Ventura County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
City of Moorpark Practices of Code Enforcement and Building and Safety
⚠️ 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 26 findings
F1
In the different cities, code enforcement personnel reported to different departments. See, Table 1.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Responses received from the cities indicated that some did not track the data requested and that there were no systems in place from which to supply the data requested.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
That all cities establish programs to gather readily available code enforcement data in order to make possible their evaluation of the effectiveness of their enforcement programs vis a vis the programs of other comparable cities.
F3
Of the information received from the cities, a sample of comparable information is reflected in Table 2.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Some Enforcement Personnel reported to several different departments within the particular city.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
City enforcement officers generally attempt to clear violations by a phone call or a visit but those attempts failing, a notice warning letter will often be written. 1
No recommendations for this finding
F6
In notice warning letters, some cities supply detailed instructions on how to appeal the indicated violation though in some cities they do not give such instructions until legal action is undertaken.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Most reported or discovered, violations occur because the violators are not familiar with code requirements.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
When documentation was requested from Moorpark Code Enforcement that would explain the public’s right to appeal violation notices and how to accomplish such an appeal, no satisfactory response was forthcoming.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
In response to the Jury’s query on code violation appellate rights and procedures, the Jury received copies of various sections and pages from Moorpark Code Enforcement that were identified as relevant material from the Moorpark Municipal Code. It was not clear from this material what a cited violator’s appellate rights were.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
That in all cases the first written notice of violation contain complete and understandable information with respect to the appellate rights of the alleged violator or a published pamphlet containing that information.
F10
Of the Municipal Code documents furnished the Jury, only a section of the code that covered The Federal Water Pollution Act indicated, “that each order shall state that the recipient has a right to appeal.”
No recommendations for this finding
F11
On further inquiry, City of Moorpark personnel were unable to further detail the requested appellate rights information and reference was made to the Municipal Code on the Internet.
No recommendations for this finding
F12
A search of the Internet established that though a set of the Municipal Codes appeared to be available on the Internet, downloading revealed that the documents provided the Jury in the past was not in the Internet Municipal Code nor did the Internet Municipal Code appear to be complete.
Related Recommendations (2)
R5
That the Internet Moorpark Municipal Code be kept up to date.
R6
That an index of sections and chapters be created for the Internet version of the Moorpark Municipal Code in order to facilitate the public’s use of that information.
F13
Copies obtained of typical letters sent by Moorpark Code Enforcement to violators revealed, with one exception, that none contained meaningful appellate information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
That in all cases the first written notice of violation contain complete and understandable information with respect to the appellate rights of the alleged violator or a published pamphlet containing that information.
F14
A visit to the Moorpark Building and Safety Department disclosed that though pamphlets describing code enforcement were available at their location, a similar visit to City Hall disclosed that personnel there were not certain of the availability of information explaining code enforcement and that the rack containing this type information was fairly empty. City Hall personnel stated, “Things were being redone.”
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
That the “information” racks at Moorpark City Hall and Building and Safety be kept up to date.
F15
In many cities within the County, copies of the municipal codes were readily available for the general public at either the relevant city hall or the Building and Safety department. This was not the case in Moorpark.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
That copies of the Moorpark Municipal code be made available at the City Hall counter and the Building and Safety Department for necessary public review.
F16
Moorpark Code Enforcement provided the Jury a “Board of Appeals Application for Hearing” and, attached to it, a section 501, chapter 5, “appeals,” purportedly from the Moorpark Municipal Code. This section, apparently taken from a 1997 “Abatement of Dangerous Buildings” section indicated 30 days as the time for appeal, and refers to section 401.3 of the code. A search for relevant section 4 of the code reviewed on the Internet revealed a blank page indicating that it is reserved.
Related Recommendations (2)
R7
That the Moorpark Municipal Code be reviewed with a view to replacing the present varying appeals time limitations with a uniform time limit for appeals. Some sections currently permit 10 days some, some 15 days, and some 30days.
R8
If Moorpark Code Enforcement is using the form “Board of Appeals Application for Hearing”, the
F17
A copy of Moorpark’s Building and Safety “Building and Permit Fees,” with many pencil changes within the document, was obtained. 2
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The “Building and Permit Fees” document provided to the Jury did not explain the penciled changes or contain annotations indicating City Council action approving such changes.
