REVISED CODE COMPLIANCE REPORT
CODE COMPLIANCE
REPORT
August 18, 1998
KERN COUNTY
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY
David Price III, Director
2700 “M” Street,
Suite 350
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Voice: (661) 862-8800
or
(800)552-5376, Option 5
Fax: (850) 862-8801
E-mail:
rma@co.kern.ca.us
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Exhibit “A” Process Improvement Team’s
Action Plan
Exhibit “B” Examples of Violations
Reports
Exhibit “C” Reduction in Staff Hours
Graph
Exhibit “D” Examples of Courtesy Letter
and Notice and Order
Exhibit “E” Pay as You Throw Steering
Committee Recommendations
Exhibit “G” Flow Charts for
Procedures
- Exhibit “G-1” Administrative Penalty
**
- Exhibit “G-2” Public Nuisance **
- Exhibit “G-3” Weeds **
- Exhibit “G-4” Illegal Dumping **
- Exhibit “G-5” Abandoned, Wrecked, Inoperable, or
Dismantled Vehicles **
- Exhibit “G-6” Overview of Due Process Procedures
**
** Please contact the Kern County
Resource Management Agency at (661) 862-8800 or 1-800-552-KERN, Option 7 to
view these flow charts.
Exhibit “H” Organizational Chart
Exhibit “I” Draft Budget
Exhibit “J” Abatement Time-line
Exhibit “K” Public Meetings
- Exhibit “K-1 Round One Notes and List of Attendees
- Exhibit “K-2” Round Two Notes and List of Attendees
The Kern County Board of Supervisors has consistently worked to preserve
the personal and private property rights of Kern County citizens. Adoption of
the Home Rule resolution, for example, signaled their support for the
constitutional rights of Kern County citizens and for the doctrine of due
process. Consistent with the Board’s position, the Resource Management
Agency (RMA) adopted its Philosophy Governing Regulatory Action. One of
the primary tenets of the Philosophy is to “use the powers of
governmental authority with discretion and to respect the personal and property
rights of the people, taking regulatory enforcement action only when required.
. .and only to an extent necessary to achieve health, safety and welfare of the
public.” The program recommended within this report was developed in
accordance with the aforementioned philosophies and, if approved by the Board,
will provide a judicious and effective means to address code violations in Kern
County. This report describes the status of the Code Compliance Program,
identifies opportunities for refining the program, and makes recommendations
for implementation of the second phase.
On July 1, 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved recommendations made
by the RMA to improve the delivery of code compliance services. The Code
Enforcement Process Improvement Team Status Report recommended a phased
approach designed to coordinate and streamline compliance activities previously
administered by several County departments (see Exhibit “A” for a
copy of the Process Improvement Team’s Action Plan). The first phase of
the plan resulted in co-location of various departmental staff assigned to
enforcing the County’s housing, building, and public nuisance ordinances;
development of a centralized and automated complaint intake, referral, and
initial response procedure; implementation of a public awareness program; and
ongoing monitoring with a focus on continuous improvement. Efforts to date have
resulted in significant improvement over the previous programs. Nonetheless,
additional analysis concludes that further refinements will create even greater
efficiencies, better coordination, faster resolution of code violations, and
improved opportunities for recovering costs.
The first phase, with a focus on improving interdepartmental
coordination and streamlining processes, ultimately resulted in marked
improvement over the previous model of separate code enforcement programs.
Better coordination and new procedures have reduced the average amount of time
required to receive a complaint and generate an initial response from more than
a week to approximately 24 hours.
Automation of the complaint intake, referral, and response procedure was
instrumental to streamlining the program. Automation began with establishment
of a Code Compliance “hotline.” The telephone number is 661-862-8603
or, for toll-free calling from the outlying areas, 1-800-552-KERN, Option 7.
Citizens now have a single point of contact for registering complaints and
obtaining follow-up information.
With the hotline in place, RMA Technical Services staff automated
complaint intake procedures by designing and writing software that enables
Customer Service Center representatives to enter data directly into the system
as a complaint is being received. The complaint data is then accessed through a
computer terminal at the Principal Building Inspector’s desk, who is
responsible for prioritization and assignment of the complaints. Clerical staff
then access the new complaints from terminals at their desks, validate the
data, and obtain property owner information from the Kern Integrated Property
System, Metroscan or other sources as needed. Once the accuracy of the data is
confirmed, an automated “courtesy letter” is generated and mailed to
the owner or occupant of the property for which the complaint was filed.
