Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Administrative Civil PenaltiesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 9/5/2023 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Charlie Kent/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-3755 Estimated Time: 50 Minutes SPRINGFIELD Council Goals: Provide Financially CITY COUNCIL Responsible and Innovative Government Services ITEM TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL PENALTIES ACTION Staff requests Council direction on the draft version of an Administrative Civil REQUESTED: Penalties (ACP) procedure. Staff intends to return to Council with an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code adding an Administrative Civil Penalties process and a proposed budget necessary for the implementation of this procedure. ISSUE Code violations are currently enforced through a one size fits all, labor intensive STATEMENT: process. Staff discretion is used to mitigate some service issues and processes have been streamlined through technology integration, however a programmatic change is required for a return to previous service levels. Staff is proposing to create an Administrative Civil Penalties process through the adoption of amendments to the Municipal Code to expand the ability to process municipal code violations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum 2. Power -point presentation 3. Administrative civil penalty Matrix DISCUSSION/ Code Enforcement staff last presented to Council on June 12, 2023, discussing that a FINANCIAL tiered enforcement response is an essential step in improving the effectiveness of the IMPACT: Code Enforcement Program. An ACP procedure provides the opportunity for a quicker resolution to complaints and a more community -oriented, educational approach to code enforcement. Additional funding would be required to administer a new ACP program. This additional program funding could be offset by utilizing existing Development and Public Works FTE and, depending on Council goals, future FTE additions may be required to provide expected service levels. No additional funding would be required for software and technical resources. Any ACP fines could be deposited into a special Code Enforcement fund and used as a reoccurring source to develop educational materials and conduct abatement projects on large code enforcement cases. An ACP procedure would require a Municipal Code change, further procedural development, staff training, and public outreach. Draft Municipal Code language from the City Attorney's office is provided for council review. As a public service, the ACP procedure would have little effect on the daily operation of a code enforcement officer, though a dedicated effort would be required to create a standardized process; including, citation tracking, court integration, software development, payment processing, and appeals administration. Staff training would occur on the job following an introductory period. Public outreach would be achieved through social media notification, public announcement, educational pamphlets, and through dedicated communications staff. If ultimately adopted, the target goal for ACP implementation is July 1, 2024. MEMORANDUM City of Springfield Date: September 5, 2023 To: Nancy Newton, City Manager COUNCIL From: Charlie Kent, Code Enforcement Officer (AIC) BRIEFING Jeff Paschall, Community Development Director Subject: Code Enforcement Civil Administrative Penalties MEMORANDUM ISSUE: Code violations are currently enforced through a one size fits all, labor intensive process. Staff discretion is used to mitigate some service issues and processes have been streamlined through technology integration, however a programmatic change is required for a return to previous service levels. Staff is proposing to create an Administrative Civil Penalties process through the adoption of amendments to the Municipal Code to expand the ability to process municipal code violations. COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE: Provide Financially Responsible and Innovative Government Services BACKGROUND: "As an alternative or supplement to judicial action, enforcement agencies may use a variety of administrative remedies to gain compliance with state and municipal regulations. Administrative remedies which do not use the criminal or civil courts may be employed early in the enforcement cycle when the responsible person refuses to comply after receiving notices of violation. Although not required by law, many agencies establish a practice of using administrative alternatives before filing a case in court. "-Schilling, Hare An administrative civil penalty process (ACP) is commonly used within code compliance programs across the state and nation as an effective enforcement tool. The ACP process provides a more clear, equitable environment for code compliance than judicial alternatives. The process is simpler and more efficient. Staff time is utilized more effectively as a community partner through onsite interactions where educational outreach is prioritized, and the total time to case resolution is dramatically reduced. Effectively, ACP's prevent long-term or chronic issues by addressing violations in a timely manner when they are relatively minor. On the street, the ACP process will provide for a more individualized and violation -appropriate approach to compliance by removing legal barriers which could be reserved for significant, chronic, or complex violations. There are two differences between a judicial and ACP process. Presumption and procedure. In the civil citation and complaint process the City presents facts and testimony to the Municipal Court Judge who then finds the accused guilty or not guilty based on the judicial interpretation of the code, those facts and testimony presented by the City, and testimony and facts presented by the accused during a legal proceeding. If found guilty, the City recommends an appropriate penalty. In the ACP, it is presumed that the City's findings are factual, and penalties are unilaterally imposed through a standard violation -specific matrix. Because due process is required for any lawful application of government enforcement, an appeal process is required. In the judicial process, a guilty party would appeal the Springfield Municipal Courts finding to the Circuit Appellate court, and the City Attorney would represent the City. A guilty party in the ACP process would appeal to a hearings official, similar to a land use decision. The City could contract this service with the Lane Attachment 1 Page 1 of 5 Council of Governments as it currently does with other programs. It is common to include a fee for a hearing in the recipients application for appeal. Because the legal burden of a finding shifts from the Springfield Municipal Court to the individual code officer in the ACP process, a sworn oath of office or other legal mechanism may be required to act with appropriate authority. Standard Process: In response to a code complaint, the daily enforcement procedures and processes of the code enforcement officer will not differ dramatically between the two enforcement mechanisms. An important distinction is that because code enforcement officers will be making a more concerted effort to educate community members, the initial inspection may take longer than current averages. That extra 10-20 minutes on site would potentially benefit the City if the code enforcement officer is able to decrease or eliminate future violations. A reminder of the current judicial workflow process and average staff time per workflow item: 1. Complaint — A neighbor, resident, community member, or partner agency contacts the City to report a code violation. Administrative staff records the violation, determines jurisdiction, clarifies any required information, and assigns a response priority. Violations are assigned based on priority and a first inspection is scheduled for the next business day, 20 -minute average time per case. 2. Inspection - Officers investigate, record results on a tablet, and determine a responsible person. If a violation is found, a notice ordering the responsible person to correct the violation is usually mailed within 48 hours. Reinspection occurs after 10-30 days (less for minor nuisance violations and more for complex or significant cases) as determined by officers. Deadlines may be extended by officer discretion. Additional reinspection's may potentially be scheduled as necessary following a warning citation or final warning citation mailed within 48 hours after inspection. 25 -minute average or each inspection, 2.75 average inspections per case. 68 -minute average per case. 3. Civil citation and complaint - If the violation remains after the final warning, a citation and complaint will be filed with the Municipal Court. The responsible person is arraigned 2-3 weeks following issuance of the citation. Regular reinspection's occur on the date of arraignment and further citations are issued if the violation remains. Trial is set 3-4 weeks following the arraignment. 35 -minute average time per citation, additional 120 minutes for trial preparation and appearance. 155 -minute average time per civil citation and complaint. 4. Additional methods to address non-compliance rarely used are administrative abatement and administrative inspection warrants. Though rare, substantial staff time is required for each administrative abatement project. The recent abatement project average is 8 hours overtime and 12 hours regular staff time. Proposed ACP Procedure: 1. Complaint — A neighbor, resident, community member, or partner agency contacts the City to report a code violation. Administrative staff records the violation, determines jurisdiction, clarifies any required information, and assigns a response priority. Violations are assigned based on priority and a first inspection is scheduled for the next business day. 20 -minute average time per case. Attachment 1 Page 2 of 5 2. Inspection - Officers investigate, record results on a tablet, determine a responsible person, and issue a courtesy notice on-site if a violation is observed. A standard 3 -day deadline is set for minor violations. 20 minute average per inspection. 3. Administrative Citation (ticket) — A ticket is issued for non-compliance on day 5 following the issuance of the 3 -day courtesy notice. Some tickets may be eligible for a "fix -it" resolution if justifiable reasons exist for non-compliance. Additionally, the code enforcement supervisor has discretion to reduce fines if compliance is achieved at any point. Re -inspections occur periodically, and fines increase per the standard penalty matrix. 15 - minute average time per citation. 4. Civil citation and complaint - Once the threshold is met, the case transfers to the judicial workflow process having already met the burden of "Prior Written Notice", a statutory determination of the Springfield Municipal Code, section 5.608. Financial Impact: The financial impact of an ACP procedure can be complex and multifaceted. It involves a balance between revenue generation, compliance, enforcement costs, legal expenses, community perception, and economic development. The cost is not just in additional FTE, but also represented by loss of revenue generation from decreasing property values and impacts to economic development. Additionally, curing a small violation early prevents it from being a larger issue later. Here are some further factors to consider: • Public Relations and Perception: The way a municipality enforces codes and penalties can affect its public image. If the enforcement is perceived as unfair, overly aggressive, or inconsistent, it might lead to negative public relations and community backlash. This could impact the municipality's reputation and potentially deter investment. • Deterrence and Compliance: ACP's can serve as a deterrent for property owners and businesses, encouraging them to comply with local codes and regulations. This can lead to improved community aesthetics, safety, and overall quality of life. • Social Equity Considerations: It's important to consider the potential disparate impact of penalties on different socio-economic