HomeMy WebLinkAbout101507 Work Session
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, Ml".,5372-1714
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
City Council
Jesse Corrow, Code Enforcement Officer
City Council Workshop
October 15,2007
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this workshop is to discuss Code enforcement with the City Council and
receive direction on the following:
a. Feedback on programs to date;
b. Types and subjects for communications to the public;
c. Code enforcement priorities;
d. Enforcement process feedback, and
e. Other Council concerns.
Each of these headings is contained in this memo with the request for City Council
comments on each.
BACKGROUND:
In the past, the City of Prior Lake has responded to Code violations largely on a
complaint basis. While this method of enforcement may have been successful in meeting
the immediate needs of the individual reporting the violation, it has failed to address other
umeported violations that detract from the aesthetic integrity of the City. As the
population of the City grows to more than 40,000 by 2030, Code enforcement issues are
likely to increase, driven by concerns related to safety and aesthetics. Recognizing this
fact, the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan added the following five-year goal and two-year
objectives as a part of the Vision Element titled Quality Community Growth:
FIVE -YEAR GOAL: Maximize the attractiveness of residential and commercial
properties through proactive Code enforcement.
TWO-YEAR OBJECTIVES:
y Eliminate the outdoor storage of inoperable or unlicensed vehicles.
y Clean up areas which may pose a risk to the City's wellhead protection area or cause
pollution to area surface water ponds, wetlands and lakes.
www.cityofpriorlake.com
LlCODEENF\CodeEnforcementworkshopmemp~bh~ 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
In order to meet these objectives, the City hired its first full-time Code Enforcement
Officer in July, 2007. The intent was to address outstanding Code violations and at the
same time begin a proactive enforcement program. This program has been in place for
three months now. Today, the staff would like to discuss progress and our observations
about this approach with the Council.
PROGRESS TO DATE:
Previously, a Building Inspector has carried out Code enforcement duties on a part time
basis, as time allowed. Under that format, Code enforcement was a secondary priority.
In July of2007, the City took a significant step toward implementing a proactive Code
Enforcement Program with the hiring of a full-time Code Enforcement Officer. This new
position provides a dedicated staff member responsible for initiating and enforcing the
proactive program. Staff believes this will maximize the attractiveness of residential and
commercial properties in the city.
a. We are interested in knowing what, if anything, the Council has heard about
the Code enforcement program.
WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING:
In an attempt to gather insights from other communities, staff contacted seven
communities (Lakeville, Eagan, Minnetonka, Maple Grove, St. Louis Park, Eden Prairie,
and Burnsville) for the purpose of conducting a survey and to learn about their process of
enforcement. In addition, staff met with Scott County code compliance officials to
evaluate the process utilized at the County level. City staffwas able to conclude the
following:
· There is an even distribution between the numbers of communities that rely on
complaint versus proactive enforcement.
· The majority of the communities surveyed follow a similar enforcement process as
that utilized by the City of Prior Lake.
· The majority of the communities surveyed have one to two full-time dedicated Code
enforcement staff.
· The majority of the communities surveyed face similar enforcement issues as those
that exist in the City of Prior Lake.
COMPONENTS OF PROACTIVE ZONING CODE PROGRAM:
It is our goal to provide a more proactive approach to improving the aesthetics of our
City. Staff believes some methods for a successful proactive Code Enforcement Program
should include the following:
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH: We feel education about City Codes will playa major role
in achieving Code compliance. By inforrning the public of the most common violations
and making it easier to access the ordinance, we can curtail many of the violations.
L:\CODEENF\Code Enforcement workshop memo2007.doc
2
Utilizing the popularity ofthe City's web site, we can reach out to greater numbers of
citizens by posting links and pertinent information related to the ordinance. Staff has
been developing the web link, which will initially include information related to the
following:
. Junk and Junk Vehicles
· Garbage Receptacles and Refuse
. Grass and Weeds
· Parking Requirements (lawn parking, etc)
. Pet Nuisances
· Recreational Equipment and Storage
· Signage
· Sales (Yard sales and other miscellaneous items)
. Fences and Retaining Walls
Another method of informing the public is already underway. It includes a monthly
installment in the Wavelength titled "Knowing the Code". This section of the
Wavelength contains a different topic with each publication and offers a friendly
reminder to the citizens on some of the finer points of a given ordinance.
b. Does the Council agree these areas deserve public information attention?
PRIORITIES: Staff believes that many of the same complaints reported most commonly
by citizens should remain as top priorities for proactive Code enforcement. Some of
these priorities include the following (no specific order):
. Health and Safety Issues
. Junk
. Junk Cars
. Pet Nuisances
. Grass/Weeds
. Parking Issues
. Refuse in Yards
. Signs
· Outdoor Storage
· Violations of Conditional Use Permits
It should be noted that issues related to the general aesthetic upkeep of structures are not
addressed as a part ofthe City Code. However, if the condition of the structure is a
matter of health or safety, the International Building Code can address these concerns.
c. From the Council's perspective, what are the top 3 or 5 priorities?
