Placer County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Placer County Grand Jury Placer County Code Enforcement Complaint Feedback and Tracking Inconsistency and Confusion
⚠️ 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 and Recommendations 10 findings
F1
Substantiated complaints within Code Enforcement’s jurisdiction can take six to twelve months to bring to resolution.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The Accela database is not being used to its full potential to track the status, age, or resolution of a complaint.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Develop and integrate a complaint tracking system in the Community Development Resources Agency’s Accela software program.
R5
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement training of Code Enforcement staff to use the Accela complaint tracking system.
F3
There is no mechanism in place to determine how many complaints are open or closed.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Develop and integrate a complaint tracking system in the Community Development Resources Agency’s Accela software program.
R5
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement training of Code Enforcement staff to use the Accela complaint tracking system.
R6
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
While R4 and R5 are in the process of being implemented, create an independent tracking system, such as a simple spreadsheet, for management to review, which lists all incoming complaints, dispositions and final resolutions.
F4
The public may find that there is no staff from Code Enforcement available at the office during business hours to answer their questions.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
Code Enforcement Officers must spend part of their time helping and training the temporary part-time clerical worker to research and identify complaints for processing.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Code Enforcement department is understaffed for the volume of complaints that are received.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The Code Enforcement department does not have a full-time supervisor.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Have the Code Enforcement Supervisor’s sole responsibility be to manage this department.
F8
The Code Enforcement department has abandoned any attempt to communicate with the reporting party about the status of their complaint. The reporting party is not informed if the complaint has been received, if the complaint has been dismissed, has been directed to a different department or is currently under investigation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement a standard procedure to issue a Letter of Receipt to the complainant, of complaint receipt. The letter should indicate if the complaint: Will be actively investigated Is outside the scope of Code Enforcement Has been forwarded to another department Include general information regarding the code enforcement process with the letter.
F9
Lack of a comprehensive tracking program for complaints severely limits management’s ability to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the department’s operation.
Related Recommendations (3)
R4
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Develop and integrate a complaint tracking system in the Community Development Resources Agency’s Accela software program.
R5
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Implement training of Code Enforcement staff to use the Accela complaint tracking system.
R6
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
While R4 and R5 are in the process of being implemented, create an independent tracking system, such as a simple spreadsheet, for management to review, which lists all incoming complaints, dispositions and final resolutions.
F10
Because there is no Code Enforcement Technician and a permanent full-time clerical support staff position has not been filled, Code Enforcement Officers spend more time managing operations and less time resolving complaints. Conclusion While the Code Enforcement department is comprised of dedicated and hardworking staff members, the operations and management seem to be dysfunctional. There is no central coordination or tracking of complaints. Management does not know how many complaints are open, the disposition of those complaints, nor the manner in which they were resolved. Without meaningful data regarding the productivity of the department, it is doubtful that management can make any assessments about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Code Enforcement department. Without operational data, funding and staffing levels cannot be properly assessed and/or addressed. The process of investigating and resolving code violations can be complicated. It can take several months for a Code Enforcement Officer working with a property owner to satisfactorily resolve a violation. However, the complicated nature of resolving verifiable code violations does not absolve either the Code Enforcement department or the Community Resource Development Agency from their responsibility to communicate with the reporting party and to track complaints. Placer County should make a commitment to its citizens to provide an efficient and consistent Code Enforcement department.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Grand Jury recommends that the department:
Staff the full-time positions of Code Enforcement Technician and permanent clerical support.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1While the Code Enforcement department is comprised of dedicated and hardworking staff members, the operations and management seem to be dysfunctional. There is no central coordination or tracking of complaints. Management does not know how many complaints are open, the disposition of those complaints, nor the manner in which they were resolved. Without meaningful data regarding the productivity of the department, it is doubtful that management can make any assessments about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Code Enforcement department. Without operational data, funding and staffing levels cannot be properly assessed and/or addressed. - 5 - Placer County Grand Jury 2015-2016 Final Report The process of investigating and resolving code violations can be complicated. It can take several months for a Code Enforcement Officer working with a property owner to satisfactorily resolve a violation. However, the complicated nature of resolving verifiable code violations does not absolve either the Code Enforcement department or the Community Resource Development Agency from their responsibility to communicate with the reporting party and to track complaints. Placer County should make a commitment to its citizens to provide an efficient and consistent Code Enforcement department.