to describe different situations involving unpermitted 12 work. Building and planning departments might use it to describe a notice on property that is 13 potentially dangerous or unfit for human habitation when noticed by the officials. It is generally 14 an official warning that remediation is required. 15 16 BACKGROUND 17 Sierra County has a large geographic area of 962 mi.2, a population of only 3,240 potential 18 taxpayers, and a small building department localized in Downieville, California. For these and 19 other reasons (to be discussed below) it has historically been difficult to enforce building permit 20 and building code requirements for construction projects, particularly in the more isolated areas 21 22 of the county. In a section of the report entitled "SIERRA COUNTY FOSTERS A DISRESPECT OF THE 24 LAW" the 2012/2013 Grand Jury admonished the County for lack of uniform enforcement of the 25 California Building Code. In that report they recommended that computer software be obtained 26 in order to efficiently track all building permits and violations. They further recommended that 27 faithful and equal application of the Building Codes be implemented in order to maintain respect 28 29 for the rule of law. Although the County started the implementation of an in-house spreadsheet tracking system, the 31 efforts over the past three to four years have not fulfilled the intent for the Planning Director and 32 County Health Officer to "jointly pursue software options for a permit tracking system that can 33 be uniformly applied to building permits, environmental health permits, planning permits and 34 land use enforcement, and road encroachment permits." 35 36 The Board of Supervisors only partially agreed with the second Grand Jury recommendation to 37 enforce the Building Code uniformly on all landowners and leaseholders in 2012-13, stating, 38 39 The Board of Supervisors partially agrees. However, equal application of the law is authorities and their oversight rests with either the electorate in the case of elected 1 2 officials, or the board of supervisors with appointed department managers. 3 4 The 2016/2017 Grand Jury has received complaints regarding "red tags" of construction projects 5 that are still proceeding with no building permits and with no apparent enforcement or even verification of building codes. Given that non-permitted construction has a long and ongoing 6 history in Sierra County, and that significant recommendations were made by a previous Grand 7 8 Jury, the 2016/2017 SCGJ elected to conduct a follow-up investigation to assess progress within 9 the permit and enforcement process. The review of previous Grand Jury investigations showed that the Building Department has only been investigated one time since 1998, most recently in 10 11 2012-2013. METHODOLOGY 13 14 Interviews 15 The 2016/2017 grand jury interviewed employees of the Sierra County Building Department and 16 17 the District Attorneys' office, in regard to building permit processes and how violations are 18 handled. We also interviewed a member of the Sierra County Treasurer/Auditor/Tax Collector 19 department, partially in regards to building permit fees and costs, but also in the context of the 20 overall fiscal condition of Sierra County as it relates to building and planning. 21 22 The Grand Jury interviewed Sierra County Supervisors to get their general views and philosophy 23 on the building permit violations and the potential to raise fees and fines to support additional 24 enforcement staffing. To aid in evaluating whether or not a raise in building permit fees/fines 25 could be appropriate and justified, the Grand Jury contacted building departments in nearby 26 smaller California counties, as well as Washoe County in Nevada. Washoe County was 27 contacted mainly in regard to enforcement policy and methodology. 28 29 Finally, the Grand Jury interviewed two citizens who experienced the building permitting 30 process and obtained a final inspection. DOCUMENTS 32 33 California Building Standards Commission. California Building Code. July 1, 2016. Retrieved at: http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Codes.aspx. Fee Schedules for Yuba, Placer, Alpine, Butte, Plumas and Sierra County. . Tim Beals, Director. Grand Jury Orientation Packet to Department of transportation and 36 37 Planning, 2016-17 Fiscal Year. Sierra County Building and Planning Department. Violations Data Base. . Sierra County Building Department. Permit-tracking Database. . Sierra County Code. October 15, 2014.Retrieved from: Sierra County Code. . Sierra County Grand Jury. Final Report 2012-2013. Retrieved from: DISCUSSION 1 2 3 The Building Department acknowledged the past and ongoing problems with building permit violations, some of which are known as legacy violations and over 20 years old. In all, the Jury 4 understands that there are 162 violations on the current Building Department list, including some 5 going back to 1986. The mobile home park in the City of Loyalton alone has numerous 6 7 violations. 8 9 On April 19, 2017, the Board of 10 Supervisors held a workshop with 11 Loyalton Mobile Home Estates 12 residents and concerned members of 13 the community to address the 14 violations. These violations included 15 leaking, exposed sewer lines; 16 squatters; electrical hazards; solid 17 waste (garbage) dumping; and 18 unpermitted structures. The 19 operating permit was suspended by 20 the State in November 2015 and the 21 violations have multiplied. 22 23 "Dumping" of garbage and other solid waste. Sierra County has never had, and currently does not have, a dedicated Code Enforcement Officer. However, the County Board of Supervisors formally created an appointed position of 25 Code Enforcement Officer, and defined his/her duties, in the Sierra County Ordinances Code (Section 1.17.050; Ord. 775, eff. 9/19/91). This position was not specifically funded and has yet to be filled. Instead, the Planning Director/ Building Department Director acts as the "Enforcement Official." Procedures and fines for all manner of code violations are established in Sections 1.16, 1.17.070 through 1.17.140 and 1.18 of the Sierra County Ordinance Code. Violations judged to be misdemeanors are punishable by a fine of not more than $500 and/or imprisonment, not to exceed 6 months. Most code violations are judged to be infractions and are punishable by a fine not 4243 Exposed sewer lines exceeding $50 for the first violation, up to $100 for the second within the same year, and not 1 exceeding $250 for each additional violation of the same provision of this code within one year. Further, each and every day the violation goes unabated is considered a separate offense so that 3 fines are cumulative on a daily basis. 4 5 6 In accordance with the recommendations of 7 the 2012/2013 Grand Jury, the Building 8 Department implemented a computer 9 system to more effectively track the 10 progress of current and older building permits and violations. Commendably, the 11 12 tracking program consists of a spreadsheet 13 created in-house at minimal cost. While 14 maybe not as thorough as some of the 15 commercially available programs for permit tracking software, it is certainly 16 17 cost-effective and should be capable of 18 tracking the eight "stick homes" and 2 19 manufactured new home building permits 20 the county received in 2016, as well as the 21 100 or so annual smaller permits for decks, 22 sheds, garages and home additions. In 23 addition the system could be modified to 24 incorporate more information, as needed. Squatters, use of four spaces 25 There was discussion as to whether higher building department fees or fines could be appropriate 26 and sufficient to fund employment of the Code Enforcement Officer, as specified in Sierra 27 County Ordinance Code. There is some sense that the County Supervisors may not all be 28 entirely in favor of increasing fees, but that is an issue that supervisors review periodically and 29 over which they have full control. The Building Department feels that the system could benefit 30 from a full-time Code Enforcement Officer (see description in Auditor Investigation section) 31 32 however there is a question as to whether there would be sufficient work available in the Building Department alone. The officer would likely need to also be involved with enforcement 33 of Health Department regulations and even agriculture, specifically the now legal growing of 34 35 marijuana in California and Sierra County. 