Code Enforcement Policies and Procedures Repor
Community Development Department Memorandum
Date: May 14, 2009
TO: Janesville City Council
FROM: Gale S. Price, AICP, Building & Development Services Manager
SUBJECT: Report to Council Regarding Code and Building Enforcement Policies and
Procedures.
_____________________________________________________________________
I. Executive Summary
The City Council has requested a report on Code and Building Enforcement Policies
and Procedures. Many of these have been in place for an extended period of time.
Some modifications have more recently been made to the policies and procedures.
Specifically in 2005 an ordinance to allow raze or a repair agreement for significantly
dilapidated or damaged homes was adopted. Additional modifications to create
reinspection fees and an abatement process were established for nuisance violations
in 2008.
II. Staff or Department Recommendation
If the City Council believes that the policies or procedures for enforcement of property
maintenance (nuisance) or building codes should be further modified to shorten the
process or the City should more aggressive in its use of tools such as citations, then
the Council should give staff specific direction to modify the procedures and return to
the Council with a series of recommendations to revise the policies and procedures. As
a part of the process it may be appropriate to re-establish the Citizen Advisory
Committee on Code Enforcement to review any proposed changes.
III. Request for Information
Council President Truman has requested that Staff review with the Council the policies
and procedures surrounding building and nuisance code enforcement. Some Council
members have expressed concerns regarding consistent enforcement and the amount
of time that it takes to get a property to come into compliance with building or nuisance
codes.
IV. Background
Areas for responsibilities
The City has two departments that handle the majority of the various nuisance and
building code enforcement issues. These are the Neighborhood Services Department
and the Community Development Department. The Neighborhood Services
Department through the property maintenance section has two full-time inspectors and
a supervisor. The Council has also approved a seasonal full time inspection position
and a part time inspection position for the section for the Look West and Fourth Ward
neighborhoods. Those positions are currently in the process to be filled. The
Community Development Department through the Building and Development Services
Division has four full time building inspectors, one development specialist position and
a supervisor.
The Neighborhood Services Department is responsible for enforcement in the following
areas:
?
Housing
Overcrowding
o
Vacates
o
Interior structure sanitation
o
General building safety concerns
o
?
Exterior Property Maintenance
Junk cars (abandon or inoperable vehicles)
o
Trash and debris
o
?
Zoning Violations
Illegal home occupation enforcement
o
Parking on unapproved surfaces in residential areas
o
Too many recreational vehicles
o
?
Fire Code inspections for multiple-family residential buildings and developments
The Community Development Department is responsible for enforcement of the
following areas:
?
Zoning code enforcement
Commercial use complaints
o
Parking lot/paving and other related complaints
o
Site plan/commercial development complaints
o
?
Building Code enforcement
All construction inspection
o
All site development inspection
o
Erosion control inspection for developments
o
Raze or repair orders
o
Life Safety complaints
o
V. Standard Procedures for Enforcement
The Neighborhood Services Department and Community Development Department
handle complaints in a similar manner but there are some distinct differences. The
Neighborhood Services Department gives a verbal order to correct after the initial
inspection and if the verbal order does not gain compliance, then a written order to
correct is issued. A written order to correct provides a 14 day timeline for correction. If
the written order does not gain compliance, a director warning letter is sent with a
seven day deadline and a $50 reinspection fee is assessed. If the director warning
does not gain compliance, the Department can abate, issue citations or refer the matter
to the City Attorney (see attached flow chart for Neighborhood Services enforcement).
The reinspection fee and abatement process was approved through an ordinance
amendment in January, 2008 and is limited to nuisance enforcement. That ordinance
is specifically addressed later in this report.
The Community Development Department also gives a verbal order to correct after the
initial inspection, if the offense or offender is not a repeat offender. If that does not
gain compliance, a 30-day order is sent. If that does not gain compliance a 15-day
order is sent. A director warning is sent with a seven day timeline if compliance is not
gained after the 15-day order. After a director warning, a citation can be issued or the
matter referred to the City Attorney (see attached flow chart for Community
Development enforcement).
Generally all of the enforcement processes begin with a complaint. A Targeted
Proactive Exterior Inspection process was adopted for the Historic Fourth Ward and
Look West Neighborhoods, which encompasses the Community Development Block
Grant “target areas”.
