HomeMy WebLinkAbout6A Code Enforcement 2016 Report
4646 Dakota Street SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 10, 2017
AGENDA #: 6A
PREPARED BY: DALE STEFANISKO, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
PRESENTED BY: DALE STEFANISKO
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT ON 2016 CODE ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY
DISCUSSION: Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with information
regarding complaints, code violations, and code enforcement activity for the
year 2016.
History
In July of 2007, The City of Prior Lake hired its first full time Code
Enforcement Officer and has since implemented a proactive Code
Enforcement Program. The main goal of the program is to enhance the
health, safety and aesthetics of the city through voluntary compliance. We
continue to maximize the attractiveness of residential and commercial
properties by effectively enforcing the standards and requirements of the
City Code. This has been achieved by both a proactive and complaint driven
approach.
A resident can contact the Code Enforcement Officer with a question or
concern and a site visit will be made. If a violation is confirmed at the time
of inspection, the responsible party will be notified. They will be provided a
notice of the violation and given a deadline to make the correction. When
voluntary compliance is not achieved within a reasonable amount of time it
may become necessary to issue a misdemeanor citation to the responsible
party. A citation requires the responsible party to appear at Scott County
District Court. This typically results in a fine and confirmation that the
violation has been corrected.
City ordinance compliance can also be achieved through educating and
informing the public of the city ordinances. Examples of public outreach are
regular contributions in “The Wavelength” or water bill insert to inform
residents of various codes to include seasonal or weather related
ordinances and brochure hand out flyers for specific codes. The City digital
monument signs are used to display various types of code enforcement
information. The City’s website lists several common code type violations,
links to the Code Enforcement policy and the Good Neighbor Guide to Code
Compliance.
2
Voluntary compliance is a desired goal of the Code Enforcement Program
and is being achieved in the vast majority of cases.
Since January, 2011 all Code enforcement related activity has been tracked
in the software program called “Splash”. Splash is an intranet based
program which can be accessed by all Prior Lake City Staff. The Code
Enforcement Officer documents the findings of the initial inspection and any
subsequent inspections up until the case is closed. This documentation
includes: inspection findings, photos, notices, correspondence, and any
other updates or developments pertaining to a particular case. All the case
information is contained in one data base and is easily searchable.
Custom improvements to Splash were made January 1, 2013 creating a
custom Code Enforcement Services module. This module allowed for
reporting of case violations, tracking and viewing of the case status, notices
issued, violations, complaint source, and photos. Splash has been a good
tool that has improved administration of the Code Enforcement Program.
Better software programs have become available to enhance administration
capabilities. The City recently purchased a new software program which
included a code enforcement module. Future reports will us this new
program. This new software platform not only allows for administration of
the Code Enforcement Program, but allow for better reporting and automatic
letter generation. As the City grows and more cases are generated, better
software should provide for increased efficiencies with Code Enforcement
processes and case management.
During this reporting period Code Enforcement assisted the building official
with the abatement of a property that had hazardous structures on it. After
a lengthy process to include city council resolution and an assessment, a
legal process, two structures were demolished and removed from the
property. This abatement required a lot of time and resources.
Current Circumstances
This report consists of a year-end summary of the total number of violations
closed in 2016, new cases opened in 2016, source of the complaints, the
processes required to resolve the violations, the average time frame
required to resolve a complaint, the voluntary compliance percentage,
multiple violation percentages, a breakdown of the twelve most common
violation categories, and comparisons of prior year’s code violations.
This report is being furnished to provide the Council with insight that may
be useful in evaluating current resident concerns and future regulatory
decisions. It has been observed that the vast majority of City residents have
pride in their neighborhoods and the community. They feel an obligation to
maintain a neat appearance on their properties and expect nearby
properties do the same.
The City of Prior Lake has documented six hundred thirty (630) new cases
opened in 2016. There were six hundred thirty-three (633) cases closed in
2016. The difference between new opened cases and cases closed in 2016
3
is there open cases from the prior year. The information on violation totals
is based on closed cases in the year 2016.
There were eight hundred thirty-two (832) violations addressed in 2016 for
a decrease of nine and one half percent (9.5%) when compared to the nine
hundred nineteen (919) violations in 2015.
Violations were as follows
Garbage & Refuse 149
Tall Grass 92
Right of Way 99
Vehicles Parked in the Yard 77
Junk Storage 56
Junk Vehicles 73
Public Nuisance 89
Permit Violations 85
Property Maintenance 84
Zoning Use 17
Signage 7
Animal Control 4
The attached Exhibit A displays the type of violations for the closed cases
for the current reporting period.
The attached Exhibit B displays a year to year comparison of complaints
from the past three years.
The attached Exhibit C displays the code enforcement violations compared
over the last ten years.
The attached Exhibit D displays the process used and time frame needed
to resolve the violations for this reporting period. The exhibit displays the
amount of cases where no action was required.
The attached Exhibit E displays the source of the complaints for this
reporting period.
The attached Exhibit F displays the amount of properties with multiply
violations.
The attached Exhibit G displays the locations of closed cases for this
reporting period.
