Submittal to the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside, State of California Submittal Date:*

Recommendations 2

• R2
  Statement of Abatement Cost (SOAC) Hearing - A hearing regarding the Statement of Abatement Costs (SOAC) at which a property owner may contest the reasonableness of the abatement costs as set forth in Section 7 of the Ordinance.
• R3
  Appeal of Administrative Citations Hearing - A hearing regarding the appeal of administrative citations and penalties at which a property owner may contest that no violation exists and that no administrative penalty (citation) should be imposed or that the administrative penalty (citation) should be in a different amount as set forth in Section 8 of the Ordinance. It is important to note that the hearing officer's decision-making role in each of the above hearings is different per the Ordinance. At the time of the hearing in number 1 above, it is the Board of Supervisors' role, or the hearing officer's role if so delegated, to determine whether or not there has been a violation of the County ordinance and whether an abatement order should be issued. At the time of the hearing in number 2, it is the hearing officer's role to determine the reasonableness of the abatement costs. It is not the hearing officer's role to determine whether or not a violation of the County ordinance has occurred at the time of the SOAC hearing. That violation determination was previously made during a separate hearing where the property owner had the right to be heard under Section 6 of Ordinance No. 725. Therefore, the Department disagrees that the hearing officer should decide upon the property owner's guilt or innocence at the time of the SOAC hearing and that recommendation will not be implemented. Further, Section 8 of the Ordinance details the appeal hearing process described in number 3 above by which a property owner may challenge the issuance of an administrative citation by asserting that no violation exists or that the citation amount is incorrect. If the hearing officer determines at the appeal hearing that the citation was invalid, it is the Department's standard practice to refund the administrative citation amounts if such amounts were paid prior to the appeal hearing. In the last several months, the Department has instituted a procedure for enhanced administrative and legal review of cases prior to the SOAC hearing and has made corrections whenever errors have been found in the SOAC invoice, either prior to or at the hearing. The Department has begun the process of revising its policies and procedures to mandate the review of all SOAC invoices by a Supervising Code Enforcement Officer prior to SOAC invoices being mailed to the property owner. Errors found during the review process will be corrected prior to mailing. Additionally, any errors found in an SOAC invoice after the invoice has been mailed to the property owner will be corrected by the Department and not left to the hearing officer to make adjustments at the SOAC hearing. Recommendation No. 3: Code Enforcement take immediate steps to comply with all directives and provisions of Board Policy Number A-56 and amend the Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures manual appropriately. Create a citizen complaint form with copies available to the public at District Offices, the Administrative Office, and on the department website. Response: Respondent agrees with the recommendation. The Department is in the process of reviewing its policies and procedures and will revise or develop an appropriate policy and procedure to keep a complaint log for unresolved complaints in conformance with Board of Supervisors Policy A-56. Recommendation No. 4: To ensure fairness to all residents, prevent accusations of favoritism, and to improve employee morale, the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and Code Enforcement should be kept at arm's length as far as enforcement of county ordinances is concerned. County Supervisors will, of course, listen to their constituents' complaints and concerns regarding Code Enforcement, but should then either direct those constituents to the Code Official or have the Code Official contact and assist the constituents toward compliance and cooperation. Response: Respondent partially agrees with the recommendation. As the directly elected representatives of the public, Board Supervisors are expected to respond to their constituents' concerns. It is not inappropriate for a staff member of a Board Supervisor to assist a constituent with a code enforcement issue. It is not inappropriate for Board staff to inquire as to the status of these cases involving their constituents. Some Code Enforcement cases are complex in nature, such as those involving unpermitted land uses or structures. Achieving compliance in those cases may require coordination and discussions between multiple departments and it is not inappropriate to involve Board staff in those discussions so that Board staff is aware of the status of the case and Board staff can also inform Code staff of information that they have received from their constituent. Direction on the appropriate level of enforcement, and the pace of it depending on progress being made in good faith, should, and does, come from Code Enforcement Management staff and with advice from the County Counsel's Office as necessary and appropriate. Recommendation No. 5: The responsibility for errors on Code cases primarily rests with the CEO handling the case. However, every action on every field report should be reviewed by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officer overseeing the CEO. The Code Official and upper management should eliminate unsupported billing and other errors for the benefit of the residents of Riverside County. Errors need to be caught and corrected early at the field level. Supervising Code Enforcement Officers in each District should be required to oversee the daily activities of their CEOs for compliance with policies and laws. Code supervisors should also be required to review and approve all reports written by their CEOs before they are sent to Code Enforcement Administration for billing. Response: Respondent partially agrees with the recommendation. The Department agrees that the Supervising Code Enforcement Officers at the field office have the responsibility of reviewing case files once the files are resolved prior to forwarding the files to Administration for cost recovery. As stated above, the Department is moving in the direction of having Supervising Code Enforcement Officers not work on individual cases and shift their time to increased oversight, and having Senior Code Enforcement Officers reduce their case load to assist the line-level Code officers with resolution with the more complex cases. However, it is not reasonable to expect that every action on every field report be reviewed by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officer. This would lead to an inability to process and resolve cases in an efficient manner. Supervising Code Enforcement Officers are tasked with many duties including coordination of staff enforcement activities, interaction with constituents when necessary to resolve issues, staff training, interaction with other County Departments and enforcement Agencies, and setting a standard of practice within the field office that is consistent with the Department's overall direction. Nevertheless, the Department is in the process of reviewing our Policies and Procedures and if warranted, will revise or develop the appropriate Policy and Procedure. Recommendation No. 6: Appropriate steps should be taken to prevent disparate and unlawful treatment of county employees who file complaints with the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury. Board policies C-35 and C-25 make it clear that retribution against whistleblowers will not be tolerated. That resolve to be strengthened and expanded to include retaliation against whistleblowers who complain to the Grand Jury. Response: Respondent partially agrees with the recommendation. Respondent agrees that Board of Supervisors Policies C-25 and C-35 are important and that all actions should be taken to ensure compliance with all applicable policies, laws and Further, state and federal laws specifically address retaliation against regulations. employees who make complaints. As such, no further action is warranted. Report Issued: 06/21/2016 Report Public: 06/23/2016 Response Due: 09/19/2016