The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04 APPEALS ENF FEES 05-15-00 NO. 4 05-15-00 Inter-Com DATE: MAY 15, 2000 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBdECT: DELEGATION OF HEARING AUTHORITY FOR APPEALS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT FEES SUMMARY: Government Code Section 54988 provides that a city may charge fees for enforcement and inspection of housing, buiMing and zoning codes. The law provides that the City may place a property lien for failure to pay enforcement fees and that the property owner may request a hearing to appeal the lien. Staff is recommending that the Council delegate the Planning Comtnission as the hearing board for proposed liens. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 00-33 authorizing the Planning Commission to act as heating board for appeals of code enforcement liens. FISCAL IMPACT Delegation of hearing authority to the Planning Commission for appeals of code enforcement fees may have a fiscal impact if heatings are held at a date and time.other than at regular Planning Commission' meetings. City Council Resolution No. 99-102 required compensation to the Planning Commission of $100 for each meeting attended. BACKGROUND Senate Bill (SB) 430 was approved during the last legislative session and became effective January 1, 2000. SB 430 provides that the le~slative body of a city or county may collect fees, costs or charges incurred in the enforcement of local 'building, housing and zoning regulations. Costs and charges may not exceed the actual costs of inspections, enforcement and correspondence. If a property owner fails to compensate the CiW for the cost of enforcement, the City may place a lien on the property, in the amount of the enforcement costs, which shall be paid as ad-valorem tax. The property owner has the ability to appeal the placement of said lien and request a hearing. If a lien is appealed, Government Code Section 54988 provides that the legislative body (City Council) may delegate the hearing authority to a hearing board. The hearing board may be the Building Board of Appeals (Planning Commission) or another body. The Community Development Department is recommending that the City delegate hearing authority to the Planning Commission, if a lien is appealed. The Planning Commission ~411 make a written recommendation of their decision to the City Council, which the Council may adopt without a hearing (Consent Calendar), or may set the matter for hearing. The City Council may dismiss the lien or determine that the lien shall be recorded as a judgement lien for the amount of the enforcement fee. City Council Delegate Authority for Code Enforcement Fee Appeals May 15, 2000 Page 2 Both the owner(s) and occupant(s) of properties involved in enforcement will be informed that the City may assess a fee for code enforcement activities. Since liens can only be placed against the property owner, the owner is a party and must be provided notice of the City's ability to collect for code enforcement costs. After a case is closed, written notice of a proposed lien and the amount of the fee for enforcement will be sent to the property owner. The property owner will be informed that the fee assessment shall be paid within forty-five (45) days or that they may request a hearing if they wish to appeal the proposed lien amount. Typically problem properties require as many as four follow-up Notices of Violation and four compliance re-inspections before a property is in full compliance. Unless a citation is issued or successful legal action is taken, no costs are recovered. Code enforcement is a net drain on the General Fund and violators who do not comply create safety hazards and deteriorate surrounding property values. The imposition of re-inspection fees will result in higher and faster compliance rates. When a violator is required to pay continuing re-inspection fees, there is a greater incentive to resolve the violations. Violators will pay for re-inspections related to their noncompliance rather than this effort being funded by Tustin taxpayers who maintain their properties and comply with city codes. The Community Development Department proposes that there will be no fees for enforcement if the violation is corrected at the first compliance re-inspection. Fees will only apply to violations that are not corrected at the first compliance re-inspection and for repeat violations. Fees may not be imposed in all situations, as unique situations arise they will be handled on a cae by case basis. Many complaints involve multiple violations, where the owner or occupant may only correct one or two of the violations, requiring the code enforcement officer to prepare additional written notices and return to the site several times. Lack of compliance results in additional and costly staff time. The fee will also apply to properties that have a reoccurrence of the same violation(s) within six (6) months, which would be considered a continuation of the oriiginal case (Exhibit A). The law prohibits cities and counties from applying code enforcement fees to owner-occupied residential dwelling units and will not apply in situations where a violation was evident on plans that received a building permit from the city/county. The Community Development Department Code Enforcement staff has prepared an analysis that includes the range of time spent for each step in the enforcement/re-inspection process, the average amount of time per step and the associated costs (Exhibit B). Based on this analysis, the re-inspection fee will be $26.93 per hour. Fees will not recover the cost of enforcement, but are reasonably related to the work effort. Resolution No. 00-33 delegating heating authority to the Planning Commission for appeals of code enforcement liens is attached as Exhibit C. "~it~estfie~d -- Assistant Community Development Director Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Exhibit A - Re-inspection Flowchart Exhibit B - Time Analysis For Code Enforcement Cases Exhibit C--Resolution No. 00-33 EXHIBIT A Re-inspection Flowchart Re-inspection Flowchart Compliance Case Closed Initial Inspection (Notice issued / mailed) Compliance Inspection (No fee charged) Non-Compliance RE-INSPECTION #1 Fee charged (Bill for 1st Compliance Inspection) RE-INSPECTION #2 Fee charged Decision is Made Regarding Further Legal Action EH: Re-inspection Flowchart EXHIBIT B Time Analysis for Code Enforcement Cases EXHIBIT C Resolution No. 00-33 RESOLUTION NO. 00-33 2O 23 24 26 27 28 2O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DELEGATING HEARING AUTHORITY FOR APPEALS OF CODE ENTORCEMENT FEE ASSESSMENTS/LIENS TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANLNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54988 provides that the legislative body of a city may collect any fee, cost or charge incurred in the abatement of a public nuisance, inspection, correction/abatement of a violation and enforcement of zoning ordinances. WHEREAS, code enforcement fees shall not exceed the actual cost incurred in performing the inspection and enforcement activity. WHEREAS, code enforcement fees shall not apply to owner-occupied residential dwelling units or where a violation was evident on plans approved by the City. WHEREAS, if code enforcement fees are not been paid within forty- five (45) days after notice thereof, the fee shall become a lien on the property to be paid as ad-valorem taxes and a property owner may appeal the lien before the legislative body. WHEREAS, the legislative body may delegate the holding of the appeal heating to another body. The delegated heating body will make a written recommendation on their decision to the City Council, which the Council may adopt or set the matter for hearing. WHEREAS, the City of Tustin Planning Commission serves as the Building Board of Appeals and has knowledge of zoning and property maintenance ordinances. 'NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Tustin resolves as follows: Section 1: The Planning Commission is authorized to act as the hearing body on appeals of code enforcement fees. Section 2: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall file a copy of said application with the minutes of this City Council meeting. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 15th day of May, 2000. Jeffery M. Thomas Mayor 2O 26 28 29 RESOLUTION NO. 00-33 PAGE 2 PAMELA STOKER, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COU~'NTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 00-33 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, Califomia, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 00-33 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 15th day of May, 2000, by the following vote: COL2NCILMEMBER AYES: COL%-CILMEMBER NOES: COL~CILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COL%'CILMEMBER ABSENT: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk ccreso code enforcement fees