Riverside County Code Enforcement Department

Riverside County Code Enforcement cases take an inordinate length of time to resolve. The multi-year time frames typical to conclude code enforcement cases adversely affect the citizens of Riverside County who rely on Code Enforcement to timely correct offensive and dangerous property problems in their neighborhoods and commercial districts. As pointed out in two successive audits by the Riverside County Auditor- Controller’s office, the long delays also prevent Riverside County from timely collecting outstanding fines and fees. Investigations extended without legitimate cause ultimately result in unreasonable cost recovery charges being assessed to property owners. Testimony by line supervisors revealed the fact that they also carried an enforcement caseload, which inhibits their supervisory obligations. INABILITY TO HAVE ERRONEOUS FINES REFUNDED The grading-without-a-permit hearing that Grand Jury members observed, as mentioned above, had an anomaly. The property owner received an SOAC showing that he owed $1,872 in labor charges for Code Enforcement’s involvement. Those charges were removed when the Hearing Officer determined that no permit was required for the emergency brush clearance. However, there was no procedure in place for the property owner to be reimbursed $300 in administrative citation fines he paid during the 2 ½-year investigation. The property owner asked the Hearing Officer about refunding the fines, and he was told that the Hearing Officer had no authority to refund fines. The Hearing Officer then told the property owner, “If I were you, I would be writing a nasty letter to someone.” The Grand Jury subsequently interviewed Riverside County Code Enforcement administrative personnel at the supervisor, manager, and code official levels and they confirmed that there is no policy or procedure in place for returning erroneously-charged fines to exonerated property owners. Both expert witnesses interviewed stated that their jurisdictions’ code enforcement departments always refund fines under these circumstances because “it was the right thing to do.”

There is no policy or procedure in place to return fines previously paid when a property owner is exonerated of any violation of county ordinances. BARRIERS TO CITIZEN COMPLAINTS REGARDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL The Riverside County Board of Supervisors recognizes the value of comments and complaints from the public for the improvement of public services to County residents. To this end, the Board established County of Riverside, California Board of Supervisors policy number A-56: Standards and Procedures for Public Complaints and Inquiries. Among the provisions of this policy are the following: • County employees are to respond within 72 hours to complaints and inquiries from the public • The person making the complaint or inquiry should be told how long it would take to resolve the issues • In each department, complaints and inquiries must be logged when they are received. Departments will maintain a log that includes a case number, the name of the person making the complaint or inquiry, the date and time it was received, the date and time of the initial follow-up contact, and the resolution. Logs should be maintained for a minimum of one year 7 • If the complaining party is dissatisfied with the resolution, department logs must briefly explain why a complaint or inquiry could not be resolved to the person’s satisfaction It came to the Grand Jury’s attention that the above Board of Supervisors’ policy is not being followed when it was learned that a Code Enforcement Officer was subjected to an administrative investigation and potential discipline for documenting a citizen’s personnel complaint. The Grand Jury conducted a thorough inspection of the “Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures” manual. Nothing was found relating to accepting or investigating complaints or inquiries from the public. The only policy pertaining to input from the public was policy number 1.1.1, Customer Satisfaction Surveys that complies with Board Policy A- 49, Customer Satisfaction Performance Policy. Attached to the policy was a brochure titled How Are We Doing, which is not a complaint form. No Code Enforcement policy that complies with the mandates of Board Policy A-56 was found. During sworn interviews, supervisorial and administrative Code Enforcement officials told us there is no policy in that department regarding the acceptance, logging, review, investigation, or resolution of inquiries and complaints from the public. No complaint/inquiry form exists. Some witnesses said that a complaining citizen would be referred to the field supervisor of the employee; however, nothing is in place to ensure that the matter would be documented or properly handled. Also, no records are kept to enable department managers to track the number and type of complaints in a certain district or against a particular employee.