PROCESS: Staff feels the current process being utilized, though time consuming, is
effective in achieving compliance, which is the ultimate goal. The following process is
initiated by a complaint, but the same process is utilized for staff identified violations.
L\CODEENF\Code Enforcement workshop rnemo2007.doc
3
Step 1:
Inspection #1:
A complaint is received, documented, and the property is inspected to verify that a
violation exists, or staff identifies a potential violation. Ifpossible, the staff will talk with
the property owner. If no one is home, the staff places a "Warning" notice, along with a
business card, on the door.
Step 2:
Correspondence #1:
Once a violation is verified, the property owner is given an initial notice (attached) that
states the violation, references the ordinance, and advises them what is needed to correct
the violation. The property owner is given a deadline to correct the violation. The
amount of time given depends on the nature of the violation.
· As a general rule, staff attempts to make personal contact with the owner to
educate them on the violation and options for correcting it.
Step 3:
Inspection #2:
The property is re-inspected after the deadline date for compliance. Ifpossible, the staff
will talk with the property owner.
Step 4:
Correspondence #2:
If the violation is still present, the property owner will receive a Final Warnin2:
(attached). This notice is more serious in tone and advises them that failure to comply
with the ordinances will result in a citation, referral to the Joint Scott Prosecuting
Attorney for court action, or referral to the City Attorney for civil action. The warning
gives the violator a final deadline for compliance.
· When a violator shows progress toward compliance or has made contact to
explain their situation, an extension to the deadline may be granted. As
mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal of code enforcement is compliance, so
staff is always willing to work with a property owner as long as reasonable
progress is made.
Step 5:
Inspection #3
After the final deadline date has passed, the property is inspected for the final time. If
possible, the staff will talk with the property owner.
Step 6:
Court Action
Correspondence #3
L:\CODEENF\Code Enforcement workshop rnemo2007.doc
4
If the violation still exists, the property owner would then be charged with a violation of
the City Ordinance. This process would involve either the issuance of a citation by the
Code Enforcement Officer or the owner being charged through the formal complaint
process by the City Attorney's Office. A courtesy letter is mailed to the property owner,
advising them that the matter has been turned over to the City Attorney's office.
This process gives the property owner sufficient notification regarding the violation and
allows adequate time to correct the violation. At the same time, this process
demonstrates to the court that the City has appropriately notified the property owner and
given sufficient time for the violation to be corrected.
All complaints/violations are tracked and recorded in digital form, along with other
pertinent information (i.e., dates, correspondences, photos, etc). Staff is currently
evaluating software tools to allow for increased tracking efficiency and innovative file
sharing capacity.
d. Does the Council have any observations about the process?
CHALLENGES:
Most Code Enforcement Officers will say their jobs follow the 90/1 0 rule: 90% of the
cases take 10% of your time and 10% of your cases take 90% of your time. Most people,
once notified of a violation, will correct it. There is a minority, however, that refuse to
comply or become chronic violators. Taking these cases through the legal process is
greatest challenge.
We can pursue a legal case against a vioIator through criminal action or through civil
action. On the criminal side, the prosecutors and judges rarely perceive a City Code
violation as serious or time sensitive. So, the process can be stalled for a long time,
resulting in staff and citizen frustration. Often, the end result is a plea bargain which may
result in a fine or other penalty, but still does not result in compliance. The civil process
is more likely to result in compliance, but it too is time consuming and costly. That is
why the City Attorney and staff developed the "paint by numbers" civil process.
Active code enforcement can also create some political challenges. There are some who
may not appreciate being told they cannot do things the way they are used to doing them,
because it is in violation of the City Code.
Once citizens become used to an active code enforcement program, a benefit is that they
become self-policing. Citizens are more likely to advise their neighbors about illegal
activity. We may also see an increase in complaints as people notice violations and
realize we are able to correct the problem in a reasonable amount of time. This benefit
will also lead to higher standards for the community.
L\CODEENF\Code Enforcement workshop memo2007.doc
5
PRIORITIES:
Based on the most recent discussions and actions by the City Council, the staff has
identified some upcoming enforcement areas.
Aesthetics: In order to address aesthetic upkeep of structures beyond the parameters of
the Building Code, (peeling paint, etc), a Property Maintenance Code would be necessary.
Such a code could address a variety of issues, including property upkeep and appearance,
parking and outdoor storage, and so on. If the Council wishes to consider this issue in the
future, it is likely that additional staffing will be necessary, especially as the City
continues to grow, and housing stock ages.
