Placer County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Placer County Grand Jury Incorporated Cities Code Enforcement Policies a Review of Policies and Procedures June 23, 2016
⚠️ 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
Auburn has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
Auburn has a written document defining their code enforcement procedures, which includes a method for tracking complaints through resolution.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
Auburn has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
Auburn's procedure does not include following up with the complainant regarding the resolution. Conclusion With the exception of the recommendation noted below, the Grand Jury’s review of Auburn’s code enforcement policy and procedures found that they are adequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Auburn revise their code enforcement procedures to include measures to keep complainants informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F5
Colfax has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
Colfax has informal procedures for tracking and dealing with code enforcement complaints. These procedures are not detailed in a written document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Colfax define their code enforcement procedures, including their tracking system, in a formal written document.
F7
Colfax has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
Colfax does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The written procedures, in R2, include measures to keep complainants informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F9
At the time of this report, Colfax is implementing a web-based citizen reporting system. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Colfax’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
The written code enforcement procedures, in R9, include measures to keep complainant informed on the resolution to their complaint.
F10
Lincoln has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
Lincoln utilizes an informal bullet list as their guidelines for dealing with code enforcement complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Lincoln expand their informal bullet list to a formal written document that defines their code enforcement and their tracking log procedures.
F12
Lincoln tracks complaints and actions in a spreadsheet, however it was not being kept current.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Lincoln ensure that their written procedures address a process to keep the tracking log current.
F13
Lincoln has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
No recommendations for this finding
F14
Lincoln does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Lincoln’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a formal written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F15
Loomis has a defined process in the Municipal Code for handling code enforcement complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
Loomis has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
At this time residents of Loomis are limited to filing their complaint over the phone or in person at City Hall.
No recommendations for this finding
F18
The Town of Loomis website does not explain how to file a complaint while the new system is under development.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Loomis include information on the website regarding how a citizen can file a complaint to report code violations. Recommendations Request for Responses Requiring Response Response Due Date Mr. Rick Angelocci R6, R7, R8 August 31, 2016 Loomis Town Manager 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Copies sent to: Mr. Brian Baker Mayor, Town of Loomis 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Crickett Strock Loomis Town Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 Ms. Carol Parker Loomis Administrative Clerk 3665 Taylor Road Loomis, CA 95650 City of Rocklin Facts The City of Rocklin’s Municipal Code is available on the city’s website. It contains a detailed definition and process for abatement of nuisances. Rocklin has one certified code enforcement officer and a part-time administrative assistant for a population of approximately 60,000 citizens. Rocklin has no internal written code enforcement procedures. Rocklin has a computer-based tracking log. Complaints can be filed on a pre-printed form, by phone, by e-mail or through an on-line application. Rocklin does not follow-up with complainant unless requested. However, if the complaint is submitted through the website, the complainant can log in to see the resolution.
F19
Loomis does not have a formal procedure to notify complainant of resolution. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the Town of Loomis’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, at the time of the investigation, there were some deficiencies in their procedures and complaint process. The deficiencies are the lack of a written procedure for managing complaints and for keeping complainants apprised of the resolution. Also, information on the website does not explain to a citizen how to file a complaint.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
The written code enforcement procedures include measures to keep complainant informed about the resolution to their complaint.
F20
Rocklin has a defined process and tracking system for handling code enforcement complaints.
No recommendations for this finding
F21
Rocklin has informal procedures for dealing with code enforcement complaints, but they are not detailed in a written document.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Rocklin define their code enforcement procedures, including their tracking system, in a formal written document.
F22
Rocklin has multiple methods for a citizen to lodge a complaint.
No recommendations for this finding
F23
Rocklin does not have a procedure to notify complainant of the resolution to their complaint. Conclusion The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Rocklin’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved for consistency.
No recommendations for this finding
F24
Roseville has a very good process in place to manage code enforcement complaints, including a tracking system.
No recommendations for this finding
F25
Roseville has an exceptional computer-based system to support code enforcement activities and accountability.
No recommendations for this finding
F26
Roseville keeps complainant informed regarding the status of their complaint. Accela is an enterprise software solution with numerous preconfigured packages for private business and government organizations to manage core applications such as land management, licensing, asset management, and public health and safety data. Accela can be modified and tailored for the specific requirements of the agency and allows for public access to some functions. Other county governments utilize the Accela platform to track and resolve code enforcement complaints. Conclusion The Grand Jury found that the City of Roseville has well-defined and documented code enforcement procedures. Their computer-based program tracks complaints from initiation through resolution and assures each department is accountable for resolving the complaint and closing out the issue. Procedures require follow-up contact with the complainants regarding on-going status and final resolution.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 6
-
CL1With the exception of the recommendation noted below, the Grand Jury’s review of Auburn’s code enforcement policy and procedures found that they are adequate.
-
CL2The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Colfax’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved. - 7 - Placer County Grand Jury 2015-2016 Final Report
-
CL3The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Lincoln’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a formal written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved.
-
CL4The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the Town of Loomis’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, at the time of the investigation, there were some deficiencies in their procedures and complaint process. The deficiencies are the lack of a written procedure for managing complaints and for keeping complainants apprised of the resolution. Also, information on the website does not explain to a citizen how to file a complaint.
-
CL5The Grand Jury’s investigation found that the City of Rocklin’s code enforcement process is defined in the Municipal Code. However, the lack of a written document defining their procedures for managing complaints needs to be addressed. Additionally, their method of communication with the complainant needs to be improved for consistency. - 13 - Placer County Grand Jury 2015-2016 Final Report
-
CL6The Grand Jury found that the City of Roseville has well-defined and documented code enforcement procedures. Their computer-based program tracks complaints from initiation through resolution and assures each department is accountable for resolving the complaint and closing out the issue. Procedures require follow-up contact with the complainants regarding on-going status and final resolution.