Riverside County Code Enforcement

The Grand Jury reviewed a document in which a Code Enforcement Supervisor certified to the court under penalty of perjury, that all items listed in the Seizure Warrant had been removed from the owner’s property and disposed of lawfully. Grand Jury investigation revealed that in fact, all items listed were not removed and no hazardous materials were abated from the property.

Property owners may request a zoning change through the Planning Department to bring the property into compliance. The Grand Jury has found that the Planning Department allows these requests to remain in its Land Management System for months, and sometimes years, before being addressed. In several instances it was found that property abatement goes forward before the Planning Department addresses the zoning change requests.

When Code Enforcement schedules an abatement walk-through of a property with a licensed contractor, an inventory list of items to be removed is rarely supplied to the contractor. Without documentation, Code Enforcement cannot be certain that all items requested to be removed by the execution of Seizure Warrant were actually taken. 2

Testimony from several contractors revealed that Code Enforcement told them to take everything including salvageable materials to a waste disposal site. However, the standard purchase order that TLMA issues to contractors to remove debris, excessive outside storage, etc., clearly states, “All salvaged items shall be itemized in a list presented to the county. The value of the salvaged items shall offset the cost charged to the county for abatement.” Contractors are not reimbursing the county after removing salvageable materials from an abated property.

During an abatement case, eighty (80) tons of scrap metal were taken to a salvage yard and the contractor received a payment of $2,999.55 for the material. Similar cases have been discovered that total over $6,600. As of June 2005, no payments have been received by the county.

The property owner is not advised that monies reimbursed from salvageable materials may help offset the abatement costs.

When hazardous material is identified by Code Enforcement during a joint venture between county departments while executing an abatement order, no policy exists in the Code Enforcement Policy and Procedure Manual identifying the agency responsible to ensure the safe and lawful removal of the hazardous material.

The Code Enforcement process can take two to three years, sometimes longer, from the time of the original code violation until abatement has been accomplished.

The Grand Jury investigation revealed that Code Enforcement Officers have given conflicting advice to property owners regarding zoning changes.

In a particular case, the property owner was given an additional citation for items that were already specifically listed for removal in the execution of a Seizure Warrant.

Code Enforcement has an effective Vehicle Abatement Program that has a line item in the budget for salvage material. However, no budget line item exists for other salvageable materials to credit funds back to the county.