In addition to streamlining the exchange of complaint data, the computer
program is capable of generating reports by category, including supervisorial
district, complaint type, or status (see Exhibit “B” for an example
of reports). Because the computer program was developed by RMA Technical
Services staff, it not only meets the specific needs of the County but it was
developed at a cost savings when compared to purchasing
“off-the-shelf” code compliance software.
A key component of the automated and streamlined system is the
generation of a courtesy letter as an initial response to complaints. Courtesy
letters have not only been very effective in promoting voluntary compliance
(see discussion on Administrative Penalty ordinance) but have also been an
important cost control measure. A courtesy letter is simply a notification to
the owner or occupant of the property that a complaint has been registered with
the County. It identifies the type of complaint(s) reported and lists the name
and telephone number of a Code Compliance investigator who can be called for
more information or further assistance. The letter requests that the recipient
respond within fourteen (14) days, either by telephone or by signing a sworn
statement. If the party to whom the courtesy letter was mailed does not
respond, staff investigate the site and, if a violation is confirmed, may issue
a Notice and Order.
The benefit of using a courtesy letter as the initial response to
complaints is well documented. During fiscal years 1990-91 and 1991-92, the
Environmental Health Services Department spent approximately 4600 and 3500
hours respectively investigating complaints regarding residential income
property. When use of a courtesy letter began in 1992-93, the number of
investigative hours dropped to approximately 1900. The number of investigative
hours continued to decline in subsequent fiscal periods. During 1996-97,
investigative hours totaled less than 1700-- a 64% reduction from FY 1991-92.
Based on this information, use of courtesy letters resulted in an estimated
annual savings of $250,000 (see Exhibit “C”
for a graphical depiction of the reduction in man- hours as a result of using
courtesy letters and Exhibit “D” for drafts of the courtesy
letter and Notice and Order).
While the Code Compliance program has improved significantly, ongoing
monitoring -- consistent with the RMA’s commitment to continuous process
improvement -- has revealed opportunities for further enhancement. For example,
co-location of staff had a very positive impact with regard to coordinating
responses to complaints. In fact, it has virtually eliminated the duplication
of effort seen under the previous multiple department model. At the same time,
however, it created some challenges in terms of chain of command and clarity of
mission. Similarly, the authority under which staff promote compliance needs
improvement. For example, the existing ordinances administered by Code
Compliance staff, which in some cases are outdated, have been inadequate in
promoting compliance in a comprehensive and timely manner. Finally, abatement
procedures and mechanisms for recovering costs need further evaluation. These
issues are addressed in the recommendations for the second phase of the
program.
In July 1997, the Board of Supervisors conceptually approved the
skeletal components of the second phase of the Process Improvement Team’s
plan. This phase was scheduled for implementation on July 1, 1998, and
consisted of cross-training staff to allow enforcement of multiple ordinances,
development of more effective ordinances, development of faster abatement
procedures, improved cost recovery, and a review of the necessity to expand the
program.
The RMA is ahead of schedule on some of the tasks described in the
second phase. Still, as identified above, ordinance changes, organizational
issues, and abatement procedures must be addressed in order to achieve maximum
effectiveness.
Clearly, the most effective way to deliver code compliance services is
through development and adoption of a comprehensive package of new ordinances
and/or related amendments which facilitate flexible yet timely remedies to code
violations. The ordinances and amendments described below were designed to
encourage compliance through voluntary and cooperative efforts. In those
few cases where violators persistently refuse to acknowledge their
responsibilities, the new ordinances will allow the County to take appropriate
action to correct public health and safety violations. It should be emphasized
that appropriate due process protection is integrated throughout the
ordinances at each step in the processes. The ordinances as written also
make every effort to improve opportunities for recovering costs associated with
processing, investigating, and abating code violations (see Exhibit “F” for drafts of the ordinances
described below and Exhibit “G” for flow
charts depicting procedures).
More than 60% of the complaints received by Code Compliance staff are
resolved simply by notifying the property owner or occupant that a violation
may exist. This data not only attests to the success of the courtesy letters,
it also clearly suggests that a majority of the cases involve citizens who are
responsible and law-abiding; they may be merely unaware of certain public
health, building, or zoning requirements. Once these citizens are made aware of
the violation, they promptly reply, accept their responsibilities as tenants or
property owners, and correct the condition.