36 37 The Building Department is reportedly making an effort to process the older building permit violations as well as keep current with new and recent permits. The department, of course, is 38 limited by budgets and staff to the extent that building permit violations, particularly minor ones, 39 40 cannot always be given top priority. The SCGJ understands that, after repeated warnings of permit violations, a package of Attorney, fines or even arrest in the most blatant cases where public safety is a concern. It does 1 not appear that the process is getting to the enforcement stage, regularly or consistently. Some of 2 this may have to do with simply not wanting to harass people in small communities for relatively 3 4 minor violations. Fees collected by the Building Department for various aspects of various projects are insufficient 6 to fully fund the department and, in fact, account for less than 25% of the department budget. Unfortunately, according to a prediction of the Sierra County Department of Transportation and 8 Planning Grand Jury Orientation Packet, "The budget is 100% General Fund and it historically 9 has been supported by fees and costs for services estimated to recover between 5 to 10% of the 10 budget. The current fee schedule, adopted in 2005, should have the impact of recovering up to 11 50% of the budget." While the Treasurer's Department would welcome a larger contribution 12 from the Building Department through increased fees and fines, it is a decision left entirely to the 13 14 County Supervisors. Grand Jury research of California counties Butte, Yuba, Placer and Alpine revealed that basic 16 building permit fees in Sierra County appear to be in the upper middle of the range for the 17 smaller counties. Exact comparison is difficult. In some counties fees are based on purely on 18 square footage, and in others fees are set according to valuation. Assessments for Public Facility 19 fees and School Impact fees may or may not be added to the total. To the best of our 20 21 information, approximate permit and inspection fees for the listed counties are summarized below for an assumed 2000 square foot house without a garage and excluding a septic system or 22 23 well: 24 Building Permit for County 2,000 square foot house $3670 Sierra County $8500 Alpine County $3450 Butte County $3190 Placer County $2900 Yuba County 25 There is little question that the smaller rural counties commonly attract independent people who 26 forgo some advantages of city living, partially to avoid a perceived overbearing local 27 government. While these people may intend to follow building codes, and may be fully capable 28 of doing so, they do not necessarily want the local government collecting fees and telling them 29 what they can and can't do on their own property. We suspect that this has been the case in Sierra 30 County for many years and may even include some employed by the county. While nearly all 31 local officials, elected, appointed and hired, profess support for much more rigid enforcement of 32 the law, as well as higher building permit fees and fines, these changes just never seem to come 33 about. Citizen interviews indicated that the website was quite informative, permit fees were 1 FINDINGS 2 3 The current permit tracking system is not integrated to include health, safety and F1. 4 environmental components of the process. County Ordinance Code establishes the position of Code Enforcement Officer; however 5 F2. 6 the Board of Supervisors has not authorized funding for the position. Building Code 7 violations are handled by the Building Department with the head of the department acting as Code Enforcement Official. Given that most of the employees of the 8 Building/Planning Department have multiple duties, they are unable to devote regular 9 10 hours to the backlog of violations. A full time Code Enforcement Officer would be beneficial to other departments besides 11 F3. just Building and Planning. Given the limited County budget, however, funding for the 12 position would likely have to come from budget cuts in other areas. Better enforcement 13 of County policy on building permit fees and fines might partially offset costs for the 14 Code Enforcement Officer. Sierra County Ordinance Code adequately specifies fines and procedures for code 16 F4. violations that can be judged as either infractions or misdemeanors, depending on 17 severity and public safety concerns. Section 1.16.040 of the code defines each day that 18 19 the violation continues unabated, as a separate offense. This daily accumulation of fines can be excessive, given the limited enforcement staff and may be part of the reason 20 21 enforcement can be lax. Building permit fees in Sierra County are not out of line with surrounding small counties. F5. Given that the county issues only about 100 building permits a year it would take a major 23 and likely unreasonable increase in fees to significantly impact the county budget or fully 24 25 fund a Code Enforcement Officer. For example, Sierra County received about $78,600 in fiscal year 2015-2015 for building permits and planning fees. Even a 50 percent fee 26 increase would not cover salary and benefits for a qualified Code Enforcement Officer. Most of the permits are for smaller projects like decks, sheds or garages; only eight new 28 stick homes in 2016 were charged the higher fees for new home construction. A similar fiscal case can be made for not increasing fines for permit violations. Building 30 F6. permit/code violation fines are a very small percentage of Sierra County income and even 31 doubling them would not generate significant revenue. In addition fines can be a financial 32 drain on the county should the violator choose to appeal his/her case to the Board of 33 34 Supervisors, or worse yet, take the case to court. The Grand Jury has found a huge amount of incomplete and disorganized paperwork in 35 F7. the Building and Planning Department related to 162 code violations dating back to 1986. Building department employees estimated that many hours would be required to clear up violations, particularly in the Loyalton Mobile Home Estates, but also throughout the 1 2 entire County. Egregious violations result in unintended high costs for the taxpayer as 3 law enforcement, health and human services, and building department personnel must 4 attend to the adverse consequences for health and safety, environmental damage and law 5 violations. Existing taxpayers rather than owners of new construction bear the primary cost of 6 F9. 7 funding the permitting process in Sierra County, and thus have expectations that owners comply with Building Codes created to ensure health and safety, environmental 8 protection and adherence to civil laws. 9 10 RECOMMENDATIONS 11 Maintain updated permit status for all permits beginning July 1, 2017 using the existing 12

