Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - August 11, 2003 - CCAZUSA LIGHT AND WATER 729 NORTH AZUSA AVENUE PRELIMINARY BUSINESS • Call to Order • Pledge to the Flag • Roll Call AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE AZUSA CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, AUGUST 11, 2003 6:30 P.M. 11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - Please note that public comments are welcomed by recognition of the Mayor. 111. AGENDA ITEMS A. Workshop on Planning For Results Based Budgeting. Recommendation: Conduct Workshop. Workshop on Expanded Code Enforcement: Weekend Options. Recommendation: Conduct Workshop. N. ITEM OF SUBSEQUENT NEED: A. Authorization to Charge Reduced Electrical Permit Fees for the Public Benefit Program In the Atlantis Gardens Neighborhood Revitalization Project. Recommendation: (1) place this item on the agenda as an item of subsequent need, and (2) authorize charging reduced electrical fees in the amount of $188.72 for light fixture replacement in connection with the Public Benefits Program for Atlantis Gardens. V. ADJOURNMENT A. Adjourn. 'Incompliance with the Americans with Disabilltles Act, Ifyou need special assistance to participate in a citymeeting, please contact the City Clerk at 626-812-5229. Notification three (3) working days prior to the meeting or time when special services are needed will assist staff In assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide access to the meeting. 0 • AZUSA DISCUSSION ITEM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 11, 2003 SUBJECT: EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT: WEEKEND OPTIONS INTRODUCTION Recently, with the help of facilitator Bill Mathis, the City Council engaged in a process by which critical community/organizational issues could be examined. By making a list of these issues, and having "courageous conversations" about them, Council members began to tackle these "difficult" matters. One of the items mentioned by Council member Hardison, and echoed by the rest of the Council was the lack of weekend code enforcement. This has been a long-standing concern, which is being accentuated by the great strides that Azusa has made elsewhere in being"the most improved city in the San Gabriel Valley". It was observed that weekend enforcement issues include unsightly conditions that significantly detract from the livability and appearance of the community. These include ongoing yard sales, proliferation of tatty signs, tattered banners, illegal A-frame signs in the public right-of-way, illegal vendors, makeshift signs stapled to telephone poles, etc. It is felt that without off-hours enforcement, these issues are often not addressed, and are often not acted upon for days, until the following business day. EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM The attached Background Report describes in detail the current Code Enforcement operations in both the Police Department and Community Development Department. It describes the personnel resources, the primary enforcement tasks, as well as performance statistics. Briefly summarized, the highlights are as follows: Community Development 1. Personnel resources of the Community Improvement and Business License Divisions are currently entirely devoted to Rental inspections, preparing Real Property Records Reports, complaint handling, and revenue recovery. 2. The Division is one person short due to military duty. Consequently, Staff has been unable to keep up with the required annual rental inspections. 3. In view of the foregoing, little pro-active enforcement is done. 1 Police Department 1. Two Community Services Officers (CSOs) are used for various enforcement duties, and have schedules that include weekends. The CSOs take minor crime reports, undertake traffic enforcement, regulate yard sales, and perform other duties as assigned. 2. A part time weekend volunteer position, which evolved into a paid position, was very successful in covering weekend activities. Because of a resignation, a recruitment process is underway. 3. A Reserve Officer is shared with Community Development in undertaking code enforcement activities. 4. Central Dispatch has functioned as the central point for complaints after hours and on weekends. 5. Police Officers, with a heightened awareness of quality of life issues, have been active in vendor enforcement, issuing citations for various violations, and confiscating and impounding illegal wares. PROPOSED AFTER HOURS AND WEEKEND COVERAGE The issue of code enforcement on weekends is not a new one. In the past, vendor sweeps have been conducted on weekends to stem the tide of illegal vendors. This has usually worked for a while after the intense sweeps, but eventually the vendors return. A permanent solution to the weekend enforcement issue has thus far not been implemented. The following program is suggested in response to the need for expanded enforcement. PHASE 1: WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY WITH EXISTING STAFF RESOURCES. A. Use Police Department resources more effectively on weekends: - Continue to use the Dispatcher as the main point of contact for complaints during weekends. - Request assistance from officers to notify Dispatch when violations are seen. - Continue to use CSOs for traffic/parking enforcement, sign removal, and yard sale control. - Fill the Police Aide position to support the CSO activities. - Use Police Explorers for illegal sign removal on weekends. - Continue police officers' use in vendor enforcement. B. Train existing field personnel to remove illegal signs within the right-of-way. These would include signs stapled to utility poles,A-frame signs on the sidewalks, banners over the public right-of-way, etc. - All Community Development staff - Public Works and Light and Water crews - All City employees that come across an illegal sign posting C. Use APU students as part of their community cleanup efforts (City Links) to remove illegal signs in the public right-of-way. D. Revise the Garage/Lawn Sale Ordinance to limit yard sales to two per calendar year per property to avoid the perpetual yard sale syndrome. E. Devise better use of technology to measure performance of this heightened enforcement program. F. Create, and advertise availability of a "hotline" and website for citizens to report violations and complaints. IMPACT: - Enforcement would be limited to vendor enforcement, illegal signs, parking enforcement, and yard sale control throughout the weekend. 2 - Citizens would know that complaints can be addressed to Central Dispatch in the Police Department. - More involved enforcement actions would wait until the start of normal business hours. - Depending on the volume and nature of violations reported, the caseload could increase dramatically requiring paperwork and follow-up, potentially affecting other enforcement priorities. OPTION FOR PHASEI: PLACE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTIONS ON HOLD AND REARRANGE SCHEDULES OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT STAFF TO COVER EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. A. At present, only two individuals can be scheduled in this manner, because of one inspector being on military duty. By including the Business Resource Officer, however, a third individual can be added to this schedule. The individuals on such a schedule would include one manager, one inspector, and a Business License Officer. However, this schedule would be in conflict with the ACEA MOU, which defines the workweek as 4 consecutive days beginning on Sunday morning, and ending on Thursday. The affected employees would therefore have to agree to the schedule. In addition, $1 per hour of premium time would need to be paid to the inspectors. B. After-hours enforcement coverage can further be accomplished by staggering the hours of work to include evenings. Inspectors could work 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. C. This Option would add another dimension to the suggested Phase 1 enforcement program, since the full range of enforcement capability would be added to weekend coverage. IMPACT: - The Rental Housing Inspection Program would fall further behind,and rental registration fees would not be able to be collected. - The response to Resale Reports would be slower,and revenue collection and enforcement by the Business Resource Officer would be significantly reduced (much of the $294,422). - Because a staggered weekend schedule is not consistent with MOU provisions, involved staff must be in agreement with the revised schedule. In addition, $1 per hour of premium pay would have to be paid. In view of the foregoing, this may only be a temporary solution. PHASE 2. HIRE A PART TIME COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT INSPECTOR FOR WEEKENDS. A person working Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at 8 hours per day,would cost approximately$17,500 to $20,000 annually. Such a person could join with the CSO and Police Aide working weekends to create an effective and responsive enforcement team. In addition, existing staff schedules could be re- arranged to cover evenings. IMPACT: - This option would result in additional ongoing cost, some of which could be offset through collection of administrative fines and cost recovery procedures. - The Rental Housing Inspection registration fees would not have to be returned, because the inspections can proceed on schedule. 