The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5H - Code Enforcement Report 2018 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: APRIL 15, 2019 AGENDA #: 5H PREPARED BY: DALE STEFANISKO, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PRESENTED BY: DALE STEFANISKO AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT ON THE 2018 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 201 8. History In July of 2007, The City of Prior Lake hired its first full time Code Enforcement Officer. 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 o f 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 questi on 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. If compliance still is not achieved, it may become necessary to proceed in civil court to obtain compliance. City Code 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 also 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. Voluntary compliance is a desired goal of the Code Enforcement Program and is being achieved in most cases. 2 Since January 2011, all Code enforcement related activity has been tracked in the software program called “Splash”. The Code Enforcement Officer documente d the findings of the initial inspection and any subsequent inspections up until the case is closed. This documentation included: inspection findings, photos, notices, correspondence, and any other updates or developments pertaining to a case. All the case information is contained in one database 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 was a valuable tool that 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 (BS&A) which included a code enforcement module. Code enforcement transitioned to the new software program in March of 2017. The report for this year uses the new software program. This new software platform not only allows for administration of the Code Enforcement Program, but allows for better case management, improved and additional reporting and automatic letter generation. Current Circumstances This report consists of a year-end summary of the total number of cases closed in 2018, new cases opened in 2018, total of all violations on closed cases, source of the complaints, the processes used to resolve the violations, the average time frame required to resolve a complaint, the total amount of inspections, the voluntary compliance percentage, repeat violator properties for this reporting period, the case amounts of rental properties, amount of extensions granted, 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. Residents feel an obligation to maintain a neat appearance on their properties and expect nearby properties do the same. The 2017 Community Survey noted ninety-seven (97%) of residents say, “general appearance of the cit y is good or excellent” and ninety-nine (99%) of residents believe the same is true for their neighborhood. The City of Prior Lake has documented seven hundred and seventy-five (775) new cases opened in 2018. There were seven hundred and sixty-two (762) cases closed in 2018. Some cases span years (e.g. opened in 2017 but closed in 2018). The information on violation totals is based on cases closed in the year 201 8. Some cases have more than one violation documented. There were one thousand seventy-five (1,075) violations addressed in 2018 for an increase of a little more than thirty percent (30%) when compared to the eight hundred twenty-three (823) violations in 2017. 3 Violations were as follows: Garbage & Refuse 195 Property Maintenance 127 Tall Grass 123 Public Nuisance 110 Junk Vehicles 109 Permit Violations 105 Right of Way 99 Vehicles Parked in the Yard 77 Junk Storage 74 Signage 23 Zoning Use 19 Animal Control 14 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 and total closed cases 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 locations of closed cases for this reporting period. Additional items documented during this reporting period • Total Inspections 1,754 • Total Violations 1,075 • Extensions of Time Granted 96 • Repeat Violator Properties 60 • Tenant Occupied properties with Violations 59 • Short Term Rental Cases 21 (12 Permits were Issued) • Signs Removed 109 • Grading and Driveway Permit Cases 57 • Dock Usage and Boat Slip Cases 13 • Fees Because of Code Enforcement Actions $11,507.00 4 Cases are opened against property owners performing building activities, excavating, grading or driveway activities without a permit. Code enforcement continues to provide information to the public that permits are required when undergoing certain building activities, grading or excavating projects and driveway improvements. Enforcement actions on these types of violations are time consuming. To off -set the additional costs, in accordance with the City Fee Schedule, properties that fail to obtain a permit are charged double the original fee. In addition, Code Enforcement also has oversite on the Short-Term Rental permits and the Short-Term Rental Ordinance. Conclusion Work continues to identify opportunities 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. Voluntary compliance was achieved in over 99% of the cases this reporting period. For the most part, once a person with a code violation was made aware of code violations, they resolved them in a timely manner. In fact, 82% 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. On average, over 93% of all cases were resolved within 30 days of the initial inspection. In 2019, we will continue to monitor the City ordinances and continue 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. ISSUES: Seven hundred and sixty-two (762) cases have been closed by either meeting compliance or being deemed invalid. Some cases opened in calendar year 2018 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, abating a violation or a citation being issued to resolve the violation at the property. These types of cases amounted to 7% of the all the cases but it is estimated they required more than 20% of code enforcement time and 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. This reporting period there were 13 complaints specific to dock usage and renting dock slips in a residential district. Renting out dock slips in residential districts is not permitted per city code. For each cases the property owner was provided written notice advising renting out dock slips in residential districts is not permitted per city code. Information has been put into the Wavelength to inform residents that renting dock slips in residential districts is not permitted per city code. With increased public outreach additional complaints can be expected. Enforcement of the code restricting dock rentals can be 5 difficult to enforce. As this violation type continues to escalate, staff is requesting direction from the Council to explore potential ordinance amendments related t o boat slip rental. Enforcement related to Emerald Ash Borer may generate future code enforcement activity as trees on private property become hazardous. FINANCIAL IMPACT: As the population increases, code enforcement cases would be expected to rise. At some point in the future it may be necessary to hire seasonal, part-time, or full-time personnel to assist in administering the case load. ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: ATTACHMENT: 1. Motion and second, as part of the consent agenda, to accept the code enforcement 2018 year-end report and provide direction to staff to evaluate potential ordinance amendments related to boat slip rental and report findings and recommendations to the Council. 2. Remove this item from the consent agenda for additional discussion. Alternative No. 1. 1. Code Enforcement Presentation (presented at 4/15/19 work session) 6 EXHIBIT A 123 127 105 195 74 77 109 99 110 14 23 19 12%12% 10% 18% 7% 7% 10% 9% 10% 1% 2% 2% TALL GRASS PROPERTY MTC. PERMIT VIOLATIONS GARBAGE & REFUSE JUNK STORAGE YARD PARKING JUNK VEHICLES ROW PUBLIC NUISANCE ANIMAL SIGNAGE ZONING USE Percent of Total Violations & Number in Each Category # of Complaints % of Complaints 7 EXHIBIT B Year Totals 2016 - 832 2017 - 823 2018- 1075 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 56 85 149 92 7 77 99 4 73 17 89 84 62 91 79 170 14 69 46 23 66 14 61 128 74 105 195 123 23 77 99 14 109 19 110 127 # of ViolationsViolations Categories Violation Comparison 2016-2018 2016 -832 2017 - 823 2018-1075Yearly Totals 8 EXHIBIT C 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 VIOLATIONS 229 235 271 314 802 664 919 832 823 1075 CLOSED CASES 229 235 271 295 595 516 685 633 600 762 229 235 271 314 802 664 919 832 823 1075 229 235 271 295 595 516 685 633 600 762 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 10 YEAR TOTAL VIOLATIONS AND CLOSED CASES TOTALS 9 EXHIBIT D 104 519 90 43 6 14% 68% 11%6% 1% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 5 DAYS OR LESS No Violation No Action Required 104 cases >14% 14 DAYS One Notice 519 cases < 65% 28 DAYS Two Notices 90 cases < 14% 60 DAYS Third/Final Notice 43 cases > 6% Citation/Abatement Closed Cases 6 cases > 1%PercentageType of Notice & Length of Process to Resolve Violation/s PROCESS FOR CLOSED 2018 CASES QUANTITY PERCENTAGE 10 EXHIBIT E Anonymous/Combo Citizens Pro-Active Code Officer Internal Staff # of Complaints 115 348 239 60 % of Complaints 15%46%31%8% 115 348 239 60 15% 46% 31% 8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 SOURCE OF 2018 CLOSED CASES 11 EXHIBIT F