Unfortunately, there are cases where violators have totally disregarded
any and all requests made by Code Compliance staff to correct a health and
safety hazard. Realizing that local jurisdictions lacked the appropriate tools
to encourage unresponsive violators to correct code violations, state
legislators created an additional instrument. California State Government Code
Section 53069.4 gives counties the authority to adopt an ordinance which sets
penalties for failure to comply with local laws. If the Board of Supervisors
chooses to adopt such an ordinance, it would create an economic incentive for
violators to correct code violations expeditiously.
An Administrative Penalty ordinance would:
- ensure the use of objective criteria for the imposition of
penalties;
- provide due process for anyone subject to penalties by establishing
procedures for appeal to the local municipal court;
- allow Code Compliance staff to cite a violator for nuisance,
housing, zoning, or building violations if the violator refuses to respond
after the fourteen (14) day courtesy period and the thirty (30) day notice and
order period (for a total of 44 days);
- set penalties according to the following schedule:
- first violation-- $100, but may be waived by the Public
Official;
- second violation--$200;
- third violation-- $300;
- allow the Board of Supervisors to penalize violators at higher rates
depending on the gravity of the crime.
It should be emphasized that this measure would not be relied upon to
generate revenue for the program. It would only be used where the violator
has refused to voluntarily correct the violation or where a violator has
demonstrated willful intent to violate a specified provision of the Kern County
Ordinance Code. As stated above, speedy and adequate due process is assured
though appeal to the Kern County Municipal Courts.
Other jurisdictions throughout the state appear to use nuisance
ordinances as their primary enforcement tool because such ordinances can
address unsafe, unhealthful, and unsanitary conditions more readily than
zoning, building or housing laws. After reviewing other jurisdictions’
ordinances, staff has determined that amending the County's nuisance ordinance
would better assist Code Compliance staff in correcting conditions that
threaten public health and safety. With amendments, Kern County’s Public
Nuisance ordinance would:
- better define what constitutes a public nuisance;
- include more specific language on how investigations must be
conducted;
- make property owners and responsible parties responsible for
maintaining property such that it does not become a public nuisance;
- provide for summary abatement of nuisances that constitute an
immediate threat to public health or safety;
- set penalties for failure to abate;
- authorize the County to secure, remove, demolish, or raze the
nuisance and provide the ability to recover any costs incurred;
- describe procedures for hearings regarding abatement proceedings and
appeals;
- designate a Hearing Officer to hear appeals where abatement costs
are less than $2,500;
- designate the Board of Supervisors to serve as the hearing body
where abatement costs are $2,500 or greater, for all demolitions, or for appeal
of the Hearing Officer's decision; and
- provide the Building Official, the Health Officer, the Fire Chief or
their designees with the authority to enforce the ordinance.
Consistent with the Code Compliance Mission Statement, voluntary
compliance will be the primary emphasis in administration of this
ordinance.
Currently, Chapter 8.28 of the Kern County ordinance code specifies the
County’s requirements for safe and healthful management of solid waste and
weeds. The Waste Management Department (WMD) has suggested that separating
solid waste from weeds and establishing two ordinances would clarify the
purposes of both subjects of the ordinance. In addition, it would provide WMD
with an issue-specific ordinance that could be amended if necessary to create a
comprehensive and consolidated solid waste ordinance. The RMA agrees that the
County would be better served by separating Chapter 8.28 into two distinct
ordinances.
The RMA is not recommending any substantive changes to the language
related to weed abatement. Currently, the Fire Department is responsible for
administration of the ordinance, and, as proposed, it would continue to manage
compliance activity where weeds present a fire hazard. However, Code Compliance
staff would assume the authority to promote compliance where weeds are creating
a nuisance. The authority would be exercised under the Public Nuisance
ordinance and only when the nuisance weeds are found in conjunction with
another reported violation. It should be noted that the Fire Department was
consulted and concurs with the recommendations herein.
Recommended changes to the solid waste ordinance were developed by the
WMD in coordination with the Environmental Health Services Department. Most of
the amendments included in the attached exhibit are relatively minor in nature.
Changes to the definitions of some terms were made in order to make the
ordinance more consistent with industry-standard terminology. In addition, some
minor procedural modifications were made to better reflect current solid waste
collection practices.
