Title
Recommendation to Review the Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program in Response to the City Council’s November 19, 2019 Referral, and Provide Direction on Potential Future Changes to the Existing Enforcement Program. (Planning, Building and Transportation 481005)
Body
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the November 19, 2019 City Council meeting, the City Council approved a referral (Exhibit 1) from Councilmember Vella requesting a review of the City of Alameda’s (City) code enforcement program. This report provides a description of the City’s current Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program and options for Program adjustments for City Council consideration.
BACKGROUND
The Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program (Program) enforces Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) and California Building and Housing Code regulations related to building, zoning and neighborhood preservation. AMC regulations related to non-zoning and building code regulations, such as no-smoking ordinances, living wage ordinances, plastic straw ordinances, are enforced primarily by the Police Department, Public Works Department, and/or Base Reuse and Community Development Department.
The Program is funded by planning and building permit fees and is comprised of one (1) senior code enforcement officer, two (2) code enforcement officers and one (1) administrative staff person. It is supervised by the Planning, Building and Transportation Department Assistant Director/Building Official.
The Program is a complaint-based program that responds to code violations that are reported to the City by residents and businesses. Program staff does not proactively seek the abatement of violations. The Program receives an average of 250 unique complaints a year and resolves about an equal number of cases each year. Cases resolved may be cases received in that same year or cases that have taken several years to resolve. Although, most cases involve residential properties, the program also enforces code violations on commercial properties. For information purposes, Exhibit 2 lists all the cases that were received in 2019.
When a complaint is received, Program staff visits the site to determine if the complaint is valid. If validated, the complaint is categorized by priority. Program staff are generally able to respond to all high priority complaints within 48 hours and all medium priority cases within five working days. Low priority and secondary priority cases are responded to within 14-30 days. If not validated, a notation is made Accela, the City’s document management system used by the Planning, Building and Transportation Department.
The priority system was originally approved by the City Council in 1999 (see Exhibit 3) and reconfirmed by subsequent City Councils over the last 20 years. However, this is the initial review by the current City Council. The current priority system can be summarized as follows:
1. Highest Priority (Health and Safety):
• Substandard/unsanitary housing
• Dangerous buildings
• Illegal housing units.
2. Medium Priority (Health, Safety, and General Welfare):
• Work without permits
• Vacant buildings and fee assessment
• Administrative Building code violations
• Abandoned/Inoperable vehicles
• Graffiti
3. Low Priority (Non-safety, general welfare)
• Prohibited freestanding signs and wind blow inflatable devises/signs
• Front yard parking and paving
• Fence materials violations (barbed wire)
• Litter
4. Secondary (Lowest priority, non-safety, general welfare)
• Noise violations
• Height limit violations for fences, decks, etc.
• Weed violations,
• News rack ordinance violations.
The priority category is not a reliable indicator of how easy or difficult a case will be to resolve. Resolving a case requires actions by the property owner, a responsible party, and in some cases, a court of law. Bringing the property into compliance can be straight forward and quick when the property owner acts quickly and cooperatively with the City to rectify the problem. In other cases, resolution can take years. The more complex or problematic cases can require multiple inspections, multiple notices, inspection warrants and administrative citations. A case involving a “Queen Anne” Victorian has required over 15 years of constant effort by the City and the courts, and the case is still not resolved.
In recent years, a number of new laws that have generated additional code enforcement cases. For example, around the same time period as the City’s new rent control ordinance has Code Enforcement has experienced an increase in complaints filed regarding “substandard housing”, and these new complaints are now being submitted by the actual resident of the unit. Since substandard housing is a high priority category, the Program staff has prioritized these new cases over the need to resolve older, unresolved, lower priority cases, referenced in the Referral, such a noise complaints, contractor work hours, etc.
DISCUSSION
When considering potential changes to the Code Enforcement Program, the City Council may consider three primary factors which might be adjusted: 1) priorities, 2) financial resources, and/or 3) organization.
1) Code Enforcement Priorities. The City Council may wish to review and adjust the current code enforcement priorities originally established by the City Council to ensure that they reflect current, 2020 City Council priorities. Any changes to the established priorities adopted by the City Council can be implemented immediately, provided that the revised priorities do not require additional financial resources. (The priorities are described above and in Exhibit 3.)
2) Code Enforcement Resources. The City Council could direct staff to increase the number of full time staff working in the Code Enforcement Program so that the program will be able to resolve more cases each year and work more aggressively on some of the lower priority violations. Adding a full time supervisor to the program would cost approximately $174,000 annually. Adding a full time code enforcement officer would cost approximately $113,566 annually. If the City Council desires staff to bring an increase in staffing, we are looking at doing in line with budget considerations so that Council has the ability to prioritize.
