Nevada County Grand Jury • 2008-2009

County Code Enforcement – a Continuing Concern

Published: June 03, 2009 18 pages

View Original PDF

⚠️ 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 23 findings

The Code Compliance Division is organizationally separated from the Building Department.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct staff to consolidate the Code Compliance Division with the Building Department.

The philosophy of Code is to secure voluntary compliance with applicable codes rather than to punish violators, although fines and penalties are included in the tools available to Code in pursuit of this objective. In discussion, staff continually distinguished between compliance and enforcement, noting that the County’s preference was for the former. The Jury understood this to mean the Board’s preference.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should modify its philosophy to emphasize enforcement over voluntary compliance.

It is the practice of the County that neither Code staff nor any other County staff members are to proactively look for Code violations. Code opens an investigation only after receipt of a written complaint.

No recommendations for this finding

Code does not issue permits. This is done by other departments in the CDA, e.g., Building and Environmental Health.

No recommendations for this finding

Code officers have authority to issue infraction-level citations in cases in which they are not able to secure voluntary compliance. Infractions are the lowest level of criminal complaint. As are all crimes, they are adjudicated through the Superior Court (Court). Fines are the maximum level of punishment for infractions. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09 The dollar amounts of fines for Code violations are set by County Code (LUDC Section L-II 5.21, F, 1, a-c).

No recommendations for this finding

Most citations are issued only after numerous and time consuming efforts are made to secure compliance. Health and safety issues may be handled in a more timely manner.

No recommendations for this finding

The Court does not always assess fines in response to citations and sometimes suspends fines it does assess, pending compliance, and waives them if compliance is achieved.

No recommendations for this finding

An existing Ordinance provides for “Nuisance Abatement,” a process by which Code Officers obtain authority to abate an ongoing violation. This is done without the property owner’s consent, and the cost of abatement is charged to the property owner.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct staff to give greater urgency to the implementation of the existing Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.

Code has been in consultation with County Counsel, for about a year, on fine tuning procedures to assure due process in implementation of the Nuisance Abatement Ordinance, following about five years of disuse.

No recommendations for this finding

F10

An alternative to the criminal infraction would be the Administrative Citation. These are non-criminal citations adjudicated by Administrative Hearing Officers, with backgrounds in land use issues. This would provide an alternative to going to Court. Administrative Citations are in use in other jurisdictions. Code is working with County Counsel to develop an Administrative Citation Ordinance for their division, providing a more efficient and effective citation process. Efforts to implement this tool have also been in discussion for approximately one year.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should also direct staff to develop a plan for the approval and implementation of the proposed Administrative Citation Ordinance. This plan should include dates that can be tracked. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09

F11

The Procedural Guidelines of the Code Compliance Department document, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 10, 2004, contains conflicting guidance as to when Code cases may be closed: a. The following guidance appears on : “Do not close a case until the necessary permits have been obtained, a complete abatement has occurred, inspections have been made to verify compliance (Zoning, Building, Environmental, and Safety) and Code Compliance billings have been sent and collected.” b. Contradictory guidance is found on : “When it is determined that a complaint needs to be remedied with a permit, the Code Enforcement Officer shall work cooperatively together with the other department to determine what permits are needed. Once that is done, the case can be closed: the needed permit(s) and permit fee(s) shall be noted in the contact report.”

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct staff to revise the Procedural Guidelines of the Code Compliance Department to clearly state that Code cases resulting in permits shall not be closed until the final inspection(s) on the permit(s) are completed and all fines and fees collected.

F12

All County staff interviewed stated that Code’s standard operating procedure is to consider issuance of a building permit (by Building) as compliance, and to close the Code case at that point. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09

Related Recommendations (1)

F13

Code will re-open a case if notified by Building that a permit had expired without abatement of the condition that caused the original complaint. However, there is no written guideline or policy that would require Building to provide this notice.

No recommendations for this finding

F14

In the first case that brought this matter to the Jury’s attention, there was already a multi- year history of attempts to resolve the issues through both an informal process and formal complaints to Code.

No recommendations for this finding

F15

Building permits are valid for six months.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct staff to find a means of limiting the number of permit renewals or extensions.

F16

Building has the authority to issue permits with a shorter time-limit. This authority covers issues resulting in dangerous, substandard or illegal conditions.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct Building to issue limited-term permits in all cases in which a Code case involving dangerous, substandard or illegal conditions led to the permit application.

F17

One of the outstanding violations in the first case was a safety issue of such importance that the property owner had been ordered by both Code and Building to not allow public use until it was corrected.

No recommendations for this finding

F18

The property owner in the first case continued to allow public use of this building on a regular basis, in defiance of the above order. This was verified by Jury members, on site.

No recommendations for this finding

F19

Since the Jury investigation began, all outstanding permits on the property involved have been closed with a final inspection, except for one. This remaining permit, open since 2003, is a subject of the original complaint to the Jury. The work required for the permit has not yet been completed.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct Building to follow up to close existing permits initiated because of a code violation.

F20

Building does not always use its authority to double inspection fees in cases in which construction was initiated without a permit.

Related Recommendations (1)

The Board should direct Building to routinely charge double inspection fees for permits resulting from Code actions.

F21

Building is considered a fee-based department. Money collected by this department for building permits and inspection fees is used to fund Building.

No recommendations for this finding

F22

Code is not a fee-based division. Only ½ of 1% of the budget comes from fines resulting from infraction level citations issued by Code officers.

No recommendations for this finding

F23

Code has only three case officers; each officer averages between 80 and 100 active cases at any one time. Conclusions

No recommendations for this finding

Conclusions 11

CL1 Page 4

The current organizational separation between Code and Building inhibits communication and contributes to the problems in achieving compliance.
CL2 Page 4

The Board has gone too far in emphasizing compliance over enforcement. County Code Enforcement – A Continuing Concern Grand Jury Reports 2008-09 Page 4
CL3 Page 5

Enforcement versus seeking voluntary compliance would, in many cases, be faster, reduce officer caseload and generate funds for the County budget.
CL4 Page 5

It is ironic that the public doing business with Building pay for their services through building permits and inspection fees. Services for those in violation are paid from the General Fund.
CL5 Page 5

The effort to use the existing Nuisance Abatement Ordinance is laudable but too slow in implementation.
CL6 Page 5

The effort to establish an Administrative Citation process is also laudable but too slow in being implemented.
CL7 Page 5

Issuance of a permit is no guarantee a violation will be corrected; dangerous, substandard and illegal conditions may persist.
CL8 Page 5

Conflict in Code’s Procedural Guidelines causes confusion, inconsistency and premature closure of cases.
CL9 Page 5

Permits can be continually renewed, resulting in failure to fully abate code violations.
CL10 Page 5

The current procedures used by Code are not sufficient to secure the level and speed of compliance that the residents of Nevada County should reasonably expect. This sometimes allows continuation of a safety hazard to residents of and visitors to the County.
CL11 Page 5

Failure to charge applicable double inspection fees for late permits results in loss of revenue to the County.

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Nevada County Board of Supervisors Elected County Office