The most prominent change is related to violations of provisions
regarding illegal dumping. Limited to available resources, the WMD would still
administer a clean-up program designed to quickly respond to reports for some
illegal dumping. However, as proposed, Code Compliance staff would conduct all
compliance activity. Code compliance staff would have the authority to cite
illegal dumpers when the parties can be identified. Administrative penalties
would be issued and responsible parties would be billed for the costs incurred
by the County for investigation, administration, clean-up and disposal of the
illegally dumped material. Appeals of administrative penalties for illegal
dumping would be directed to the local municipal court.
On May 5, 1998, the Board referred the subject of illegal dumping to the
CAO in response to comments raised by a Kern County citizen. That referral has
not been considered herein. However, as of this writing, it is anticipated that
the CAO will be responding to the Board’s referral on August 18, 1998,
under separate cover.
Finally, violations of provisions regarding medical waste containers,
transportation of uncovered loads, scavenging, unlawful use of landfills, and
keeping premises in sanitary condition would also be subject to the
Administrative Penalty ordinance.
The recommendations found herein are consistent with the recommendations
made by the Pay as You Throw Steering Committee as approved by the Board of
Supervisors (see Exhibit “E”).
Code compliance staff processed more than 2000 violations in the last
half of calendar year 1997. Of these violations, more than 10% involved
wrecked, inoperable or dismantled vehicles. In most cases, these violations
were processed using the County’s Zoning Ordinance as the authority.
However, the language in the Zoning Ordinance regarding wrecked,
inoperable, and dismantled vehicles has not been totally effective in resolving
violations. The County has an Abandoned Vehicle Ordinance which is administered
by the Sheriff; however, it was written to address disabled vehicles which have
been left on County roads for more than 72 hours. It does not address wrecked,
inoperable, or dismantled vehicles parked on public or private property.
State Vehicle Code offers local jurisdictions an effective procedure by
which such vehicles can be quickly abated. The RMA, in consultation with the
Sheriff’s Department, has prepared amendments to the current Abandoned
Vehicle ordinance for the Board of Supervisors’ consideration. The
amendments preserve the Sheriff’s procedures for removing vehicles from
public roads, while at the same time providing Code Compliance staff with the
tools needed to address wrecked, inoperable or dismantled vehicles on public or
private property. Again, voluntary compliance will be the primary emphasis in
administration of this ordinance.
Proposed amendments to the Abandoned Vehicle ordinance would do the
following:
- as public nuisances, would allow the removal of wrecked, dismantled
or inoperative vehicles from public or private property as provided in State
Vehicle Code section 22660;
- would not apply to any vehicle stored or parked in a lawful manner
in conjunction with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle
dealer, lawful junkyard, vehicle repair business, school training program or
other commercial or industrial operation;
- would not apply to one (1) vehicle parked on any paved surface on
any single- family residence provided it is covered appropriately (the
requirement for the vehicle to be parked on a paved surface could be waived by
the Public Official if justified);
- after the 14-day courtesy letter has been issued, would require Code
Compliance staff to issue a 30-day notice of intention to remove a vehicle
unless the property owner and owner of the vehicle have signed releases
authorizing removal and waiving further interest in it;
- would not require notice of intention for property zoned for
agricultural use if specified criteria are met and the property owner signs a
release waiving further interest in the vehicle;
- would not allow a wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle which
has been removed to be reconstructed or made operable, unless it is a vehicle
which qualifies for either horseless carriage or historical vehicle license
plates;
- would ensure due process protection by establishing procedures for
appeal to the Hearing Officer and/or the Board of Supervisors;
- would set penalties for failure to comply; and
- would allow for collection of costs for administration and
abatement.
Amendments that would streamline the County’s Building and Housing
ordinances are also being recommended. Changes to the Building and Housing
ordinances are non substantive with the exception of a proposal for
establishment of an Administrative Hearing procedure, which is discussed in the
following section. Kern County’s Zoning Ordinance is administered by the
Planning Department. The Planning Department has delegated enforcement of the
ordinance to the Building Inspection Division and/or Code Compliance staff of
the Engineering and Survey Services Department. In order to promote greater
consistency in terminology and procedures among all of the ordinances enforced
by Code Compliance staff, it will be necessary to make some modifications to
the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department is scheduled to recommend
revisions to the Zoning Ordinance at a later date. Changes regarding Code
Compliance will be addressed at that time.