Conclusion
Work continues on ways to refine our Code Enforcement Program to be sure
we are responsive and accountable to our customers in providing good code
enforcement services. Public awareness and public education outreach on
the city codes are a priority and made available to the community and city
staff. Please note voluntary compliance was achieved in over 99% of the
cases this reporting period. Once a person with a code violation was made
4
aware of code violations they resolved them in a timely manner. In fact, over
75% of reported code violations were resolved within 14 days of the initial
inspection or when the person with the violation was first notified they had a
violation. Additionally, 90% of all cases were resolved within 30 days of the
initial inspection.
In 2017, we will continue to monitor the City ordinances to recommend
changes as necessary. Any ordinance changes that significantly affect the
residents will be promoted by updates to the webpage, use of the digital
monument signs, use of the Wavelength, and brochures created for specific
significant code changes. Reporting and tracking complaints will now be done
on new software program.
ISSUES: Six hundred thirty-three (633) cases have been closed by either meeting
compliance or being deemed invalid. Some cases opened in calendar year
2016 remain open. It is not uncommon for some cases to remain open due to
pending investigations, court proceedings and/or continued improvements to
a challenging property.
Challenging properties can be defined as properties that required a certified
mailing of a final notice or a citation being issued to resolve the violations at
the property. These types of cases amounted to less than 10% of the all the
cases but it is estimated it required more than 20% of code enforcement time
resources to resolve. Other added cost to challenging properties include the
certified mailings expenses, office resources, and attending court. Code
enforcement will continue to work on reducing the amount of time to resolve
all violations especially challenging properties.
The city council at its recent retreat discussed the possibility of utilizing
administrative citations or fines.
Using an administrative citation is a civil penalty requiring a lower burden of
proof when compared to a criminal citation. Administrative citations can be
used as a mechanism to help recoup cost for challenging properties.
Our present process emphasizes cooperation. Based upon our yearly
statistics this strategy has been effective in achieving closure in most of our
cases. More research would be required for the city to consider using
administrative citations and will be brought to the City Council at a future work
session.
Code activity has accounted for more grading and driveway permits being
issued. Cases against properties performing excavating or grading and
driveway activates with no permit has increased. Code enforcement will
continue to provide information to the public that permits are required when
undergoing certain grading or excavating projects and driveway
improvements. Enforcement actions on these type of violations is time
consuming. To off-set the additional costs, in accordance with the City Fee
Schedule, these properties are charged a double fee for permits when
enforcement actions are needed because work was started with no permit.
5
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
City Staff recommends Alternative #2.
Code Enforcement has oversight responsibilities on the Short-Term Rental
permits and the Short-Term Rental Ordinance. There were (10) ten short-term
rental permits issued for year 2016. It is challenging identifying and informing
short-term rental properties that a permit is required.
Enforcement related to Emerald Ash Borer may generate future code
enforcement activity as trees on private property become hazardous.
Proactively educating the public and businesses about code enforcements
services and City ordinances will continue to be a priority over this next year.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The city invests an estimated $150,000 in code enforcement activities yearly,
primarily for personnel, vehicle and related supplies. This does not include the
software system as it is shared with building inspection and community
development.
As the population increases, Code enforcement cases would be expected to
rise. At some point in the future it may be necessary to hire a seasonal or
part-time, or full-time personnel to assist in administering the case load.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has three alternatives:
1. Accept the code enforcement year-end report.
2. Accept the code enforcement year-end report and direct staff to research
and report findings regarding administrative citations for potential use as
part of the code enforcement program.
3. Provide the staff with additional direction.
6
EXHIBIT A
56
85
149
92
7
77
99
4
73
17
89 84
7%
10%
18%
11%
.5%
9%
12%
.5%
9%
2%
11%
10%
JUNK
STORAGE
PERMIT
VIOLATIONS
GARBAGE &
REFUSE
TALL GRASS SIGNAGE YARD
PARKING
ROW ANIMAL JUNK
VEHICLES
ZONING USE PUBLIC
NUISANCE
PROPERTY
MTC.
Percent of Total Violations & Number in Each Category
# of Complaints % of Complaints
7
EXHIBIT B
Year Totals 2014 - 664 2015 - 919 2016 - 832
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
68
33
68
123
10
52
112
15
31
15
65 7277
89
197
104
12
74
117
11
61
15
51
111
56
85
149
92
7
77
99
4
73
17
89 84
#
o
f
V
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Violations Categories
Violation Comparison 2014-2016
2014 - 664 2015 - 919 2016 - 832Yearly Totals
8
EXHIBIT C
188
250 229 235
271
314
802
664
919
832
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Violations Comparison 10 Years
9
EXHIBIT D
62 409 109 48 5
10%
65%
16%
8%
1%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5 DAYS OR LESS
No Violation
No Action Required
62 CASES
10%
14 DAYS
One Notice
409 cases
65%
28 DAYS
Two Notices
109 cases
16%
60 DAYS
Third/Final Notice
48 cases
8%
Citation/Abatement
Closed Cases
5 cases
<1%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
Type of Notice & Length of Process to Resolve Violation/s
PROCESS FOR CLOSED 2016 CASES
QUANTITY PERCENTAGE
10
EXHIBIT E
Anonymous/Combo Citizens Pro-Active Code Officer Internal Staff
# of Complaints 130 220 190 93
% of Complaints 20%35%30%15%
130 220 190 93
20%
35%
30%
15%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
50
100
150
200
250
SOURCE OF 2016 CLOSED CASES
11
EXHIBIT F
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
478
155
57%
43%
Properties with Multiple Violations
% of Violations # of Violations
12
EXHIBIT G