Administrative Office County Administrative Officer*

The Code Enforcement team is dedicated and hardworking Response Respondent agrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (1).

Current Code Enforcement staffing does not allow sufficient time for investigations beyond those which are complaint-driven, and many potential code violations are not investigated. Response Respondent partially disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). "Complaint-driven" investigations are a matter of department policy. Investigations are initiated only in response to a complaint or in conjunction with another department unless there is a health or safety issue.

Assistance with clerical tasks, including collecting and monitoring penalty payments, would provide Code Enforcement officers with more time for enforcement activities. Response Respondent agrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (1).

The selection of hearing officers for Code Enforcement administrative hearings does not comply with Madera County Code Sec. 8.01.090 - Hearing officer. Response Respondent disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). Under separate cover, the Director of Community and Economic Development has responded to this finding and stated: "The Community and Economic Development Planning Division has had an agreement with current Administrative Hearing Officer for his services for numerous years. Madera County Code § 8.01.090 does not require that the agreement be of any particular degree of formality, or that it contain any specific terms." The response of the Director of Community and Economic Development to the above Finding is considered appropriate and is submitted as the Board of Supervisors' response.

There has been inconsistency in administrative hearing findings where similar sets of facts exist. Response Respondent disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). Under separate cover, the Director of Community and Economic Development has responded to this finding and stated: "The Administrative Hearing Officer's findings are regularly consistent among cases with similar facts. The Grand Jury's Report posits a single example of two cases, both in which the absentee property owners claimed to have no knowledge of illegal marijuana cultivation on the property, yet the fines were upheld in one case and not the other. The example posited omits any facts as to what, if any, efforts the respective property owners made to periodically inspect the property, to check the background of potential lessees before leasing, or take any other reasonable measure to ensure illegal activities are not occurring on the property. Where such measures have been taken by absentee property owners, the Administrative Hearing Officer's decisions consistently find that the property owners took all reasonable efforts available to comply with the County Code, and should therefore not be held liable for his/her tenant's violations. Where the property owner has failed to inspect the property for months or years (as is often the case) and has taken no other measures to ensure unlawful activity is not occurring on the property, the Hearing Officer's decisions consistently uphold the fines against the property owner." The response of the Director of Community and Economic Development to the above Finding is considered appropriate and is submitted as the Board of Supervisors' response.

There has been inconsistency in the adjustments of fines and administration of penalty payments. Response Respondent disagrees with the finding per California Penal Code 933.05 (a) (2). Under separate cover, the Director of Community and Economic Development has responded to this finding and stated: "Respondent disagrees with the finding. The Grand Jury's Report contains no facts or examples indicating inconsistent adjustment of fines or penalties. To the contrary, the Report itself indicates that when a fine is adjusted, it is usually reduced to ten percent (10%) of the total potential liability amount." The response of the Director of Community and Economic Development to the above Finding is considered appropriate and is submitted as the Board of Supervisors' response.