As discussed previously, there are occasions where responsible parties
fail to respond to a Notice and Order or where they desire an opportunity to
offer evidence or testimony refuting the actions taken by Code Compliance
staff. In either case, current procedures require the item to be considered by
the Board, irrespective of the scope and magnitude of the issue. Ensuring that
all parties have speedy and adequate due process of law is a critical component
to promoting compliance with County ordinances. However, scheduling an item for
the Board’s consideration can add time to what would otherwise be an
expeditious procedure.
To streamline this process and promote timely abatement of public
nuisances, wrecked or inoperable vehicles, substandard structures, or housing
violations, the RMA is recommending the establishment of an Administrative
Hearing process. Administrative Hearings would be conducted by a Hearing
Officer, which could be a department head or senior manager, but in no case
will be an employee from the same department as the employee who issued the
Notice and Order. In addition, County Counsel or a designee could serve.
Under the proposed procedure, the Hearing Officer could receive
testimony and make findings regarding alleged code violations where projected
abatement costs are less than $2,500.
For cases with projected abatement costs of $2,500 or greater and all
demolition projects, the Board of Supervisors would continue to serve as the
hearing body. Of course, all decisions made by a Hearing Officer could be
appealed to the Board.
Implementation of the ordinances and procedures described above, if
approved by the Board, will be carried out in a manner that first exhausts all
reasonable opportunities for achieving compliance through voluntary
measures.
Once those measures have been fully exhausted, and the violator has
failed to cooperate, the ordinances would allow the County to take appropriate
action to correct the unlawful condition. Therefore, it is recommended that
the Board of Supervisors adopt the ordinances as attached in Exhibit
“F” and approve the establishment of an Administrative Hearing
procedure.
During the first phase, the directors of the Engineering and Survey
Services and Environmental Health Services departments both agreed to co-locate
their respective compliance staff in order to promote a more coordinated and
efficient program. Each staff position continued to be funded by the budget
unit from which it originated. For example, Environmental Health Services
continued to list an Environmental Health Specialist 3 and an Environmental
Health Technician 2 devoted to code compliance in its budget unit. However,
these staff reported to a Principal Building Inspector who was charged with
assigning duties. This non-traditional chain of command, while working
adequately to date, has the potential to present challenges related to
consistency, workload management, and employee performance evaluations.
To promote consistency and a more functional chain of command, the RMA
supports establishment of a “Code Compliance Division” (CCD), which
would continue to be located within the Engineering and Survey Services
Department. Converting this workgroup’s status to a division would create
greater organizational cohesion, improve communication, establish consistent
performance and reporting standards, while better accounting for program costs
(see Exhibit “H” for a copy of the recommended organizational
chart).
As alluded to earlier, the work unit was initially staffed by simply
collocating to a common work area one (1) Principal Building Inspector, one (1)
Environmental Health Technician, one (1) Environmental Health Specialist, two
(2) Building Inspectors and one (1) word processing technician. Having these
multiple personnel specifications has limited the opportunities for
consolidation of tasks.
A key aspect of streamlining the code compliance effort includes more
effective utilization of staff. To achieve this, Phase II recommendations
include the creation of consolidated personnel specifications. With a
consolidated specification, staff would be capable of multiple ordinance
enforcement authority, which would maximize the use of limited staff resources.
As proposed, the CCD would be staffed with one (1) supervisor, four (4)
code compliance officers, and clerical support (estimated at 1.5 full time
equivalents). It should be noted that the WMD has committed to providing
funding for one full-time equivalent to a Solid Waste Management Aide. Another
important item of note is that existing resources are being reallocated to fund
all positions. No increases in the number of full-time positions previously
assigned to Code Compliance activities would be required as a result of
implementing this recommendation.
Personnel assigned to the new code compliance officer classification
would perform routine inspections and investigations relating to the
enforcement of the County’s building, housing, solid waste, and nuisance
related ordinances. A new personnel specification should be drafted to include
all of the critical functions of the consolidated compliance officer position.
For example:
- Receive, record, and investigate complaints from the public and
staff regarding violations of County codes, ordinances, standards, and health
and safety regulations while employing a high level of customer service;
make inspections of residential, industrial and/or commercial areas; document
violations by securing photographs and other pertinent data; research ownership
records, prior complaints, municipal codes and ordinances, and state
regulations to establish whether a violation has occurred.
- Provide information to the general public, business community and
other government agencies to explain the nature of incurred violations and to
encourage voluntary compliance with County codes, ordinances, and
community standards.