The City does not actively use citations for the enforcement process since in most
instances compliance is gained through one of the several orders to correct or directors
warning steps. The Neighborhood Services Department has issued 3 citations within
the past three years. The Community Development Department has issued 10
citations. Of the ten that have been issued, five of those were issued to persons who
did not obtain building permits for projects or had completed work on structures that
they were not licensed to complete (electrical), which does not specifically relate to the
focus of this report.
VI. History of Enforcement Process and Procedures
The existing procedure process has been in place for many years with the exception of
some modifications made in 2005 and further modifications in 2008. In September,
2004 a seven member citizen’s advisory committee presented recommendations to the
City Council regarding certain policies and procedures for the Code enforcement
process. In general the committee felt that the existing procedures provided adequate
and appropriate timelines for persons to address complaints regarding their properties.
They did not feel that there was a need to reduce or lengthen compliance timeline
procedures that were in place at the time.
One recommendation by the committee that was not implemented was a reduction of
timelines for repeat offenders of the ordinances or generally eliminating one inspection
cycle for all offenders. Although the committee included a recommendation which
would have reduced the enforcement timeline, the City Council did not agree that it
was needed and such a modification to the City Code has not been made.
The Committee did make one significant recommendation which resulted in a City of
Janesville Code amendment. The amendment created the raze or repair process.
Prior to the Committee work, the City ordinances required that a building that was
damaged or dilapidated beyond fifty percent (50%) of the equalized assessed value of
the structure must be removed from the site. The only recourse an owner would have
in such a situation was to hire a licensed Wisconsin professional engineer and refute
the estimated cost of repairs. Citizens had raised concerns that if someone had the
financial resources available to repair a building, they should be permitted the
opportunity to repair the building regardless of cost. In December, 2005 the City
Council passed an ordinance to establish the raze or repair process which allows for
staff to enter into a stipulated agreement with a property owner to repair a building
within one-year. The details of the raze or repair process are noted later in this report.
VII. Reinspection Fees and abatement process
In March, 2008 the City Council adopted an ordinance to establish reinspection fees
and an abatement process for properties that are subject to nuisance complaints.
These changes were made to give staff an additional tool to promote compliance with
the ordinances. The Council had expressed an interest in enhancing the tools
available for the Code Enforcement staff and to respond to neighborhood concerns
about maintaining quality housing and reducing nuisance problems.
Specifically staff can impose a reinspection fee if the owner does not comply with the
written order to correct. The written order is issued after a verbal order. The
reinspection fee is assessed with a director warning letter. If the director warning is not
complied with, the City can abate the violation without obtaining a court order. The
ordinance changes allow staff to enter the property and correct the problem.
Neighborhood Services staff believes that the reinspection fee has been very
successful in promoting compliance and has increased the rates of compliance. The
abatement process has not needed to be used extensively.
The Council has previously asked why the reinspection fees that can be assessed for
nuisance complaints cannot be used for raze or repair properties. The ordinance that
allows the nuisance reinspection fee has been limited to use for only nuisance
abatement and inspections. This has not been extended to application of building
codes. Neither Staff nor the Council felt that it was necessary to extend the ordinance
to other areas at the time it was adopted. The Community Development Department
does have a reinspection fee that can be assessed to residential development, but that
has been limited to inspections for new or remodeling construction. It has not been
used for raze or repair properties and it cannot be used for commercial structures.
VIII. Vacant Building Ordinances/Boarding of Vacant Buildings
The City does not have an ordinance requiring boarding of vacant buildings or
registering vacant buildings with the City. There are some communities that do have
such ordinances. Two peer communities that have an ordinance requiring registering
of vacant buildings (Kenosha and Racine), however, neither of these communities
have an ordinance requiring boarding of vacant buildings. A building by Code is only
required to be boarded up if windows or doors are broken; the building is unoccupied
and unsecured. As complaints arise, Staff issues orders for the buildings to be
repaired or boarded up. In a few instances, (Case Feed as an example), the property
owner does not respond as well as others to the notices. In that specific instance the
owner has received a citation and may receive an additional citation if the work is not
completed.
IX. Raze or Repair Process
In December, 2005 the City of Janesville adopted an ordinance allowing raze or repair
agreements for the repair of dilapidated or damaged buildings where the estimated
cost to repair the structure exceeds fifty (50) percent of the equalized assessed value
of the structure.