Docks and Marinas: The recent task force created by the City Council will address
policies pertaining to docks and marinas. It is likely these policies may become
ordinances at some point in the future. Such an ordinance will very likely result in the
need for some additional staffing, at least for the first season or two.
Recreation Vehicles: Because Prior Lake is a recreational community, there are large
numbers of recreational vehicles. Over the past few years, we have been actively
enforcing the parking of such vehicles on residential lots. However, the Zoning
Ordinance does not address on-street parking of these vehicles. We have found that many
recreational vehicles are now being parked in the public right-of-way. Does enforcement
need to be stepped up on this matter?
CONCLUSION:
As this program continues, the staffwill continue to explore ways to be more efficient.
For example, an electronic ticket writer will be purchased and assigned to the Code
Enforcement Officer. As computers are upgraded, we will consider providing a laptop to
the Code Enforcement Officer for use in the City car. Weare also continuing to evaluate
different software to track violations, and to aid the citizens in tracking and understanding
the program. All of these items will occur over time as funding permits.
The goal of any code enforcement program is to enhance the health, safety and aesthetics
of the City. To this end, the focus of the program will be on compliance and not
punishment. Staff believes we can accomplish this first by educating the citizens of Prior
Lake, and then by working with individual violators to identify the problem and options
for complying with the City Code.
e. Does the Coullcil have allY other cOllcems?
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Warning Notice
2. Sample Initial Letter
3. Final Notice
L:\CODEENF\Code Enforcement workshop memo2007.doc
6
WARNING
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
Address:
, This property has been issued a
warning ticket for violation of Prior Lake City Code, Section:
SE,ction 401.500
Building Without A Proper Permit.
SE,ction 601.504
Storage Of Garbage And Refuse Containers.
SE,ction 603.101
Cutting And Removal Of Grass And Weeds Over Twelve Inches (12").
Section 606.300
Unlawful Conduct Regarding Storage Of Junk And Junk Vehicles.
Section 802.1001
Pet Nuisance, Dog/Cat Running At Large, Dog Barking.
Section 1102.800(2)
No Vehicle Shall Be Stored, Displayed, Or Parked In Required Yard Area.
Section 1102.800(3)
Storage Of Recreational Equipment Out Of Season.
SElction 1107.203(13)
IIIE~gal Use Of Parking Area.
SElction
Failure to abate the indicated violation(s) within ten (10) days may result in a citation
being issued.
COMMENTS:
Issued By:
Required Date of Compliance:
Date:
(Initial Letter)
July 12, 2007
John Example
XXXX Prior Lake Rd SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear John:
The City of Prior Lake received a complaint regarding the vehicles parked on the lawn,
the junk vehicles in the driveway, and the junk in the yard, at your property on XXXX
Prior Lake St SW. An inspection of the property revealed an apparent violation of Prior
Lake City Code.
Specifically, the following:
y Ordinance Section 1102,,800(2): No Vehicle Shall Be Stored, Displayed,
Or Parked in Required Yard Area. (Copy Enclosed)
y Ordinance Section 606.300: Unlawful Conduct Regarding Storage Of
Junk And Junk Vehicles. (Copy Enclosed)
This office would like to solicit your cooperation in correcting the violations as noted
above by Julv 23rd, 2007. If you should have any questions regarding this matter or you
cannot meet the compliance date, call my direct phone number at 447-9811 between
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist you. Enclosed is a
copy of our City Code pertaining to the violation.
The City appreciates your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely,
Jesse Corrow,
Code Enforcement Officer
Initial Warning Sample. DOC
~~NAt~ NOTICE
"""""
August 3, 2007
John Example
XXXX Prior Lake Rd SW
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Mr. Example:
On 3/10/06, you were notified by this office that you were in violation of the City
Zoning Ordinance. Our records indicate you were made aware of the nature of
the violation, the action necessarY to correct the violation, and that you were
given an extension until August 3rd, 2007 to comply with the City Code.
You are in violation of:
~ Ordinance Section 1102.800(2): No Vehicle shall be stored,
displayed, or parked in a required yard area. (Copy Enclosed)
~ Ordinance Section 606.300: Unlawful conduct regarding storage of
junk and junk vehicles. (Copy Enclosed)
Another inspection was made of your property and that inspection revealed that
the necessary corrective action had not been taken. This letter will serve as
your final notice that if the violatiion is not corrected on or before AUQust
13th, 2007, you will be subject to a summons,l and your file will be referred
to the Joint Scott Prosecuting Attorney for court action.
The City appreciates your cooperation regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Jesse Corrow,
Code Enforcement Officer
Final Warning. DOC