Code Enforcement has no policy, procedure, complaint forms, complaint logs, or anything else to enable that department to follow the directives of Board Policy Number A-56 to adequately address citizen complaints and inquiries. PERCEPTION OF INTERFERENCE BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN CODE CASES The Board of Supervisors is the governing body of the County, certain special districts and the Housing Authority. The Board enacts ordinances and resolutions, adopts the annual budget, approves contracts, appropriates funds, determines land use zoning for the unincorporated area, and appoints certain County officers and members of various boards and commissions3. The Board consists of five Supervisors elected to four-year terms by the citizens of Riverside County within each district. Each Supervisor represents a district of approximately 450,000 people. ____________________ 3 County of Riverside Internet web page http://www.countyofriverside.us/AbouttheCounty/BoardofSupervisors.aspx 8 Code Enforcement operates in the unincorporated area of each supervisorial district, and the City of Perris (under contract), responding to violations of County ordinances that are either reported by residents or discovered by Code Enforcement Officers. Once a Code Enforcement case is initiated, it is normally worked to correct all noted violations of County codes and ordinances. This would normally be accomplished in a relatively short amount of time. However, external influences affect the delays and ultimate outcomes of some Code cases. Several Code Enforcement administrators, supervisors, and line staff interviewed under oath said that County Supervisors and their staff have interjected themselves into active Code cases, causing delays and sometimes abandonment of those cases. For example, a property owner who has been given a Notice of Violation by a Code Enforcement Officer might contact his or her district Supervisor about the violation. It is reasonable for the Supervisor or his staff to get information about the ordinance violation in order to assist the constituent with the issue. However, Code personnel at all levels have perceived subsequent contact by the Supervisor’s office as interfering with the Code case. According to testimony, the interference has ranged from asking Code Enforcement to extend the deadlines for property owners to comply with abatement orders to issuing a “stand down” order on selective enforcement actions. Two Code Enforcement employees testified that they had participated in meetings with the Temecula wine country Supervisor/staff where a Third District Code Enforcement Winery Matrix was provided to the Supervisor at his request. A copy of a matrix from 09/24/2010 listed Code cases by number, name, parcel number, violation, and comments. Witnesses stated that Code Enforcement was given the “go ahead” or “stand down” by the Supervisor/staff regarding 10 wine country cases on that particular matrix. Similar meetings were held every month with updated matrixes for an unknown period of time. The Supervising Code Enforcement Officer, who also attended these meetings, enforced the decisions. Witnesses told us that such matrixes were prepared only for the wealthy winery area of the County. Testimony from other witnesses confirmed that the Board of Supervisors and/or its staff had interfered with or hindered some Code Enforcement cases, and this is currently an ongoing issue and concern, prolonging them unnecessarily. In fact, when the Grand Jury asked the retired Code Official about such political interference, he said that he could recall “a handful” of instances that had happened during his tenure as Code Official (3 years.) A Supervising CEO and a Senior CEO testified that Code Enforcement has been advised by Supervisorial staff to suspend ordinance violation citations in selective cases. County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 1.1 outlines Professional Conduct/Code of Ethics for Code Enforcement. Article VI of that code states, “Staff will not permit personal feelings, prejudices nor influences (political or otherwise) to interfere, prohibit or delay the process of enforcement.” 9

Interference by the County Board of Supervisors in Code Enforcement cases adversely affects personnel throughout the Department. It is difficult to determine how much of the Supervisors’ involvement coincides with their mandate to represent constituents in their districts and how much may be improper patronage. Regardless, interference affects the morale and alters the chain of command of the Code Enforcement Department, as stated by several witnesses. UNSUPPORTED BILLING IN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES In 1993, empowered by California Government Code §25845, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors created Ordinance 725 establishing procedures and penalties for violations of Riverside County ordinances and for recovering reasonable costs related to enforcement. Section 7 of the ordinance states: “All abatement costs, administrative costs and related penalties or assessments in any enforcement action to abate public nuisances as stated shall be recovered.” In the projected fiscal year 2015/16 budget, the Code Enforcement Department budget shows that 30% of its total expenditures were to be covered by fines and labor charges paid by property owners. Code Enforcement keeps track of the amount of time its personnel spends working on violations of County ordinances and then charges property owners for the time spent, according to the weighted cost of the personnel involved. For example, a Code Enforcement Officer III is rated at $109 per hour, including pay, benefits, and overhead. Some activities of Code Enforcement Officers are directly billable to the property owner in question and other activities are deemed “non-billable.” According to County of Riverside Code Enforcement Department Policy 4.9.1, all closed cases are audited to determine if they are billable or non- billable. Non-billable cases include unfounded complaints, wrong lot or assessor parcel number, or the property owner complied within 30 days. Non-billable cases are archived without charging the property owner. Along with cases that are totally non-billable, specific actions of Code Enforcement Officers are not billable. For example, contact and conversations with complaining neighbors is not billable to the property owner. Also, any labor billing must be supported by an action entry in the CEO’s report. The Grand Jury learned when attending the Code Enforcement cost recovery administrative hearing that billing errors are not unusual. The Hearing Officer had to adjust several fine amounts due to the CEO’s errors on the citations. A property owner had been billed not only for the CEO’s actions on a certain date, but also for the cost of a trainee who was accompanying the CEO that day. As already mentioned, a 2 ½-year case was dismissed when the Hearing Officer determined that no violation had existed. Other cases reviewed showed double billing for the same reported action, non-owners being fined and charged for violations, and a 10 property owner being charged twice for a single structure that spanned two adjacent properties. Sworn testimony and subpoenaed records showed that unsupported billing and other errors are rife in the Statements of Abatement Costs (SOAC) that are sent as billing invoices to property owners involved in Code Enforcement cases. Numerous witnesses told the Grand Jury that actions taken by field CEOs, and reports subsequently written by those officers, are not overseen or reviewed for errors by the Supervising Code Enforcement Officers assigned to each District Office prior to being sent to Code Enforcement Administration for billing.

Unsupported and inaccurate billing of property owners by Code Enforcement is common, causing either overbilling or under billing of fines and labor charges assessed as part of cost recovery directed in Ordinance

The complaining employee in this matter was treated differently than all other county employee witnesses. This gives the appearance that complaints to the Grand Jury carry less importance or validity than other complaints made under County Policies C-35 and C-25. The complainant also told the Grand Jury that, since the complainant was ordered to use vacation time for appearances, it appeared that supervisors and upper management were trying to dissuade the complainant from giving testimony at a proceeding authorized by law, in violation of Penal Code §136.1(a)(2).