The Citizen Advisory Committee on Code Enforcement felt that the City should allow
such repairs when an owner could demonstrate that they had the financial resources in
place to repair the building and bring the property back into shape to be inhabited. The
implementation of the agreement process was almost immediate as Staff used the
process to have 500 West Milwaukee’s rooming house repaired after a fire. That
agreement allowed for the repair of the building while the two story red brick portion
was required to be removed. The owner had adequate financing and a capable
contractor complete the work, which helped facilitate the process.
As staff has worked through several of these agreements since adoption of the
ordinance, there are some aspects that can lengthen the process and make it
somewhat cumbersome. Those are specifically as follows:
Financial Ability
: For the cases that come forward because the building has been
allowed to dilapidate, the raze or repair process can be very difficult. In most cases of a
dilapidated building, the owner has allowed the property to fall into disrepair because
they were not financially capable of maintaining the property. Some owners also have
difficulty understanding how to demonstrate that they have sufficient monies to repair
the structure.
Thirty Day Deadline
: When Staff sends a raze or repair order, the owner has thirty
days to respond with adequate documentation to allow the City to enter into an
agreement for repair of the building. Owners have rarely responded within the thirty
day timeline and if they have at least responded, no owner has complete all of the
required documentation in the thirty day timeline.
Legitimate Contractors
: The ordinance indicates that the estimates for the work to be
done are to be from legitimate contractors, but in several cases the owner has wanted
to do the work themselves or in one case the owner obtained the proper licensure to
demonstrate that they are a legitimate contractor. An owner may only work on a
property they own if it is or was owner occupied; otherwise they must have a licensed
contractor. This can be problematic for those members of the community who rent
single or two family structures.
Staff Time Required
: For all of the raze or repair agreements, a significant amount of
time has been involved in the process from obtaining agreements, review of
documents and inspections. The 1608 South Grant example has been extreme case
but in another recent case Staff had twenty man-hours of time invested in the project
before the owner finally entered into an agreement. Neither Staff nor the Council
anticipated significant amounts of time to be required over and above what would
normally be required for a construction project.
Timeline for repairs:
The ordinance allows one year for repair of a building. In one
case a citizen was concerned that the raze or repair agreement process allows only
one year to complete the project while a building permit would generally allow two
years to complete a project. One year was chosen for the raze or repair process since
it was felt that such a timeline would be appropriate and it would reduce the amount of
time that neighbors would be impacted by the blighted property.
Even though Staff has identified a number of concerns with the process, the intent of
the raze or repair regulations makes sense and is consistent with the desires of the
original Citizen Advisory Committee work. How the ordinance is applied in the field
may need some modification including being more firm on the initial thirty day timeline
to have the agreement completed and executed.
X. Pros and Cons of Current Procedures
Pros:
?
Allows adequate and reasonable timelines for persons to address a complaint.
?
Allows Staff to balance particular instances/circumstances to the situation.
?
Promotes reinvestment rather than a person walking away from a property.
?
Does not create the sense that the City is using the heavy hand of citations to
gain compliance.
?
The changes made to the various codes have limited the need for the City to
remove structures and/or abate property.
Cons:
?
Can allow the enforcement process to take a period of time longer than a
complainant thinks is appropriate to get a property repaired.
?
A significant amount of staff time can be invested in attempting to get an owner
to repair a property.
XI. Summary
There have been a few modifications to the ordinances for nuisance, housing and
building code enforcement in the past four years, but the changes have been
somewhat limited. While there have been a couple of problem properties for City Staff
to address, the majority of enforcement and compliance to complaints occur in a timely
manner. The reinspection fee process that has been approved for nuisance abatement
could be extended to residential and commercial structures if it is deemed necessary.
Considering the success with the recent changes for the Neighborhood Services
Department, it may be beneficial to extend them for use in the Community
Development Department. Ultimately this is a policy decision that the Council should
provide Staff direction on how to proceed.
cc: Eric Levitt
Jay Winzenz
Brad Cantrell
Jennifer Petruzzello
NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
Complaint Received
Initial Inspection, Valid?
Yes No
Verbal order if not repeat
Complaint
offender (Go to 30-day
Closed
order if repeat)
Not Corrected Corrected
Complaint
30-day order
Closed
to correct
Not Corrected Corrected
15-day order Complaint
to correct
Closed
Not corrected Corrected
Complaint
Director Warning
Closed
Not corrected Corrected
Complaint
Citation and/or referral
Closed
to City Attorney