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