At the supervisory level, the specification’s essential functions
would be commensurately expanded to reflect responsibility for supervision of
work unit staff, providing direction in the more difficult and complex cases
and assisting in the development of policies, procedures, and training for the
CCD. No changes are recommended for clerical positions and specifications.
This organizational structure and related consolidated specification
will ensure that staff receive consistent direction in accomplishing their
mission, and it provides the greatest flexibility for workload management.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve
the development of new personnel specifications for Code Compliance Officer and
Code Compliance Supervisor and refer the development of personnel
specifications and appropriate salary ranges to the Personnel Department and
the County Administrative Office.
If the Board of Supervisors chooses to adopt the organizational
structure as recommended, a new budget unit and associated functional statement
would be established. A budget unit number would be identified in consultation
with the County Administrative Office and other appropriate departments.
The RMA has prepared the following functional statement for Board of
Supervisors consideration:
- This Unit was established in 1998 to administer the Code
Compliance program for Kern County property maintenance conditions and land use
requirements as codified in the Kern County Ordinance Code including Building,
Housing, Zoning, Public Nuisance, Vehicle Abatement, Solid Waste, Weeds, and
other applicable regulations. Key components of the Code Compliance Program
include a single intake center for all land use/environmental complaints,
centralized management of inspection/investigation/ compliance activities, and
an emphasis on minimizing the necessity for legal action by encouraging
voluntary compliance and correction of identified violations.
A preliminary budget for the proposed Code Compliance Division is
reflected in Exhibit “I.” Total annual expenditures are estimated at
$651,260.
Salary projections were based upon current salary expenditures for work
unit staff. Salary expenditures are estimated at $364,940. The proposal for
development of new personnel specifications (discussed above in this report)
will include a review and recommendation on appropriate salary ranges;
therefore, some adjustments to the salary figures depicted in the exhibit may
be needed.
Services and supplies are projected at $268,320. Expenses reflect
current demand for vehicle use, telephones, computers and other support items.
It also includes charges for accounting activities such as tracking
expenditures and recovery of investigation fees and fines. Programming costs
for the completion of a centralized computer database and to fund abatement
projects are also reflected in this category.
In addition, the Professional and Special Services key reflects the
WMD’s commitment to assist in funding illegal dumping enforcement.
It is anticipated that those funds will be transferred to the
appropriate key once the Board acts upon the recommendations resulting from the
recent referral regarding illegal dumping. Finally, a contingency of $18,000
has been budgeted in the fixed asset category for the likely replacement of an
existing vehicle with maintenance problems and high mileage.
Revenues for the proposed budget unit totaling $629,275 are anticipated
from the Planning Department, Environmental Health Services Department, and
WMD. The projected revenues are equivalent to the resources committed by the
departments for support of code compliance efforts in the current fiscal year.
The proposed budget also includes revenues of approximately $33,000 to
be received from collections of investigation fees (based on actual receipts to
Environmental Health Services and Building Inspection during Fiscal Year
1997-98.) Recognizing that code compliance programs are historically not self
sufficient, the RMA is still committed to exploring every avenue for cost
recovery.
As stated earlier, RMA technical staff have worked diligently to develop
a comprehensive violation tracking system; however, that program is not
complete. In order to finalize the reporting capabilities of the system,
approximately $22,000, which has not been budgeted for in Fiscal Year 1997-98,
is needed. All potential revenue sources have been explored, and current
budget variance reports indicate that it is likely these one-time costs cannot
be absorbed. With Board approval, these start-up costs would be funded by a
transfer from general fund contingencies.
Historically, substandard building and nuisance abatement costs have
been paid for out of the Repair and Demolition Fund. When the Board declares a
structure substandard or a nuisance and directs staff to abate, funds are
withdrawn from the Repair and Demolition Fund to cover expenses incurred by the
County. A special assessment is then placed on the property owner’s tax
bill. However, oftentimes, abatement costs exceed the value of the property, in
which case property owners often default on the mortgage and become delinquent
on taxes owed to the County. Under these circumstances, the County does not
recover its costs for abatement until such time as the title to the property is
transferred or if the County assumes ownership and sells the property.
Unfortunately, the cycle just described generally takes more than five years to
complete, and when and if the County recovers their cost, it usually amounts to
just pennies on the dollar. The result of this procedure is that abatement
funds are drawn down faster than they are replenished, leaving the fund balance
too low to pay for future projects. Consequently, abatement of structures which
the Board has declared substandard or a nuisance are delayed until the Repair
and Demolition Fund is replenished.