groups. Striking a balance between enforcing codes and avoiding undue financial burden on vulnerable populations is a critical consideration. • Administrative Efficiency: Efficiently processing violations and penalties requires administrative infrastructure. Inefficiencies and delays in the administrative process lead to increased costs and resource allocation. • Monitoring and Reporting: Establishing a system to track violations, penalties, and compliance efforts can require technological investments for record-keeping, reporting, and analysis. • Cost of Enforcement: Implementing a code enforcement program and the associated procedures requires resources. This includes the salaries of code enforcement officers, administrative staff, and support personnel involved in processing violations and penalties. Training and ongoing professional development for staff also contribute to costs. For an increase, additional program FTE could be leveraged from within existing Development and Public Works Department allocations. • Legal and Administrative Expenses: There might be legal costs associated with enforcing penalties. Property owners or businesses that receive penalties might challenge them, leading to legal proceedings and associated expenses for the municipality. • Impact on Property Values: Consistent and effective code enforcement can lead to improvements in the appearance and safety of neighborhoods. This can positively impact Attachment 1 Page 3 of 5 property values, which in turn can contribute to increased property tax revenue for the municipality. Economic Development: Overly stringent enforcement and high penalties could potentially deter businesses from starting or expanding within the municipality. Balancing the need for code compliance with creating a welcoming environment for economic development is important. Revenue Generation: While not the primary goal or outcome, any revenue generated can relieve reliance on other City funds. ACP's, when collected, can contribute to the municipality's budget, funding a special abatement program and developing educational outreach materials Public Outreach and Education: Partnering with City Communications and GIS staff, Code Enforcement staff can develop and implement a public outreach campaign in response to a new ACP procedure. This is crucial to ensure transparency, compliance, and community understanding. A thorough needs assessment is essential to understand the specific challenges, concerns, and knowledge gaps within the community. Property owners, renters, businesses, and community organizations are a large portion of the target audience, and we'll need to tailor the content of the message to their needs and preferences. These community members could be involved in the development of outreach materials as well and we can identify them through surveys, community meetings, or social media posts. Educational materials which communicate the ACP procedure will be developed using plain language and in a clear and easily understandable manner. The purpose of the process, types of violations, and potential penalties will be explained using visual aids like infographics, diagrams, and pamphlets. Materials will be accessible across multiple platforms including, print, online and in community meetings. Social media platforms, local newspapers, community websites, and will be utilized to reach a diverse audience. Additionally, staff may host workshops, information sessions, or webinars where residents can ask questions, seek clarifications, and engage directly with code enforcement staff. Developing and implementing a public outreach and educational materials campaign in response to a new code enforcement ACP procedure requires a strategic and inclusive approach. By identifying community needs, communicating clearly, highlighting benefits, involving the community, and utilizing various communication channels, the City can foster understanding, cooperation, and compliance while minimizing potential backlash or misconceptions. DISCUSSION: QUESTION FOR COUNCIL: Does Council support the proposed procedure for the ACP process? What level of discretion, if any, should officers have to reduce fine amounts vs. code supervisor? If adopted, how should the effectiveness of the ACP process be measured? What metrics should be used to assess its impact on compliance and community outcomes? NEXT STEPS: Staff is seeking input from Council at this work session on the Administrative Civil Penalties procedure. If directed, staff will return to Council with an Ordinance amending the Municipal code Attachment 1 Page 4 of 5 adding an Administrative Civil Penalties process and a proposed budget necessary for the implementation of this procedure. Staff is scheduled to return on September 18, 2023. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Give staff direction on the following questions: 1. What level of discretion, if any, should code officers have to reduce fine amounts vs. code supervisor? 2. If adopted, how should the effectiveness of the ACP process be measured? 3. What metrics should be used to assess its impact on compliance and community outcomes? 4. Does Council support the proposed procedure for the ACP process? 