3 - Some initial staff time would need to be invested in training the part time inspector. OPTION FOR PHASE2: HIRE ANOTHER HALFTIME INSPECTOR/HALFTIME RESERVE OFFICER POSITION (SIMILAR TO OFFICER TOM MONTAGUE) IN PLACE OF THE PART TIME WEEKEND INSPECTOR. If the Police Department and Community Improvement Division were to share the costs associated with hiring another Reserve Police Officer to fill this role, these two officers could be scheduled to afford coverage seven days a week. Therefore, the City would realize double the benefit; pro-active code enforcement without delay and another police officer available in the field.These officers could also be scheduled in a fashion so that they work early evenings as well (e.g. 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.). IMPACT: This additional 40 hour coverage, based on the existing job classification would cost the City approximately $70,000 annually, but may be shared between the two Departments. A portion of this may be recoverable through administrative fine collections. 4 AZUSA ATTACHMENT A BACKGROUND REPORT EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND The term "code enforcement" is actually much broader than most people ascribe to it. Defined as engaging in the act of enforcement of State and local codes, this would include many aspects of government, such as planning, engineering, building regulation, fire and police. The purpose of this report is to focus primarily on what is regarded as traditional code enforcement, dealing with image and aesthetic issues, property maintenance, civic peace, and community livability, which include some police department activities. Community Improvement Division The code enforcement function is handled by the Community Improvement Division in the Community Development Department, and is staffed as follows: Community Improvement Division: - 1 Division Manager - 2 fulltime Inspectors - 1 half time Inspector (Reserve Officer) - 2 Development Services Assistants. Business License Division: - 1 Business Resource Officer The halftime position represents half of a Reserve Officer's salary in the Police Department (Tom Montague). The other half of this position is funded by the Police Department for that department's activities. The Business Resource Officer position evolved out of the Community Improvement Inspector position to focus primarily on revenue recovery through business license enforcement, following up on delinquencies, and facilitating business audits. The Community Improvement Division undertakes all of the traditional enforcement programs, including complaint response, nuisance abatement, and pro-active enforcement. In addition, there are also a couple of unique programs that Azusa has pioneered, and other cities have copied, namely the Rental Housing Inspection Program and the Real Property Records Report. With only one manager and one fulltime inspector available (one has been on military duty), the bulk of Staff's time is spent in these two program areas. 1 A. Rental Housing Inspection Program Azusa's Rental Housing Inspection Program commenced in 1989 in response to council and public concerns over deteriorating housing conditions,which were attributed to absentee rental property owners. This program requires rental properties to be registered, which are then inspected on a bi-annual basis. Condominiums are exempt from the registration and inspection process, as we have found relatively few problems because of active homeowners associations. The registration fees are in essence fees-for-service, and fund the cost of the inspections. Currently, there are 1,150 registered rental properties, representing 6,012 units. About half of these properties need to be inspected every year. These inspections involve onsite visits to the properties wherein inspectors look first to general appearance and whether or not any "maintenance violations" are visible. Residents living at the location are contacted to explain the purpose of the inspection, and to ask if the tenants have any problems with their units,which are not being addressed by the owner or management. These tenant interviews typically include questions regarding roof leaks, proper comfort heating, vermin infestation, a working smoke detector, proper plumbing, or any other condition. Because of case law,an interior inspection will only be made if the tenant requests it and signs a consent form. In cases where there is evidence that a major problem may exist inside a unit and the tenant will not give consent, a court ordered Inspection Warrant is obtained. Where tenants could not be contacted during a routine inspection, notes are left that efforts to contact the tenant was made, or a letter is sent to the tenants advising them to contact the Division regarding any problem they may have with their housing. If requested by a tenant, a second visit to the property will be made • without additional charge. When violations are found, or a complaint is received and verified by inspection,the owner is sent a "Request for Compliance". Unless the violation is very hazardous, the owner will be asked to correct the violation within 30 days as required under state law. If the owner has some difficulty in meeting the time frame, or has a financial difficulty, the time is extended if a good faith effort to comply is demonstrated. When the allocated or extended time has lapsed, a second inspection is made to verify compliance. If corrections have been completed the case is then closed. If the violations remain, enforcement actions are then initiated and all enforcement costs are charged to the property owner. Unfortunately, due to reduced staff resources, Staff has not been able to keep pace with the level of inspections needed. Whereas 575 properties need to be inspected every year, Staff has been able to complete inspection for 218 properties in FY 01-02 (representing 1,486 units), and 299 properties representing 2,814 units in FY 02-03. B. Real Property Records Report All commercial, industrial, and residential properties sold in Azusa must apply for a Real Property Records Report (or Resale Report). Upon submittal of an application, Staff undertakes a file search of the property, conducts a site visit, and prepares a report of the status and permit conditions of the property. The Report is provided to the Seller,who must disclose its contents to the buyer. This program has uncovered a high volume of substandard conditions, un-permitted construction and illegal room additions. Property violations are usually corrected as part of the sales transaction between the buyer and seller. The Division has completed 457 Resale Reports in FY 01-02, and 398 Reports in FY 02-03, primarily by the Business Resource Officer. 2 C. Other Enforcement Activities While the aforementioned programs take up most of Staff's time, other higher priority items come up from time to time, which have additional negative effect on forward progress on the rental housing inspections. These priority items include complaint investigations, Council directives, administrative hearings, vendor sweeps, etc. Because of reduced staffing levels, little proactive enforcement is accomplished at the present time. Rental Inspections 299 properties (2814 units) Real Property Records Reports 398 Public Complaints Handled 343 Complaint Follow-up 140 Public Nuisance Hearings Held 49 Street Vendors' Wares seized 26 Administrative Fines 1 134 Administrative Fines follow-up 268 $50 Fines 826 449 $250 Fines 182 71 $500 Fines 126 27 TOTAL 1 134 547 Value of Fines Issued: $149,800 Administrative Fines Collected: $129,841 Business License Enforcement Several years ago, one of the Community Improvement Inspector positions was transformed into a Business Resource Officer position in order to focus on revenue search, recovery, and collection. For FY 02-03, $294,422 in revenue has been recovered through the efforts of this position as follows: Administrative Fines $129,841 Delin u uent In-Ci Business License $133,101 New Business License $ 26,480 Other (NSF checks, accident dama•e to City proper , etc.) $ 5,000 TOTAL $294,422 This position also supplements the Code Enforcement function, and is responsible for most of the Real Property Records Reports. Police Department The Police Department also enforces some of the Municipal code provisions, thereby supplementing the traditional code enforcement program, such as maintaining the public peace, vehicles and traffic, and noise. Besides police officers, the Department uses 2 civilian Community Services Officers (CSOs), a part time volunteer, and a reserve officer (funded 'h by Community Development) to accomplish this responsibility. The schedules of the CSOs have been established to include the weekends. Their duties 3 include taking minor crime reports, investigating traffic collisions,traffic enforcement (e.g.truck parking, impounding for 72 hour violations, abandonment, etc.),yard sale permits and other duties as assigned. The part time volunteer evolved into a paid position (i.e. Paul Schwertner), but he resigned from the position late last year; however, a recruitment process is underway to replace that position with a part time Police Aide. This position will also be scheduled for weekend work, and will be responsible for a variety of duties including but not limited to subpoena service, traffic enforcement, yard sale permits and illegal signs. Besides lending support to the Community Development Department, the Reserve Officer also performs duties for the Police Department such as booking/transporting prisoners, vehicle/traffic enforcement, general law enforcement and complaint handling. Historically, the Police Department only had one CSO assigned to patrol duty as described above (Kelli McMath), but due to the staffing shortage in the dispatch center, she would routinely be reassigned for long periods of time (e.g. up to a year) to work as a dispatcher. However, during the Department's reorganization, the administrative CSO (Cathy Contreras) was reassigned to patrol duty in April 2002. CSO Contreras had an immediate impact on our parking