R4

time "signing bonus" for new deputy sheriffs, provided they commit to 3 to 5 years of 12 service. In addition it is recommended that the pay scale and benefits for all employees 13 within the sheriffs department be, at least, comparable to that of other low population 14 counties such as Plumas, Alpine, Butte or Modoc, to name a few. 15 16 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES 17 18 Pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05, the following responses are required: The Sierra County Sheriff: respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, and R1, R2, R3, R4 Sierra County Board of Supervisors: Peter Huebner, Chair; Paul Roen, Scott Schlefstein, 20 ш Lee Adams, Jim Beard respond to F1, F2, F3, F4, and R1, R2, R3, R4 21 22 The Grand Jury invites the following individual to respond: Fred Campbell, Consultant, CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH FOUNDATION P.O. Box 60566, Sacramento, CA 95860□ 24 Jeff Bosworth, Chief Probation Officer and Chairman of the Sierra County Community 25 . Corrections Partnership 27 28 Responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Sierra County Superior Court in accordance with the provisions of Penal Code section 933.05. 29 30 Reports issued by the Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code section 929 requires that reports of the 31 Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the 32 Grand Jury.

R5

28 issued based on priorities related to health and safety. Subsequently, with the approval of County Supervisors, assign staff to finalize violations on all building permits through 29 30 issuance of final notices, including indemnification of Sierra County for potential hidden hazards or property value loss, District Attorney actions, or final approval by December 31 32 31, 2017. Essentially clear the books of violations that are too old or too muddled to 33 resolve. 34

R6

By December 31, 2017, in partnership with the District Attorney, establish a written 35 policy and procedure detailing criteria for sending building permit violations for legal 36 action. By December 31, 2017 establish an amnesty program for violations older than 2010 in 37

R7

partnership with the District Attorney to waive fines pending completion of compliance From the following individuals: 1 Tim Beals, Director of Building and Planning Department: respond to F1, F4, F7, F8 and 2 • 3 R1, R5, R6, R7 Elizabeth Morgan, Registered Environmental Health Specialist, Sierra County and State 4 • of California respond to F1, F3 and F5 and R1, R5 5 Larry Allen, District Attorney: respond to F4 and R4, R5, R6, R7 6 • Van Maddox, Auditor/Treasurer/Tax Collector: respond to R2 7 • 8 9 From the following governing bodies: Sierra County Board of Supervisors: Peter Huebner, Chair; Paul Roen, Scott 10 • Schlefstein, Lee Adams, Jim Beard: respond to F1 through F9 inclusive; and R2, R3, R4, 11 and R7 12 13 14 The Grand Jury invites the following individuals to respond: 15 Tim Standley, Sierra County Sheriff .