5. Does Council have input or feedback on the topic at this point? Attachment 1 Page 5 of 5 REG Code Enforcement Administrative Civil Penalties Attachment 2 Page 1 of 8 Administrative Civil Penalty Refresher ACP Process More effective for minor violations Community outreach oriented Faster intervention, 3-5 day deadlines Can progress to judicial process Judicial Process More effective for complex or chronic violations Provides legal framework Insulates staff Prepares for other legal tools Attachment 2 Page 2 of 8 Designed to Address Minor Violations through a more effective a roach Prohibited parking Garbage Obstruction of the right of way Fences Odors Stagnant water Stored vehicle Attachment 2 Page 3 of 8 1-3 Days Complaint To First Inspection 3-5 Days Fi rst Inspection/ Order to comply AM 3-5 Days E10-14 0 14-21 Reinspection Reinspection /Fix -it Ticket /Additional Civil Citation progressive tickets penalty 21-30 a Trial What are Councils expected service levels ? Compliance Rate Response Time Case Resolution Time Repeat Offenses Rate Public Satisfaction and Engagement Attachment 2 Page 5 of 8 Complaint Priority Response Three levels of a priority driven response are High Priority 1, Moderate Priority 2, and Low Priority 3 High Priority 1 cases are health and safety hazards, emergency situations, and accessibility violations. ► Moderate Priority 2 cases are public nuisances and zoning violations. ► Low Priority 3 cases are minor zoning violations, private nuisances, parking violations, and administrative violations Attachment 2 Page 6 of 8 Additional Code Enforcement Topics to Prioritize for Discussion Program objectives and strategic goals Municipal code amendments Measuring program effectiveness Attachment 2 Page 7 of 8 !'r 0%0%0\0A$'%EM0WMR . Council Q A Attachment 2 Page 8 of 8 Administrative Civil Penalty Matrix/Priority of Code Violations Violation Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 First $100 $50 $25 Second $200 $100 $50 Third $200 $100 Fourth $200 Administrative Civil Penalty Matrix A progressive administrative civil penalties citation process is a systematic approach which may be used by the City to address code violations or non-compliance through a series of escalating penalties. This approach is designed to encourage timely correction of violations while allowing violators the opportunity to cure their actions at several stages before facing more severe consequences. The process typically involves increasing penalties for repeated or unresolved violations. 1. Initial Order to Comply: when a code violation is identified, City issues an initial order to comply to the responsible party. This notice outlines the violation, specifies the required corrective actions, and provides a reasonable timeframe within which the violation must be remedied. At this stage, the emphasis is on informing the violator, encouraging compliance, and avoiding the need for penalties. 2. First Administrative Citation Penalty: if the violation is not corrected within the specified timeframe in the initial order to comply, a first -level penalty is imposed. This penalty is typically a moderate monetary fine. The violator is informed of the penalty and is given another opportunity to rectify the violation, along with a new deadline. 3. Second Administrative Citation Penalty (Increased): if the violation persists after the first penalty, a second -level penalty is imposed. This penalty is double the first penalty amount and serves as a stronger incentive for compliance. Along with the increased penalty, the violator is again informed of the violation, the previous penalties, and the importance of prompt correction. 4. Third/Fourth Administrative Citation Penalty (Significantly Increased): if the violation continues despite the previous penalties, a third and fourth -level penalty is imposed. This penalty is significantly higher than the previous penalties and is meant to reflect the seriousness of repeated non-compliance. The third penalty for a Priority 1 violation is a Civil Citation and Complaint and may include an order to abate. 5. Legal Action or Severe Consequences: If the violation remains unresolved even after final administrative penalty, the City might take more serious legal actions, such as issuing a civil citation, initiating the abatement process, or seeking Attachment 3 Page 1 of 2 injunctive relief. These actions are typically reserved for cases of persistent and deliberate non- compliance. The key idea behind a progressive administrative civil penalties citation process is to encourage timely compliance by providing multiple opportunities for violators to correct their actions while gradually increasing the consequences for non-compliance. This approach aims to strike a balance between achieving compliance, deterring future violations, and minimizing the need for more extreme enforcement measures. It's important for the process to be transparent, well -communicated, efficient. Priority of Code Violations Priority 1: High Priority Violations Health and Safety Hazards: Violations that pose an immediate threat to public health and safety, such as unsafe structures, hazardous materials, unsanitary conditions, or attractive nuisances. Violations that impact the health and safety of occupants or the surrounding community. Emergency Situations: Violations that require immediate action to prevent injury, damage, or environmental harm, collapsing structures, or imminent danger situations. Accessibility Violations: Violations that impede accessibility for people with disabilities, such as lack of ramps, inadequate signage, or blocked emergency exits. Tier 2: Moderate Priority Violations Public Nuisances: Violations that affect the quality of life for residents, including home business disturbances, illegal dumping, abandoned vehicles, excessive conditions attracting rodents, nuisance fences. Zoning Violations: Violations of zoning regulations, such as improper land use, setbacks, signage, and parking requirements. Tier 3: Lower Priority Violations Parking Violations: Violations related to parking regulations, such as parking in prohibited areas. Minor Zoning Issues: Violations that have a limited impact on zoning regulations, such as minor signage violations or temporary uses. Non -Urgent Property Nuisances: Violations that are a nuisance but do not pose immediate health or safety risks, such as minor litter or minor noise disturbances. Administrative Violations: Violations related to administrative processes, such as failure to obtain required permits, licenses, or approvals. It's important to note that while this priority list provides a general framework, Council guidance, community input, and changes in circumstances can impact the priorities assigned to different types of violations. Regular review and adjustment of the priority list based on feedback and changing conditions can ensure that resources are allocated effectively for code enforcement. Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2