enforcement effort and more than doubled the number of citations (from 207 in March2002 to 439 in April 2002) issued in her first month. The Department's staffing shortage in dispatch was resolved and CSO McMath returned to patrol duty on an opposite day shift schedule from CSO Contreras in January 2003.The combined effort of the CSO's and police officers resulted in a 30% increase in the number of parking citations issued in the City when comparing the first six months of 2002 to the first six months of 2003: Cites Issued 2002 Total Penalty Amt. Cites Issued 2003 Total Penalty Amt. 3, 286 $176,160 4,265 $226,873 This 30%increase is particularly dramatic since the CSO's are also charged with a host of other time consuming duties (e.g. minor crime investigations, traffic accident investigations, report writing and traffic safety presentations in the schools). The Department also recognizes the aggravation and eyesore tractor/trailers can cause in the community and have issued 40 parking citations from January through June 2003 for these commercial vehicles parking in violation of Azusa Municipal Code 74-466. Moreover, the Police Department recognizes that although its primary mission is public safety, it does not ignore quality of life issues. For example, the Department raised the Police Officers awareness levels in regards to illegal vendors in the community. Officers responded accordingly and took pro-active enforcement measures as time permitted.A computer query of the CAD system from January 1 to July 23, 2003 produced the following statistics: Total No. Vendor Incidents 155 Confiscations (includes impounds, confiscations and/or cites) 69 Citations 11 1m sounds 63 Counsel and release 5 Some of our most pro-active officers (e.g. Tom Montague and Doug Ernst) enforcing the municipal code against illegal vendors report that because of the increased effort, it is oftentimes difficult to find them. 4 On July 1, 2003 members of the Police Department's command staff met with members of Community Development regarding several code enforcement issues and learned of Council's growing concern regarding the number of illegal signs posted in the City. That evening, Lt. Street directed officers to remove illegal signs during the course of their shift,which resulted in the removal of 16 signs. Lt. Street also canvassed the City and counted no less than 40 illegal signs around the City, but many of them were posted over 10' high. Nonetheless,the dispatcher was advised of the illegal signs and directed an E-mail request to have them removed by Community Development. 5 ass& Ste" fi Y c 411 es/ seq°�' -f�GiJ4 ?max � y04/-s ,n, sy9yeJ e44 Wee � n+v vlh, f%X o✓� i ye44, 14,Ae YAKS, /en Y.e,‘ 44)6 le,tm .,?4,1/. I/. (/O v'+L . ‹RGiCG 0,f k .600 (G `t feed seelvGe. 14. Out /, of /9 II APP AZUSA' DISCUSSION ITEM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 1 1, 2003 SUBJECT: EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT: WEEKEND OPTIONS INTRODUCTION Recently, with the help of facilitator Bill Mathis, the City Council engaged in a process by which critical community/organizational issues could be examined. By making a list of these issues, and having "courageous conversations" about them, Council members began to tackle these "difficult" matters. One of the items mentioned by Council member Hardison, and echoed by the rest of the Council was the lack of weekend code enforcement. This has been a long-standing concern, which is being accentuated by the great strides that Azusa has made elsewhere in being"the most improved city in the San Gabriel Valley". It was observed that weekend enforcement issues include unsightly conditions that significantly detract from the livability and appearance of the community. These include ongoing yard sales, proliferation of tatty signs, tattered banners, illegal A-frame signs in the public right-of-way, illegal vendors, makeshift signs stapled to telephone poles, etc. It is felt that without off-hours enforcement, these issues are often not addressed, and are often not acted upon for days, until the following business day. EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM The attached Background Report describes in detail the current Code Enforcement operations in both the Police Department and Community Development Department. It describes the personnel resources, the primary enforcement tasks, as well as performance statistics. Briefly summarized, the highlights are as follows: Community Development 1. Personnel resources of the Community Improvement and Business License Divisions are currently entirely devoted to Rental inspections, preparing Real Property Records Reports, complaint handling, and revenue recovery. 2. The Division is one person short due to military duty. Consequently, Staff has been unable to keep up with the required annual rental inspections. 3. In view of the foregoing, little pro-active enforcement is done. '///3 1 Police Department 1. Two Community Services Officers (CSOs) are used for various enforcement duties, and have schedules that include weekends. The CSOs take minor crime reports, undertake traffic enforcement, regulate yard sales, and perform other duties as assigned. 2. A part time weekend volunteer position, which evolved into a paid position, was very successful in covering weekend activities. Because of a resignation, a recruitment process is underway. 3. A Reserve Officer is shared with Community Development in undertaking code enforcement activities. 4. Central Dispatch has functioned as the central point for complaints after hours and on weekends. 5. Police Officers, with a heightened awareness of quality of life issues, have been active in vendor enforcement, issuing citations for various violations, and confiscating and impounding illegal wares. PROPOSED AFTER HOURS AND WEEKEND COVERAGE The issue of code enforcement on weekends is not a new one. In the past, vendor sweeps have been conducted on weekends to stem the tide of illegal vendors. This has usually worked for a while after the intense sweeps, but eventually the vendors return. A permanent solution to the weekend enforcement issue has thus far not been implemented. The following program is suggested in response to the need for expanded enforcement. PHASE 1: WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY WITH EXISTING STAFF RESOURCES. A. Use Police Department resources more effectively on weekends: - Continue to use the Dispatcher as the main point of contact for complaints during weekends. Request assistance from officers to notify Dispatch when violations are seen. - Continue to use CSOs for traffic/parking enforcement, sign removal, and yard sale control. - Fill the Police Aide position to support the CSO activities. Use Police Explorers for illegal sign removal on weekends. Continue police officers' use in vendor enforcement. B. Train existing field personnel to remove illegal signs within the right-of-way. These would include signs stapled to utility poles,A-frame signs on the sidewalks, banners over the public right-of-way, etc. - All Community Development staff - Public Works and Light and Water crews - All City employees that come across an illegal sign posting C. Use APU students as part of their community cleanup efforts (City Links) to remove illegal signs in the public right-of-way. D. Revise the Garage/Lawn Sale Ordinance to limit yard sales to two per calendar year per property to avoid the perpetual yard sale syndrome. E. Devise better use of technology to measure performance of this heightened enforcement program. F. Create, and advertise availability of a "hotline" and website for citizens to report violations and complaints. IMPACT: - Enforcement would be limited to vendor enforcement, illegal signs, parking enforcement,and yard sale control throughout the weekend. 2 - Citizens would know that complaints can be addressed to Central Dispatch in the Police Department. - More involved enforcement actions would wait until the start of normal business hours. - Depending on the volume and nature of violations reported, the caseload could increase dramatically requiring paperwork and follow-up, potentially affecting other enforcement priorities. OPTION FOR PHASEI: PLACE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTIONS ON HOLD AND REARRANGE SCHEDULES OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT STAFF TO COVER EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. A. At present, only two individuals can be scheduled in this manner, because of one inspector being on military duty. By including the Business Resource Officer, however, a third individual can be added to this schedule. The individuals on such a schedule would include one manager, one inspector, and a Business License Officer. However, this schedule would be in conflict with the ACEA MOU, which defines the workweek as 4 consecutive days beginning on Sunday morning, and ending on Thursday. The affected employees would therefore have to agree to the schedule. In addition, $1 per hour of premium time would need to be paid to the inspectors. B. After-hours enforcement coverage can further be accomplished by staggering the hours of work to include evenings. Inspectors could work 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. C. This Option would add another dimension to the suggested Phase 1 enforcement program, since the full range of enforcement capability would be added to weekend coverage. IMPACT: - The Rental Housing Inspection Program would fall further behind,and rental registration fees would not be able to be collected. - The response to Resale Reports would be slower, and revenue collection and enforcement by the Business Resource Officer would be significantly reduced (much of the $294,422). - Because a staggered weekend schedule is not consistent with MOU provisions, involved staff must be in agreement with the revised schedule. In addition, $1 per hour of premium pay would have to be paid. In view of the foregoing, this may only be a temporary solution. PHASE 2. HIRE A PART TIME COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT INSPECTOR FOR WEEKENDS. A person working Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at 8 hours per day, would cost approximately$17,500 to $20,000 annually. Such a person could join with the CSO and Police Aide working weekends to create an effective and responsive enforcement team. In addition, existing staff schedules could be re- arranged to cover evenings. IMPACT: - This option would result iri additional ongoing cost, some of which could be offset through collection of administrative fines and cost recovery procedures. - The Rental Housing Inspection registration fees would not have to be returned, because the inspections can proceed on schedule. 