Related Recommendations (2)
R9
That the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that they present to the 4 public a complete, clear, consistent, fair, reasonable and obtainable schedule for development and improvement within the City of Moorpark.
R10
That upon the review and revision of the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department, those building and permit fees be presented to the City Council for approval in a public hearing.
F19
A comparison between fees indicated on documents provided the Jury to the fees charged to complainants was not possible because in most cases the fees were based on the “official’s” subjective estimates of construction costs, or his or her estimate of the cost of inspection and plan review, or in some cases fees were negotiated.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
That the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that they present to the 4 public a complete, clear, consistent, fair, reasonable and obtainable schedule for development and improvement within the City of Moorpark.
F20
Some of the obtained documents reflected estimated costs for investigations and “meetings” time.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
That the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that they present to the 4 public a complete, clear, consistent, fair, reasonable and obtainable schedule for development and improvement within the City of Moorpark.
F21
Review of some documents provided indicated no fee listing for such items as grading plan checks, improvement plan checks and geotechnical report review, grading inspection or improvement inspection though such fees are levied.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
That the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that they present to the 4 public a complete, clear, consistent, fair, reasonable and obtainable schedule for development and improvement within the City of Moorpark.
F22
Attached to some of the documents received were pages identified as “clearances and approvals,” but they were without any indication as to whether they were approved by the city and no fees were listed.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
That the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that they present to the 4 public a complete, clear, consistent, fair, reasonable and obtainable schedule for development and improvement within the City of Moorpark.
F23
An exhibit obtained by the Jury, titled “City of Moorpark Subdivision Final Processing Fee Schedule” indicated that homeowners are being charged the same fees as are being charged major sub division developers, i.e., these gross fees are being charged to individual homeowners when improving their lots/homes etc.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
That the Moorpark Building and Permit fees of the Building and Safety Department be thoroughly reviewed and revised so that they present to the 4 public a complete, clear, consistent, fair, reasonable and obtainable schedule for development and improvement within the City of Moorpark.
F24
The California Government Code at section 6253 (b), a section of the California Public Records Act, states, “(b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so.” (Emphasis supplied)
Related Recommendations (3)
R11
The City of Moorpark immediately review and comply with the California Public Records Act.
R12
That the City of Moorpark require that all department directors brief their personnel on the requirements of the California Public Records Act.
R13
The City of Moorpark perform an audit of past excessive charges and return such fees to the overcharged citizens. Responses Required Moorpark City Manager (R-1 thru R-9, R-11, R-13) Moorpark City Council (R-9 thru R-12) 5 TABLE 1 CITY/COUNTY DEPARTMENTS - CODE ENFORCEMENT (Responses received from a Grand Jury Query) Camarillo Community Development Department Fillmore Community Development Department Moorpark Community Development Department Oxnard Police Department Port Hueneme Community Development Department Santa Paula Building and Safety Department Simi Valley Community Services Department Thousand Oaks Community Development Department Ventura Fire Department Ventura County Planning Division TABLE 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS Average Quantity City Population Fines Number of Written Per Number Levied ($) Officers Officer 2520 Camarillo 6,0374 5,250 4 630 43 Fillmore 4,001 0 2 part time 21 485 Moorpark 33,000 2,134 1 485 7107 Oxnard 182,027 39,413 9 789 634 Port Hueneme 22,000 0 1 634 232 Santa Paula 28,732 20,165 2.4 96 3417 Simi Valley 116,048 6,816 7 488 1300 Thousand Oaks 122,000 9,029 6 216 1744 Ventura 100,916 31,646 4.5 387 1325 Ventura County 93,790 25,000 3 441 6
F25
The California Government Code at section 6253 (d), further states, “(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.”
Related Recommendations (3)
R11
The City of Moorpark immediately review and comply with the California Public Records Act.
R12
That the City of Moorpark require that all department directors brief their personnel on the requirements of the California Public Records Act.
R13
The City of Moorpark perform an audit of past excessive charges and return such fees to the overcharged citizens. Responses Required Moorpark City Manager (R-1 thru R-9, R-11, R-13) Moorpark City Council (R-9 thru R-12) 5 TABLE 1 CITY/COUNTY DEPARTMENTS - CODE ENFORCEMENT (Responses received from a Grand Jury Query) Camarillo Community Development Department Fillmore Community Development Department Moorpark Community Development Department Oxnard Police Department Port Hueneme Community Development Department Santa Paula Building and Safety Department Simi Valley Community Services Department Thousand Oaks Community Development Department Ventura Fire Department Ventura County Planning Division TABLE 2 CODE ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS Average Quantity City Population Fines Number of Written Per Number Levied ($) Officers Officer 2520 Camarillo 6,0374 5,250 4 630 43 Fillmore 4,001 0 2 part time 21 485 Moorpark 33,000 2,134 1 485 7107 Oxnard 182,027 39,413 9 789 634 Port Hueneme 22,000 0 1 634 232 Santa Paula 28,732 20,165 2.4 96 3417 Simi Valley 116,048 6,816 7 488 1300 Thousand Oaks 122,000 9,029 6 216 1744 Ventura 100,916 31,646 4.5 387 1325 Ventura County 93,790 25,000 3 441 6
F26
Citizens, when requesting copies of drawings are being charged exorbitant, unpublished hourly rates to have the documents located within the department and are also being subjected to lengthy delays in receiving the requested drawings for duplication. Conclusions C-1. In general, cities within the County had code enforcement programs that were operated for the benefit of their citizens. (F-5, F-6, F-7) C-2. In most cases the code enforcement officers were knowledgeable and competent in their function. (F-5, F-6, F-7) C-3. In most cases code enforcement officers are doing what they can under the restrictions and limitations of their resources. (F-5, F-6, F-7) 3 C-4. There are areas where action can and should be taken by the cities to improve the public’s perception of their code enforcement efforts. ( F-9, F-10, F-11, F- 12, F-14, F-15) C-5. Current copies of the City of Moorpark Municipal Codes were not readily available for general public review at city locations. (F-8, F-9, F-11, F-15) C-6. Homeowners in the City of Moorpark were being charged fees based upon a fee schedule, which is also used for subdivision final processing. This fee appears to be excessive for a homeowner. (F-17, F-18, F-19, F-20, F-21) C-7. Because each city sets its own “price list,” a direct comparison between cities cannot be made. C-8. City of Moorpark, particularly Moorpark Building and Safety Engineering Department, regularly and repeatedly failed to adhere to the mandate of the California Public Records Act with respect to timeliness of production and fees charged. Documentation, which indicates this, has been provided to the committee. (F-24, F-25, F-26) C-9. The City of Moorpark acts arbitrarily in its fee charging procedures placing unreasonable reliance on sometimes exaggerated, unpredictable and capricious subjective estimates of costs by individual personnel. (F-26) C-10. The City of Moorpark acts arbitrarily in assessing unjustly high and arbitrary fees on its citizens. (F-26) Recommendation
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 3C-1. In general, cities within the County had code enforcement programs that were operated for the benefit of their citizens. (F-5, F-6, F-7) C-2. In most cases the code enforcement officers were knowledgeable and competent in their function. (F-5, F-6, F-7) C-3. In most cases code enforcement officers are doing what they can under the restrictions and limitations of their resources. (F-5, F-6, F-7) 3 C-4. There are areas where action can and should be taken by the cities to improve the public’s perception of their code enforcement efforts. ( F-9, F-10, F-11, F- 12, F-14, F-15) C-5. Current copies of the City of Moorpark Municipal Codes were not readily available for general public review at city locations. (F-8, F-9, F-11, F-15) C-6. Homeowners in the City of Moorpark were being charged fees based upon a fee schedule, which is also used for subdivision final processing. This fee appears to be excessive for a homeowner. (F-17, F-18, F-19, F-20, F-21) C-7. Because each city sets its own “price list,” a direct comparison between cities cannot be made. C-8. City of Moorpark, particularly Moorpark Building and Safety Engineering Department, regularly and repeatedly failed to adhere to the mandate of the California Public Records Act with respect to timeliness of production and fees charged. Documentation, which indicates this, has been provided to the committee. (F-24, F-25, F-26) C-9. The City of Moorpark acts arbitrarily in its fee charging procedures placing unreasonable reliance on sometimes exaggerated, unpredictable and capricious subjective estimates of costs by individual personnel. (F-26) C-10. The City of Moorpark acts arbitrarily in assessing unjustly high and arbitrary fees on its citizens. (F-26)
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Moorpark
City