The Repair and Demolition Fund is all but exhausted. The fund balance as
of August 7, 1998, was $8,000. As of May 5, 1998, there were 19 projects
pending with estimated abatement costs totaling $96,200. Currently, total
unfunded abatement project costs exceed the Repair and Demolition fund balance
by $88,200.
In addition to the Repair and Demolition Fund, Community Development
Department budgets approximately $150,000 annually for demolition of
substandard structures. The current fund balance is in excess of $296,000. It
should be noted that approximately $50,000 is encumbered by pending demolition
projects. In addition, staff have identified another five sites that may be
eligible for CD demolition funds. In general, however, use of Federal funds is
strictly limited. For example, in order to demolish a site, the director of
Environmental Health Services is required to find that the structure is
substandard, the property owner must show that they are incapable of paying for
the demolition themselves, and adherence to federal procurement procedures is
required. With regard to simple repair, clean-up, or board-up, the Board of
Supervisors adopted a policy which disallows the use of CD money to fund
services. Since these types of activities are construed as services by HUD, CD
dollars cannot be used under existing policy.
Nevertheless, RMA and Community Development staff are evaluating the
opportunities for making better use of these funds, and it is the intent of
the RMA to use the Community Development Department’s Repair and
Demolition Fund as the primary resource wherever possible for performing
demolition of substandard structures.
In light of the fact that all available funding mechanisms are either
inadequate or limited in use, a new source of abatement funds is needed.
Clearly, the most effective means to address this potential fatal flaw is to
create a Special Departmental Expense line- item within the Code Compliance
Division’s budget unit. It is estimated that an annual appropriation of
$100,000, in conjunction with the use of CDBG money, would provide an adequate
reserve to fund the remediation, repair, and demolition of public nuisances and
substandard housing and buildings. Of course, any recovery of abatement
expenses realized by the County through special assessments or liens would
accrue to the County’s general fund. Those funds could be used to enhance
the program or to offset the net general fund cost.
To maximize the use of abatement dollars, two procedural changes are
also needed. Current policy requires all abatement proceedings to be approved
by the Board. Where demolition may take place, this is a critical step to
ensuring that property owners are provided due process. However, in the event
that the nuisance simply requires securing of a structure or clean up of
unhealthy or hazardous debris, the requirement of obtaining Board approval may
delay the process. To expedite procedures, purchase orders could be established
to pay local contractors for abatement of projects where abatement costs do not
exceed $2500. With adoption of the Public Nuisance ordinance amendments
recommended in this report and the establishment of purchase orders, the time
to abate a typical nuisance could be reduced from 261 days to approximately 85!
There would also be a significant cost savings by eliminating the need to have
General Services prepare bid specifications and administer the bids (see
Exhibit “J” for a depiction of the reduction of time involved using
this procedure).
A report could be prepared at regular intervals to keep the Board
apprised of the abatement projects and related costs. Under this approach,
any projects which require more than $2500 to abate and all demolition
projects would still be brought before the Board for approval.
The second procedural modification involves demolition projects. The
County’s current abatement procedures require the preparation of
demolition plans, specifications, and associated bid documents. Preparation of
documents and processing bids can add several weeks and significant costs to a
typical demolition project. To further streamline the program and maximize
abatement dollars, the RMA proposes to form a process improvement team
consisting of representatives from General Services and the RMA. The team would
be charged with identifying barriers to a streamlined program and making
recommendations for a simpler, faster, cheaper process.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors
approve the establishment of a Code Compliance Division within the
Engineering and Survey Services Department and refer to the RMA for
implementation; direct the RMA to work with the County Administrative Office to
establish a new Code Compliance Division general fund budget; approve General
Fund support of $25,000 for one-time start up costs for computer programming
needs and an annual appropriation of $100,000 for demolition, abatement and
repair of public nuisances and substandard structures; and approve the use of
purchase orders to pay for abatement when estimated project costs do not exceed
$2500.
Consistent with the Board of Supervisors's commitment to seeking
feedback from members of the public when changes to County programs are being
considered, the RMA initiated two (2) series of public meetings. Meetings were
conducted throughout the County, and all meetings were publicly noticed in the
newspapers of general circulation. To further enhance the opportunity for
public awareness, the cities of Kern County were also advised of the program
and their input was sought, as was previously reported to the Board of
Supervisors. In addition, the RMA has placed copies of the report in each Kern
County library branch, distributed copies to interested persons and
organizations, and posted a copy on the RMA’s Internet Web Page.
The first round of public meetings, coordinated with the WMD public
meetings on Pay as You Throw and Mandatory Collection, began February 3 and
concluded on March 18. The need for a coordinated effort with the WMD was
self-evident as nearly all discussions of solid waste programs included
questions regarding the role of enforcement as it relates to unlawful
dumping.
Overall, the changes being recommended were well received by the public
during the first round of meetings. Most meeting attendees were pleased to hear
that the County was committed to eliminating public health and safety hazards
and controlling conditions which had a deteriorating effect on neighborhoods.
Additionally, some attendees expressed strong support for making violators
responsible for their unlawful actions.
The second round of public meetings was conducted between July 6 and
August 4. Meetings were not well attended in Bakersfield, Delano, Frazier Park
and Wasco. Conversely, the meetings in Mojave, Inyokern, Oildale and Taft
generated significant interest.
Residents from the communities of Mojave and Oildale generally voiced a
mixture of support and opposition. Taft area residents voiced strong support
and were generally displeased that the program had not yet been
operationalized. The Lake Isabella community and representatives from the Twin
Oaks area generally expressed frustration with the current delivery of
services. Some property owners suggested that their property rights had been
infringed upon by those who violated the County’s codes.
One Twin Oaks resident said that the court system had failed in terms of
causing violators to correct violations. And the Vice President of the Property
Owners Association stated its members’ support for the program. The
community of Inyokern, on the other hand, was generally opposed. The twelve
(12) attendees voiced concerns ranging from inadequate public protection
services to a request to have Randsburg designated an historical landmark in
order to protect it from the program.
Information gleaned from the comments made at the public meetings was
used to make changes to the program. For example, concerns were raised
regarding the definition of a public nuisance. In response, the term
“public nuisance” has been more narrowly defined tofocus on
conditions which are injurious to or threaten public health, safety and
welfare. The ordinance was also revised to give staff greater opportunity to
seek compliance from responsible tenants of rental property who have caused or
contributed to a public nuisance, rather than just seeking corrections from the
property owner(s).
Changes were also made to the ordinance regulating inoperable vehicles.
Under the revised language, restrictions on vehicles will be limited to
residential areas less than one acre in size. Provided vehicles parked in back
or side yards do not present a health or safety hazard and are screened from
view, the ordinance’s restrictions on the number of vehicles allowed will
now not apply. The requirement to park vehicles on paved surfaces has been left
to the Public Official’s discretion in order to accommodate individuals
living in developments with unpaved access roads. Finally, references to the
number of allowable vehicles on agricultural property have been eliminated.
Regarding Administrative Penalties, revisions have been made which
clarify what sections of the Solid Waste ordinance would be subject to fines.
Language has also been added to allow the Board of Supervisors to impose fines
at amounts higher than those described for imposition by the Public Official.
This change was included to allow the Board the latitude to impose fines
commensurate with the offense. For example, if a truckload of tires was
illegally dumped in the unincorporated area, the Board could impose a fine of
more than $100.
The request to exempt certain unincorporated areas, such as Randsburg,
from the provisions of the ordinances was reviewed and staff has been unable to
find a basis upon which exceptions for some areas can be justified.
Accordingly, no such exceptions are currently proposed by staff.
Based on the feedback, the RMA is confident that the program as
described in this report will be supported by the lawful majority of Kern
County citizens (see Exhibit “K” for a copy of meeting schedules and
notes from each meeting).
With approval by the Board of Supervisors, final versions of the
ordinances could be introduced in September 1998. Recruitment for the new
positions and establishment of the work unit’s budget would begin as soon
as possible. It is anticipated that the program would be operationalized in
late September or early October of 1998.
The RMA has long been committed to protecting personal and private
property rights and constraining governmental intervention to instances where
public health, safety and welfare are threatened. In addition, the RMA is
focused on reducing costs and increasing efficiency by streamlining processes,
while at the same time improving customer service across departmental and
jurisdictional boundaries. The recommended changes to the Code Compliance
Program, with emphasis on voluntary compliance and judicious use of authority,
reflect those commitments. As always, the RMA will work cooperatively with the
Board of Supervisors and our citizens to improve the communities of Kern County
through effective implementation of the Code Compliance program.
Page Content Revised March 2, 2001
|