3 - Some initial staff time would need to be invested in training the part time inspector. OPTION FOR PHASE2: HIRE ANOTHER HALFTIME INSPECTOR/HALFTIME RESERVE OFFICER POSITION (SIMILAR TO OFFICER TOM MONTAGUE) IN PLACE OF THE PART TIME WEEKEND INSPECTOR. If the Police Department and Community Improvement Division were to share the costs associated with hiring another Reserve Police Officer to fill this role, these two officers could be scheduled to afford coverage seven days a week. Therefore, the City would realize double the benefit; pro-active code enforcement without delay and another police officer available in the field.These officers could also be scheduled in a fashion so that they work early evenings as well (e.g. 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.). IMPACT: This additional 40 hour coverage, based on the existing job classification would cost the City approximately $70,000 annually, but may be shared between the two Departments. A portion of this may be recoverable through administrative fine collections. 4 'AZUSA' ATTACHMENT A BACKGROUND REPORT EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND The term "code enforcement" is actually much broader than most people ascribe to it. Defined as engaging in the act of enforcement of State and local codes, this would include many aspects of government, such as planning, engineering, building regulation, fire and police. The purpose of this report is to focus primarily on what is regarded as traditional code enforcement,dealing with image and aesthetic issues, property maintenance, civic peace, and community livability, which include some police department activities. Community Improvement Division The code enforcement function is handled by the Community Improvement Division in the Community Development Department, and is staffed as follows: Community Improvement Division: - 1 Division Manager - 2 fulltime Inspectors - 1 half time Inspector (Reserve Officer) - 2 Development Services Assistants. Business License Division: - 1 Business Resource Officer The halftime position represents half of a Reserve Officer's salary in the Police Department (Tom Montague). The other half of this position is funded by the Police Department for that department's activities. The Business Resource Officer position evolved out of the Community Improvement Inspector position to focus primarily on revenue recovery through business license enforcement, following up on delinquencies, and facilitating business audits. The Community Improvement Division undertakes all of the traditional enforcement programs,including complaint response, nuisance abatement, and pro-active enforcement. In addition, there are also a couple of unique programs that Azusa has pioneered, and other cities have copied, namely the Rental Housing Inspection Program and the Real Property Records Report. With only one manager and one fulltime inspector available (one has been on military duty), the bulk of Staff's time is spent in these two program areas. 1 A. Rental Housing Inspection Program Azusa's Rental Housing Inspection Program commenced in 1989 in response to council and public concerns over deteriorating housing conditions,which were attributed to absentee rental property owners. This program requires rental properties to be registered, which are then inspected on a bi-annual basis. Condominiums are exempt from the registration and inspection process, as we have found relatively few problems because of active homeowners associations. The registration fees are in essence fees-for-service, and fund the cost of the inspections. Currently, there are 1,150 registered rental properties, representing 6,012 units. About half of these properties need to be inspected every year. These inspections involve onsite visits to the properties wherein inspectors look first to general appearance and whether or not any "maintenance violations" are visible. Residents living at the location are contacted to explain the purpose of the inspection, and to ask if the tenants have any problems with their units,which are not being addressed by the owner or management. These tenant interviews typically include questions regarding roof leaks, proper comfort heating, vermin infestation, a working smoke detector, proper plumbing, or any other condition. Because of case law, an interior inspection will only be made if the tenant requests it and signs a consent form. In cases where there is evidence that a major problem may exist inside a unit and the tenant will not give consent, a court ordered Inspection Warrant is obtained. Where tenants could not be contacted during a routine inspection, notes are left that efforts to contact the tenant was made, or a letter is sent to the tenants advising them to contact the Division regarding any problem they may have with their housing. If requested by a tenant, a second visit to the property will be made without additional charge. When violations are found, or a complaint is received and verified by inspection,the owner is sent a "Request for Compliance". Unless the violation is very hazardous, the owner will be asked to correct the violation within 30 days as required under state law. If the owner has some difficulty in meeting the time frame, or has a financial difficulty, the time is extended if a good faith effort to comply is demonstrated. When the allocated or extended time has lapsed,a second inspection is made to verify compliance. If corrections have been completed the case is then closed. If the violations remain, enforcement actions are then initiated and all enforcement costs are charged to the property owner. Unfortunately, due to reduced staff resources, Staff has not been able to keep pace with the level of inspections needed. Whereas 575 properties need to be inspected every year, Staff has been able to complete inspection for 218 properties in FY 01-02 (representing 1,486 units), and 299 properties representing 2,814 units in FY 02-03. B. Real Property Records Report All commercial, industrial, and residential properties sold in Azusa must apply for a Real Property Records Report (or Resale Report). Upon submittal of an application, Staff undertakes a file search of the property, conducts a site visit, and prepares a report of the status and permit conditions of the property. The Report is provided to the Seller,who must disclose its contents to the buyer. This program has uncovered a high volume of substandard conditions, un-permitted construction and illegal room additions. Property violations are usually corrected as part of the sales transaction between the buyer and seller. The Division has completed 457 Resale Reports in FY 01-02, and 398 Reports in FY 02-03, primarily by the Business Resource Officer. 2 C. Other Enforcement Activities While the aforementioned programs take up most of Staff's time, other higher priority items come up from time to time, which have additional negative effect on forward progress on the rental housing inspections. These priority items include complaint investigations, Council directives, administrative hearings, vendor sweeps, etc. Because of reduced staffing levels, little proactive enforcement is accomplished at the present time. ",� Rental Ins•ections 299 •ro•erties 2814 units Real Pro er Records Re•orts 398 Public Com•Taints Handled 343 Com.laint Follow-u 140 Public Nuisance Hearin•s Held 49 Street Vendors' Wares seized 26 Administrative Fines 1 134 Administrative Fines follow-u• 268 $50 Fines 826 449 $250 Fines 182 71 $500 Fines 126 27 TOTAL 1 134 547 Value of Fines Issued: $149,800 Administrative Fines Collected: $129,841 Business License Enforcement Several years ago, one of the Community Improvement Inspector positions was transformed into a Business Resource Officer position in order to focus on revenue search, recovery, and collection. For FY 02-03, $294,422 in revenue has been recovered through the efforts of this position as follows: 7axi c _c s ® "fig .? t ,7 'fin �se�as € `a, Administrative Fines $129,841 Delin•uent In-Ci Business License $133,101 New Business License $ 26,480 Other (NSF checks, accident dama•e to Ci prope ,etc.) $ 5,000 TOTAL $294,422 This position also supplements the Code Enforcement function, and is responsible for most of the Real Property Records Reports. Police Department The Police Department also enforces some of the Municipal code provisions, thereby supplementing the traditional code enforcement program, such as maintaining the public peace, vehicles and traffic, and noise. Besides police officers, the Department uses 2 civilian Community Services Officers (CSOs), a part time volunteer, and a reserve officer (funded Vz by Community Development) to accomplish this responsibility. The schedules of the CSOs have been established to include the weekends. Their duties 3 include taking minor crime reports, investigating traffic collisions,traffic enforcement(e.g.truck parking, impounding for 72 hour violations, abandonment, etc.),yard sale permits and other duties as assigned. The part time volunteer evolved into a paid position (i.e. Paul Schwertner), but he resigned from the position late last year; however, a recruitment process is underway to replace that position with a part time Police Aide. This position will also be scheduled for weekend work, and will be responsible for a variety of duties including but not limited to subpoena service, traffic enforcement, yard sale permits and illegal signs. Besides lending support to the Community Development Department, the Reserve Officer also performs duties for the Police Department such as booking/transporting prisoners, vehicle/traffic enforcement, general law enforcement and complaint handling. Historically, the Police Department only had one CSO assigned to patrol duty as described above (Kelli McMath), but due to the staffing shortage in the dispatch center, she would routinely be reassigned for long periods of time (e.g. up to a year) to work as a dispatcher. However, during the Department's reorganization, the administrative CSO (Cathy Contreras) was reassigned to patrol duty in April 2002. CSO Contreras had an immediate impact on our parking enforcement effort and more than doubled the number of citations (from 207 in March2002 to 439 in April 2002) issued in her first month. The Department's staffing shortage in dispatch was resolved and CSO McMath returned to patrol duty on an opposite day shift schedule from CSO Contreras in January 2003.The combined effort of the CSO's and police officers resulted in a 30% increase in the number of parking citations issued in the City when comparing the first six months of 2002 to the first six months of 2003: Cites Issued 2002 Total Penalty Amt. Cites Issued 2003 Total Penalty Amt. 3, 286 $176,160 4,265 $226,873 This 30%increase is particularly dramatic since the CSO's are also charged with a host of other time consuming duties (e.g. minor crime investigations, traffic accident investigations, report writing and traffic safety presentations in the schools). The Department also recognizes the aggravation and eyesore tractor/trailers can cause in the community and have issued 40 parking citations from January through June 2003 for these commercial vehicles parking in violation of Azusa Municipal Code 74-466. Moreover, the Police Department recognizes that although its primary mission is public safety, it does not ignore quality of life issues. For example, the Department raised the Police Officers awareness levels in regards to illegal vendors in the community. Officers responded accordingly and took pro-active enforcement measures as time permitted.A computer query of the CAD system from January 1 to July 23, 2003 produced the following statistics: ^. .: � �...a?uu�::a.w,,:..�� •" .a'� Aa��u...;:�« ..•a.,..:�a�kui��`; z- ��31,.s_..=:i..��: °��-..'sa `.Lwauv.•..t kau...° .aa...........a�Ra; Total No. Vendor Incidents 155 Confiscations (includes impounds, confiscations and/or cites) 69 Citations 11 Im.ounds 63 Counsel and release 5 Some of our most pro-active officers (e.g. Tom Montague and Doug Ernst) enforcing the municipal code against illegal vendors report that because of the increased effort, it is oftentimes difficult to find them. 4 On July 1, 2003 members of the Police Department's command staff met with members of Community Development regarding several code enforcement issues and learned of Council's growing concern regarding the number of illegal signs posted in the City. That evening, Lt. Street directed officers to remove illegal signs during the course of their shift,which resulted in the removal of 16 signs. Lt. Street also canvassed the City and counted no less than 40 illegal signs around the City, but many of them were posted over 10' high. Nonetheless, the dispatcher was advised of the illegal signs and directed an E-mail request to have them removed by Community Development. 5 August 11, 2003 NEXT STEPS City of Azusa RESULTS BUDGETING Public Strategies Group September --Success Planning Meetinq Develop project outcomes, project organization, work plan and schedule. September --Task 1 2 -day budget workshop with department directors, city manager and senior staff, budget staff. At the end of this workshop, the staff will have an outline of a plan to approach the budget. Teams will be formed to design the specific follow up suggestions based on the 9 strategies. A Steering Team will also be formed to guide the process. October --Task 2 Half day session with the city council to engage them on the approach. PSG will assist in calculating Azusa's Price of Government, review the financial condition and review what is known about citizen preferences (citizen survey or other materials). At the end of the workshop, the council will know about the structural deficit, will set the price of government and will allocate revenue to results citizens value. November and December --Task 3 Two sets of Tollgates with the Steering Team and the Design Teams to develop the strategies for the budget. PSG will work with the Steering Team to allocate the POG to various departments. PSG will also work with the Design Teams in developing their strategies. Januarv--Task 4 Workshop with the city council on budget, including presenting ideas from Design Teams. At the end of the workshop, the council will have decided on funding the results citizens want. We do all work with our standard guarantee: Because we sell results, we work from clearly stated performance expectations that are mutually agreed upon at the onset. Our work is focused on producing results that our customers value, and we expect them to pay us for those results if, and only if, they are satisfied with our work. If, — at any time, for any mason, — the City of Azusa is not satisfied with the results we produce, we should be so noted. If we cannot fix the problem, we do not expect to be paid. 11053 Strathmore Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90024 310-443-7706 bob@psgrp.com Questions about next steps Time line: Key Milestones ✓ election ✓ budget submission ✓ state actions ✓ other... Role of Council and TRTF ✓ when does Council get involved? V. Council -driven, staff -driven, or community -driven Citizen input ✓ surveys ✓ community mtgs ✓ focus groups ✓ interviews Outside help ✓ APU ✓ TRTF ✓ other Current results Financial Forecast Communications plan r TO: CITY COUNCIL AND TAX REVIEW TASK FORCE FROM: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 11, 2003 SUBJECT: PLANNING FOR RESULTS -BASED BUDGETING Since their formation in April, the Tax Review Task Force, led by City Treasurer Uriel Macias, has been reviewing and discussing the fiscal outlook for Azusa's General Fund budget. The members have looked at ways to reduce expenditures and increase revenue to deal with next year's projected $2 million budget deficit. On July 24, the Task Force presented their work to date at a public workshop attended by about 50 residents and businesspeople. The feedback from that session reinforced the consensus of the members of the Task Force. They strongly believe that any revenue measure requiring a vote of the citizens would only be successful (and only have their support) if the City undertook a hard and fresh look at expenditures and made significant reductions prior to asking voters to approve higher taxes to support city services. Reducing budgets is hardly a new challenge for Azusa or for other California governments. In early June, the Task Force reviewed the conventional approaches to "budget cutting" exercises: Across-the-board cuts: This has the superficial appeal of fairness and consistency. It also places responsibility on managers in each department to manage their costs to the budget. But this exercise can produce deeply distorted results since departments and functions are not all alike. Over time, this often degrades service quality across the board. Postponing capital, technology and equipment Investment: This is a prudent short-term expedient for conserving cash. But it does not solve a budget gap, only delays its impact. Cutback non-essential spending: This is another prudent short-term way to balance the budget. But three years of tightening our belt on materials and b { services does not leave's lot of excess to be trimmed. The relatively painless cuts have already been made. Targeted service reduction: We obviously can identify cuts at the margin: reducing library hours, reducing recreation offerings, eliminating School Resource Officers etc. This approach was used extensively during Azusa's last budget crisis in the mid -Nineties. it is often viewed as punitive by the customers directly affected. Staff benefit and salary reductions: Since we have one more year of seven union contracts, we only have the option of making reductions of those not protected by unions (a counter-productive strategy) or gaining the cooperation of unions. Getting seven different unions to agree is no easy task. However, once the contracts expire, the City can impose a freeze on increases. That provides some leverage even in the current year. Cities also have the option of ordering "furloughs" and lay-offs. In emergency situations, this is a necessary step. But it is a much more disruptive process than in the private sector because of Civil Service protections, outside politics and unionization. In 1998, for example, when an administrative secretary was laid off in the Police Department, she had the civil service right, which she exercised, of "bumping" the next person below her in seniority. Only the voluntary transfer of another staff member to Azusa Light & Water avoided the absurd impact of having half a dozen key staff members "bumped" to other departments. Audits, benchmarking and re-engineering: Azusa is overdue for scrutiny of how up-to-date, efficient and cost-effective many of our program delivery systems operate, either from inside or outside, whether one-time or ongoing. However, these processes gain best cooperation from staff when they are not seen as immediate threats to their jobs. Ironically, because a systematic effort to save money often involves time and/or assistance to analyze and implement, lack of resources has limited rigorous scrutiny of costs. For Azusa, the upcoming budget will be the third year of belt -tightening on non - personnel costs. There comes.a time when purely skimping becomes penny wise and pound foolish. During the mid -Nineties, Azusa went through such chronic budget cutbacks and crises that our ability to deliver, services visibly suffered. The most glaring symbol of that was how we approached tree trimming: we abandoned a regular schedule of tree trimming and reverted to the far less efficient alternative of only responding to complaints. The result was a growing number of complaints and eventually a six-month backlog on responding to them. Much more costly was a similar pattern regarding street paving: we abandoned preventative maintenance and reverted to filling potholes. This is far more costly because rebuilding unmaintained asphalt can be up to five times as expensive in the long run. The Task Force embraced a comprehensive alternative to short-sighted erosion of our ability to deliver quality services: "Results -based budgeting." Twenty years ago, the concept of "zero -based budgeting" gained wide attention as a method of forcing bureaucracies to justify expenditures from scratch, rather than just add new layers of staff and cost on top of last year's programs and practices. But this appealing idea soon faded because no government can really start all over again every year. A thorough re-examination of priorities makes sense, however, when hard times force all stakeholders to realize that changes must be made. Such a fresh and hard look can produce a healthier outcome than many of the conventional, shorter -term cutback strategies. Embracing a results -oriented alternative means setting priorities and building the budget from the ground up. The public is then in a position to "buy back" additional services if they think they are worth the investment. The State of Washington chose to do this to meet its current budget shortfall. During Monday's workshop, we will hear from two experienced "Results -based budgeting" experts from the private sector firm that advised and assisted Washington in their efforts. Bob Stone rose to become Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, where his innovative approach to "empowering" local management of 600 military bases led to Vice President AI Gore appointing him to head the "National Performance Review." Camille Barnett spent 24 years in city management, including service as city manager of Austin, Texas and Chief Management Officer brought in to re -organize Washington D.C.'s legendary city bureaucracy. They will outline strategies and questions for Azusa to pursue a comprehensive "results -based budgeting effort." DISCUSSION ITEM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 11, 2003 SUBJECT: EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT: WEEKEND OPTIONS INTRODUCTION Recently, with the help of facilitator Bill Mathis, the City Council engaged in a process by which critical community/organizational issues could be examined. By making a list of these issues, and having "courageous conversations" about them, Council members began to tackle these "difficult" matters. One of the items mentioned by Council member Hardison, and echoed by the rest of the Council was the lack of weekend code enforcement. This has been a long-standing concern, which is being accentuated by the great strides that Azusa has made elsewhere in being "the most improved city in the San Gabriel Valley". It was observed that weekend enforcement issues include unsightly conditions that significantly detract from the livability and appearance of the community. These include ongoing yard sales, proliferation of tatty signs, tattered banners, illegal A -frame signs in the public right-of-way, illegal vendors, makeshift signs stapled to telephone poles, etc. It is felt that without off -hours enforcement, these issues are often not addressed, and are often not acted upon for days, until the following business day. EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM The attached Background Report describes in detail the current Code Enforcement operations in both the Police Department and Community Development Department. It describes the personnel resources, the primary enforcement tasks, as well as performance statistics. Briefly summarized, the highlights are as follows: Community Development 1. Personnel resources of the Community Improvement and Business License Divisions are currently entirely devoted to Rental inspections, preparing Real Property Records Reports, complaint handling, and revenue recovery. 2. The Division is one person short due to military duty. Consequently, Staff has been unable to keep up with the required annual rental inspections. 3. In view of the foregoing, little pro -active enforcement is done. Police Department 1. Two Community Services Officers (CSOs) are used for various enforcement duties, and have schedules that include weekends. The CSOs take minor crime reports, undertake traffic enforcement, regulate yard sales, and perform other duties as assigned. 2. A part time weekend volunteer position, which evolved into a paid position, was very successful in covering weekend activities. Because of a resignation, a recruitment process is underway. 3. A Reserve Officer is shared with Community Development in undertaking code enforcement activities. 4. Central Dispatch has functioned as the central point for complaints after hours and on weekends. 5. Police Officers, with a heightened awareness of quality of life issues, have been active in vendor enforcement, issuing citations for various violations, and confiscating and impounding illegal wares. PROPOSED AFTER HOURS AND WEEKEND COVERAGE The issue of code enforcement on weekends is not a new one. In the past, vendor sweeps have been conducted on weekends to stem the tide of illegal vendors. This has usually worked for a while after the intense sweeps, but eventually the vendors return. A permanent solution to the weekend enforcement issue has thus far not been implemented. The following program is suggested in response to the need for expanded enforcement. PHASE 1: WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY WITH EXISTING STAFF RESOURCES. A. Use Police Department resources more effectively on weekends: - Continue to use the Dispatcher as the main point of contact for complaints during weekends. - Request assistance from officers to notify Dispatch when violations are seen. - Continue to use CSOs for traffic/parking enforcement, sign removal, and yard sale control. - Fill the Police Aide position to support the CSO activities. - Use Police Explorers for illegal sign removal on weekends. - Continue police officers' use in vendor enforcement. B. Train existing field personnel to remove illegal signs within the right-of-way. These would include signs stapled to utility poles, A -frame signs on the sidewalks, banners over the public right-of-way, etc. All Community Development staff Public Works and Light and Water crews All City employees that come across an illegal sign posting C. Use APU students as part of their community cleanup efforts (City Links) to remove illegal signs in the public right-of-way. D. Revise the Garage/Lawn Sale Ordinance to limit yard sales to two per calendar year per property to avoid the perpetual yard sale syndrome. E. Devise better use of technology to measure performance of this heightened enforcement program. F. Create, and advertise availability of a "hotline" and website for citizens to report violations and complaints. IMPACT: - Enforcement would be limited to vendor enforcement, illegal signs, parking enforcement, and yard sale control throughout the weekend. 2 Citizens would know that complaints can be addressed to Central Dispatch in the Police Department. More involved enforcement actions would wait until the start of normal business hours. Depending on the volume and nature of violations reported, the caseload could increase dramatically requiring paperwork and follow-up, potentially affecting other enforcement priorities. OPTION FOR PHASEI: PLACE RENTAL HOUSING INSPECTIONS ON HOLD AND REARRANGE SCHEDULES OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT STAFF TO COVER EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS. A. At present, only two individuals can be scheduled in this manner, because of one inspector being on military duty. By including the Business Resource Officer, however, a third individual can be added to this schedule. The individuals on such a schedule would include one manager, one inspector, and a Business License Officer. However, this schedule would be in conflict with the ACFA MOU, which defines the workweek as 4 consecutive days beginning on Sunday morning, and ending on. Thursday. The affected employees would therefore have to agree to the schedule. In addition, $1 per hour of premium time would need to be paid to the inspectors. B. After-hours enforcement coverage can further be accomplished by staggering the hours of work to include evenings. Inspectors could work 9:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. C. This Option would add another dimension to the suggested Phase 1 enforcement program, since the full range of enforcement capability would be added to weekend coverage. IMPACT: - The Rental Housing Inspection Program would fall further behind, and rental registration fees would not be able to be collected. - The response to Resale Reports would be slower, and revenue collection and enforcement by the Business Resource Officer would be significantly reduced (much of the $294,422). - Because a staggered weekend schedule is not consistent with MOU provisions, involved staff must be in agreement with the revised schedule. In addition, $1 per hour of premium pay would have to be paid. In view of the foregoing, this may only be a temporary solution. PHASE 2. HIRE A PART TIME COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT INSPECTOR FOR WEEKENDS. A person working Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at 8 hours per day, would cost approximately $17,500 to $20,000 annually. Such a person could join with the CSO and Police Aide working weekends to create an effective and responsive enforcement team. In addition, existing staff schedules could be re- arranged to cover evenings. IMPACT: This option would result in additional ongoing cost, some of which could be offset through collection of administrative fines and cost recovery procedures. The Rental Housing Inspection registration fees would not have to be returned, because the inspections can proceed on schedule. Some initial staff time would need to be invested in training the part time inspector. OPTION FOR PHASE2: HIRE ANOTHER HALFTIME INSPECTORMALFTIME RESERVE OFFICER POSITION (SIMILAR TO OFFICER TOM MONTAGUE) IN PLACE OF THE PART TIME WEEKEND INSPECTOR. If the Police Department and Community Improvement Division were to share the costs associated with hiring another Reserve Police Officer to fill this role, these two officers could be scheduled to afford coverage seven days a week. Therefore, the City would realize double the benefit; pro -active code enforcement without delay and another police officer available in the field. These officers could also be scheduled in a fashion so that they work early evenings as well (e.g. 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.). IMPACT: This additional 40 hour coverage, based on the existing job classification would cost the City approximately $70,000 annually, but maybe shared between the two Departments. A portion of this may be recoverable through administrative fine collections. 0 ATTACHMENT A BACKGROUND REPORT EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT BACKGROUND The term "code enforcement" is actually much broader than most people ascribe to it. Defined as engaging in the act of enforcement of State and local codes, this would include many aspects of government, such as planning, engineering, building regulation, fire and police. The purpose of this report is to focus primarily on what is regarded as traditional code enforcement, dealing with image and aesthetic issues, property maintenance, civic peace, and community livability, which include some police department activities. Community Improvement Division The code enforcement function is handled by the Community Improvement Division in the Community Development Department, and is staffed as follows: Community Improvement Division: - 1 Division Manager - 2 fulltime Inspectors - 1 half time Inspector (Reserve Officer) - 2 Development Services Assistants. Business License Division: - t Business Resource Officer The halftime position represents half of a Reserve Officer's salary in the Police Department (Tom Montague). The other half of this position is funded by the Police Department for that department's activities. The Business Resource Officer position evolved out of the Community Improvement Inspector position to focus primarily on revenue recovery through business license enforcement, following up on delinquencies, and facilitating business audits. The Community Improvement Division undertakes all of the traditional enforcement programs, including complaint response, nuisance abatement, and pro -active enforcement. In addition, there are also a couple of unique programs that Azusa has pioneered, and other cities have copied, namely the Rental Housing Inspection Program and the Real Property Records Report. With only one manager and one fulltime inspector available (one has been on military duty), the bulk of Staff's time is spent in these two program areas. A. Rental Housing Inspection Program Azusa's Rental Housing Inspection Program commenced in 1989 in response to council and public concerns over deteriorating housing conditions, which were attributed to absentee rental property owners. This program requires rental properties to be registered, which are then inspected on a bi-annual basis. Condominiums are exempt from the registration and inspection process, as we have found relatively few problems because of active homeowners associations. The registration fees are in essence fees -for -service, and fund the cost of the inspections. Currently, there are 1,150 registered rental properties, representing 6,012 units. About half of these properties need to be inspected every year. These inspections involve onsite visits to the properties wherein inspectors look first to general appearance and whether or not any "maintenance violations" are visible. Residents living at the location are contacted to explain the purpose of the inspection, and to ask if the tenants have any problems with their units, which are not being addressed by the owner or management. These tenant interviews typically include questions regarding roof leaks, proper comfort heating, vermin infestation, a working smoke detector, proper plumbing, or any other condition. Because of case law, an interior inspection will only be made if the tenant requests it and signs a consent form. In cases where there is evidence that a major problem may exist inside a unit and the tenant will not give consent, a court ordered Inspection Warrant is obtained. Where tenants could not be contacted during a routine inspection, notes are left that efforts to contact the tenant was made, or a letter is sent to the tenants advising them to contact the Division regarding any problem they may have with their housing. If requested by a tenant, a second visit to the property will be made without additional charge. When violations are found, or a complaint is received and verified by inspection, the owner is sent a "Request for Compliance". Unless the violation is very hazardous, the owner will be asked to correct the violation within 30 days as required under state law. If the owner has some difficulty in meeting the time frame, or has a financial difficulty, the time is extended if a good faith effort to comply is demonstrated. When the allocated or extended time has lapsed, a second inspection is made to verify compliance. If corrections have been completed the case is then closed. If the violations remain, enforcement actions are then initiated and all enforcement costs are charged to the property owner. Unfortunately, due to reduced staff resources, Staff has not been able to keep pace with the level of inspections needed. Whereas 575 properties need to be inspected every year, Staff has been able to complete inspection for 218 properties in FY 01-02 (representing 1,486 units), and 299 properties representing 2,814 units in FY 02-03. B. Real Property Records Report All commercial, industrial, and residential properties sold in Azusa must apply for a Real Property Records Report (or Resale Report). Upon submittal of an application, Staff undertakes a file search of the property, conducts a site visit, and prepares a report of the status and permit conditions of the property. The Report is provided to the Seller, who must disclose its contents to the buyer. This program has uncovered a high volume of substandard conditions, un -permitted construction and illegal room additions. Property violations are usually corrected as part of the sales transaction between the buyer and seller. The Division has completed 457 Resale Reports in FY 01-02, and 398 Reports in FY 02-03, primarily by the Business Resource Officer. 2 C. Other Enforcement Activities While the aforementioned programs take up most of Staff's time, other higher priority items come up from time to time, which have additional negative effect on forward progress on the rental housing inspections. These priority items include complaint investigations, Council directives, administrative hearings, vendor sweeps, etc. Because of reduced staffing levels, little proactive enforcement is accomplished at the present time. iCode nforcementA'c io`ris _ . _ _ _..._ Rental Inspections '� "' . Actwll- ,02-03' 299 properties 2814 units Real Property Records Reports 398 Public Complaints Handled 343 Complaint Follow-up140 27 Public Nuisance Hearings Held 49 Street Vendors' Wares seized 26 Administrative Fines 1 134 Administrative Fines follow-up 268 Administrafive Fines A"ctivl FY02-03 $50 Fines Num s1 suedl' IViolatioos Corrected 826 449 $250 Fines 182 71 $500 Fines 126 27 TOTAL 1134 547 Value of Fines Issued: $149,800 Administrative Fines Collected: $129,841 Business License Enforcement Several years ago, one of the Community Improvement Inspector positions was transformed into a Business Resource Officer position in order to focus on revenue search, recovery, and collection. For FY 02-03, $294,422 in revenue has been recovered through the efforts of this position as follows: alRgvenue<T—e __._, Administrative Fines 0- - $-RecoveredFY2=03 l $129,841 Delinquent In -City Business License $133,101 New Business License $ 26,480 Other (NSF checks, accident damage to City property, etc.) $ 5,000 TOTAL $294,422 This position also supplements the Code