A survey of code enforcement programs in nearby cities revealed that the City’s program is staffed comparable to other cities who responded to a localized outreach for information from other cities, with three officers for a city of 79,000. As shown in the table below, staffing varied from 1 officer for every 20,000 residents (Hayward) to 1 officer for every 45,000 residents (San Leandro). At 1 officer for every 26,333 residents, the City’s program is staffed consistent with other area cities.
|
City |
Population |
# of code enforcement officers |
# officers per population |
|
Alameda |
79,000 |
3 |
1 officer per 26,000 residents |
|
Hayward |
160,000 |
8 |
1/20,000 |
|
San Leandro |
91,000 |
2 |
1/45,500 |
|
Oakland |
425,000 |
17 |
1/25,000 |
|
Lafayette |
25,000 |
2 part time |
1/25,000 |
• If the City Council wishes to increase the resources devoted to code enforcement, the potential funding sources for the additional staff could come from one or more of the following three sources: 1) an annual General Fund contribution. 2) increasing Planning and Building Fees, 3) increasing Rent Control Program fees, and/or
• Providing General Fund contribution. The City Council could fund an additional full time staff position for the program with General Fund monies. Although this approach would not require a fee study, the allocation of General Fund monies for additional Code Enforcement staff would require that the City Council ensure that the General Fund has adequate funds or consider reprioritizing.
• Increasing Planning and Building Permit Fees. The City Council could direct staff to conduct a revised permit fee study to account for additional enforcement staff. Once the study is completed, the City Council could adopt higher permit fees to fund additional code enforcement staff. It should be noted that the City Council has expressed its desire to lower permit fees to encourage climate action renovations to property and to reduce housing costs in Alameda. Raising permit fees can result in a number of undesirable consequences: the cost of new housing may increase to compensate for additional costs, the quality of materials and design details in new construction may decrease to compensate for additional permit costs, the additional development costs may discourage re-investment and upgrading of existing buildings or result in a larger number of residents choosing to do construction without permits, which may result in more code enforcement cases. This funding source would be dependent upon the prioritization of code enforcement cases.
• Providing Rent Control program fees. The City Council could direct staff to increase rent control program fees to fund the additional code enforcement activities generated by the new program. Similar to raising Planning and Building Fees, an increase in the Rent Control Program fees requires a fee study to justify the costs. It should be noted that the Rent Control program fees are currently in a study to increase the fee to be able to fund the previously approved prosecution unit addition within the City Attorney’s Office.
If the City Council wishes to increase the capacity of the division to address more cases more quickly, staff would recommend that the City Council direct staff to develop a funding proposal that utilizes all three funding sources consistent with mid-year budget or mid cycle budget review for 2020-2021.
3) Re-organization and Consolidation of Code Enforcement Programs. The City Council referral requests an analysis of the possibility of creating an “autonomous” code enforcement division that is not limited to building and planning code violations. The City Manager is recommending that the code enforcement activities remain under the direction of the Planning, Building and Transportation Director, but that a separate Division be created to provide autonomy to recommend actions to the Director to focus more broadly on code enforcement issues. Another option that could go along with this approach would be to consolidate the code enforcement activities of the Planning and Building Department, Public Works Department, and Base Reuse and Community Development Department into a single consolidated Division. This action would take time due to the fact that each of these departments have individuals who have diverse job duties. If a consolidated division is created, the City Manager’s office and Planning, Building and Transportation Director would need to work with departments to ensure that proper resources are allocated both code enforcement as well as maintained in the respective Department. A consolidated code enforcement program would require that the City hire a supervisor for the program that would report to the Planning and Building Director while the initial approach of a separate division could work under a Senior Code Enforcement Officer while evaluating the need for Division Supervisor.
A consolidated code enforcement program would be funded by a variety of existing sources. The Planning and Building Department would continue to provide funding for the enforcement of planning and building codes. If the new consolidated division wished to spend more time and resources on Planning and Building code enforcement, then the City would need to update the Building and Planning Permit Fee Study to increase the Planning and Buildings fees to pay for the additional effort. Likewise, the new consolidated division would bill the Rent Control program for time spent enforcing the rent control program, and the division would bill the General Fund for enforcement of general AMC provisions such as the smoking ordinance, the minimum wage ordinance, or future ordinances, such as the Short-Term Rental ordinance or a Leaf Blower ordinance. Similar to the current procedures, a new consolidated division would continue to prioritize its activities consistent with a Council-adopted set of priorities as described earlier in this report.