Enforcement function, and is responsible for most of the Real Property Records Reports. Police Department The Police Department also enforces some of the Municipal code provisions, thereby supplementing the traditional code enforcement program, such as maintaining the public peace, vehicles and traffic, and noise. Besides police officers, the Department uses 2 civilian Community Services Officers (CSOs), a part time volunteer, and a reserve officer (funded 1/2 by Community Development) to accomplish this responsibility. The schedules of the CSOs have been established to include the weekends. Their duties include taking minor crime reports, investigating traffic collisions, traffic enforcement (e.g. truck parking, impounding for 72 hour violations, abandonment, etc.), yard sale permits and other duties as assigned. The part time volunteer evolved into a paid position (i.e. Paul Schwertner), but he resigned from the position late last year; however, a recruitment process is underway to replace that position with a part time Police Aide. This position will also be scheduled for weekend work, and will be responsible for a variety of duties including but not limited to subpoena service, traffic enforcement, yard sale permits and illegal signs. Besides lending support to the Community Development Department, the Reserve Officer also performs duties for the Police Department such as booking/transporting prisoners, vehicle/traffic enforcement, general law enforcement and complaint handling. Historically, the Police Department only had one CSO assigned to patrol duty as described above (Kelli McMath), but due to the staffing shortage in the dispatch center, she would routinely be reassigned for long periods of time (e.g. up to a year) to work as a dispatcher. However, during the Department's reorganization, the administrative CSO (Cathy Contreras) was reassigned to patrol duty in April 2002. CSO Contreras had an immediate impact on our parking enforcement effort and more than doubled the number of citations (from 207 in March2002 to 439 in April 2002) issued in her first month. The Department's staffing shortage in dispatch was resolved and CSO McMath returned to patrol duty on an opposite day shift schedule from CSO Contreras in January 2003. The combined effort of the CSO's and police officers resulted in a 30% increase in the number of parking citations issued in the City when comparing the first six months of 2002 to the first six months of 2003: Cites Issued 2002 Total Penalty Amt Cites Issued 2003 Total Penalty Amt 3,286 $176,160 4,265 $226,873 This 30% increase is particularly dramatic since the CSO's are also charged with a host of other time consuming duties (e.g. minor crime investigations, traffic accident investigations, report writing and traffic safety presentations in the schools). The Department also recognizes the aggravation and eyesore tractor/trailers can cause in the community and have issued 40 parking citations from January through June 2003 for these commercial vehicles parking in violation of Azusa Municipal Code 74-466. Moreover, the Police Department recognizes that although its primary mission is public safety, it does not ignore quality of life issues. For example, the Department raised the Police Officers awareness levels in regards to illegal vendors in the community. Officers responded accordingly and took pro -active enforcement measures as time permitted. A computer query of the CAD system from January 1 to July 23, 2003 produced the following statistics: Actionatems_ ___ __.. �ACtivl Cevel� __ Total No. Vendor Incidents 155 Confiscations (includes impounds, confiscations and/or cites) 69 Citations 1 1 Impounds 63 Counsel and release 5 Some of our most pro -active officers (e.g. Tom Montague and Doug Ernst) enforcing the municipal code against illegal vendors report that because of the increased effort, it is oftentimes difficult to find them. On July 1, 2003 members of the Police Department's command staff met with members of Community Development regarding several code enforcement issues and learned of Council's growing concern regarding the number of illegal signs posted in the City. That evening, Lt. Street directed officers to remove illegal signs during the course of their shift, which resulted in the removal of 16 signs. Lt. Street also canvassed the City and counted no less than 40 illegal signs around the City, but many of them were posted over 10' high. Nonetheless, the dispatcher was advised of the illegal signs and directed an E-mail request to have them removed by Community Development. From: <fcsuppor@xmission.com> To: <rcabildo@ci.azusa.ca. us> Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 3:41 PM Subject: Requested FranklinCovey consultation transcript 2.7 Thank you for visiting our WebCenter. Here is a transcript of your recent consultation: Your question was: Name: Rich Cabildo -- Email: rcabildo@ci.azusa.ca.us -- Question: hil How can I get Groupwise calander data to sync into Planning Software 8.0 desktop?, Ellie: Thank you for using FranklinCovey online technical support, Rich. My name is Ellie and I will be you online Technical Support Engineer. Ellie: Hello , It's a pleasure to assist you with your issue. guest: Thanks! Ellie: You are welcome. Ellie: I am now sending you the steps to synchronize GroupWise with Franklin Planner Software Ellie: The following process will sync the Address Book, Memo Pad, To Do List, and Appointment Schedule from another application, but continue to sync the Task List, Master Task List, Daily Record of Events, Compass, Goals, Rales, and Mission from Franklin Planner Software. Ellie: 1. You first need to purchase a copy of IntelliSync. (Others may work, but IntelliSync has been proven over and over again to succeed.) 2. On a machine using one of the above programs, install Franklin Planner Software. (It is important to do this prior to installing IntelliSync.) 3. Make sure during the Franklin Planner installation that "Palm Interface Files" is checked. Ellie: 4. Once Franklin Planner Software is installed, install IntelliSync. 5. Double-click on the IntelliSync Config icon. 6. Map each of the conduits to your preferred application. (Remember by installing IntelliSync, Franklin Planner Software will no longer sync any of the listed modules in the IntelliSync Contig screen.) Ellie: 7. For the first sync, click on the HotSync Manager (icon with red and blue arrows by the time) and choose Custom. 8. Change everything possible to Desktop Overwrites Handheld. 9. Now Synchronize. 10. You should now have your two applications combined. Ellie: (Note: If there are other programs installed on the machine that synchronize such as Palm Desktop, Pocket Mirror, EasySync, Act Link, etc., you may encounter problems with this procedure. Remove any other software that synchronizes before performing the steps above.) Ellie: To receive a detailed transcript, of our chat via email. Please do enter your email address at the end of this chat session when asked. Ellie: Do you have any questions regarding the information I have sent you? guest: Sounds Good! Thank you so much! Ellie: You are very welcome. Ellie: Is there anything else I could assist you with? guest: That's all I needed... Thanks Ellie: Thank you for using FranklinCovey online technical support, Rich. It was a pleasure chatting with you. If you have any further questions please feel free to come back to us and we will be happy to assist you again. Have a nice day! Ellie: Goodbye, take care CONSENT CALENDAR TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 11, 2003 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CHARGE REDUCED ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT PROGRAM IN THE ATLANTIS GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: (1) place this item on the agenda as an item of -subsequent need, and (2) authorize charging reduced electrical fees in the amount of $188.72 for light fixture replacement in connection with the Public Benefit Program for Atlantis Gardens. BACKGROUND The Atlantis Gardens neighborhood is one of the most distressed in the City. Accordingly, the City is concentrating its various resources to restore some of the lost luster and reinstate livability for its residents. A collaborative approach between several departments is in progress to assist this neighborhood. One of the programs being instituted is the replacement of light fixtures via Light &Water Department's Public Benefit Program. There are 39 separate properties, and the light fixtures would average 2 per property. The Electrical Code requires permits for the change -out of light fixtures. The permit fee is $1.13 per fixture. However, there are other administrative fees that are charged for each permit issued, namely an issuance fee ($62), Optical Records Fee ($10), Permit Automation fee ($20), and General Plan Maintenance fee (10%). Thus the total for each permit would be $94.48. For the 39 properties, the permit fees would total $3,684.72. If a Homeowners Association existed with a separate address, the City would be able to issue one permit, and therefore, one set of administrative fees. In that case, the total fee amount would be $188.72. The neighborhood, however, does not have an Association, and therefore the full fee would be due. City Staff does not have authority to reduce or waive fees. Because the Public Benefit Program has limited funding, is a City -sponsored program, and contributes significantly to energy conservation, which is a public benefit, the City Council would be justified in making a determination that one set of administrative fees be charged for electric permits in connection with the Public benefit Program for Atlantis Gardens. FISCAL IMPACT The City would receive a reduction in permit fees of $3,496.