Since a consolidated program would require a new division manager position and consolidation of existing programs currently located in a variety of departments into a single department, the City Council could request the City Manager and Planning, Building & Transportation Director to develop a funding proposal that utilizes a variety of funding sources for consideration with the mid-year budget adjustments.
Conclusions and Recommendations: In conclusion, this review of the Code Enforcement program finds that:
• The number of code complaints received by the City is relatively small compared to other neighboring cities on a per capita basis, and the program is comparably staffed relative to neighboring cities on a per capita basis.
• The efficiency and effectiveness of the program could be improved through improved coordination and communication within the program and between the program and other departments, and between the program and the Council and community. Furthermore, the efficiency and effectiveness of the program could be improved with improved tools and processes for addressing the most difficult cases, so that more time can be spent by program staff on the rest of the cases.
• Even though we show that we are comparably staffed to other Cities. The desire to go to a stricter enforcement model or to enforce on a broader spectrum the Codes could impact the level of staffing required.
As the result of this City Council initiated internal review, program staff has already initiated the following initial program improvements:
• Coordination: Initiating a monthly coordination between the five departments that are involved with code enforcement: Police, Fire, Building, Community Development, Public Works, and the City Attorney’s Office. This monthly coordinating meeting will provide an opportunity for information sharing, mutual support and citywide code enforcement priority setting and coordination, consistent with Council priorities.
• Transparency: Initiating a quarterly report on code enforcement activities for City Council and public information. The City Council and community will be better able to assist staff in setting priorities and effectively utilizing limited resources if the City Council and the public have a better idea of what is, and what is not, being accomplished by the program. Staff hopes that these quarterly reports will serve to help the City Council make decisions in the future about resources that may or may not be needed to effectively enforce existing and new ordinances that will be considered by the City Council in the future.
• Effectiveness: The most difficult cases take up the most amount of time and resources. These cases reduce the amount of time and resources that can be spent on easier or lower priority cases. Currently, the program’s ability to use the citation process is constrained, and when a citation is issued, the program has no means to collect the citation if the citation is ignored by the recipient, which is used in part to fund the code enforcement program. On this February 18 agenda, the City Attorney’s office is recommending a change to the Municipal Code to provide the program with greater leeway to utilize the citation process for the most difficult or egregious cases. Concurrently, the Planning and Building Department is soliciting proposals from qualified collection agencies, who might wish to work with the Department to assist in collecting unpaid citations. Staff hopes that these two actions together will enable the program to more effectively resolve and close out some of the most difficult cases more quickly and efficiently, which will effectively expand the capacity of the existing staff to resolve more cases with existing resources.
ALTERNATIVES
In response to the referral the City Council could direct staff to pursue one or more of several alternatives:
1. Direct staff to pursue the recommended program improvements described above.
2. Revise the City Council approved priorities, but maintain the current program staffing;
3. Direct staff to return with funding proposals to increase the number of FTEs servicing the program; and/or
4. Request City Manager and Transportation, Building and Planning Director to return with funding proposals consistent with a reorganization plan to consolidate the City’s code enforcement programs into a single consolidated program.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Providing direction on priorities does not result in an impact to the General Fund. Direction to increase code enforcement staffing through increases to Planning and Building Fees or Rent Control Program fees would not impact the General Fund. Direction to increase staffing with the use of General Fund monies would impact the General Fund and those funds would need to be reallocated from an existing General Fund program.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Adequate enforcement of adopted laws and codes is consistent with the General Plan, Alameda Municipal Code, and State law.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Providing direction on potential future changes to an existing enforcement program is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. No further environmental review is required.
CLIMATE IMPACTS
Enforcement of existing codes and laws is necessary to achieve certain Climate Action and Resiliency Plan objectives.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Planning and Building Code Enforcement Program in Response to the City Council’s November 19, 2019 Referral, and Provide Direction on Potential Future Changes to the Existing Enforcement Program.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council consider moving forward in bringing a recommended Code Enforcement Supervisor position. Consistent with that recommendation, the City Manager plans on creating a separate Division to report to the Planning, Building and Transportation Director.
Respectfully submitted,
Andrew Thomas, Planning, Building and Transportation Director
Greg McFann, Assistant Planning, Building and Transportation Director/Building Official
Financial Impact section reviewed,
Elena Adair, Finance Director
Exhibits:
1. November 2019 Referral
2. 2019 Code Enforcement Reports and Status
3. 1999 Council Approved Code Enforcement Priorities
cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager