After being elected to the Council last year, my exposure to the Code Compliance Dept increased dramatically. I heard complaints from some residents that the department was too strict and from others how the inspectors were overlooking violations. Some previous Council members preferred that Code only respond to complaints—I guess on the theory that there wasn't an actual problem unless a case was so egregious as to be reported—and other members appeared to want the department to be their personal enforcers. I think we can do much better than solely look at the complaints and I vehemently disagree with any Council member trying to direct any department for their personal wishes.

Because of resource constraints, and because several inspectors were inspecting only rental properties, personnel could just keep up with the complaints. If someone reported his neighbor for high grass, the house two doors down with even higher grass might not receive any notice.

My feelings have been that all residences in the city need to maintain minimum housing standards. Anything less leads to unsafe living conditions, illnesses, greater ambulance and emergency personnel costs, decreased property values in the area, and the list goes on. Minimum should be a threshold that is truly a minimum that doesn't create unnecessary burdens on residents. It should apply to everyone, not just certain classes or certain types of residential or only certain areas.

Finally, I feel that a major part of code compliance should be education. Let people know what the minimums are and why. Try to address whole neighborhoods rather than individual residences. Let people know you're coming—it doesn't have to be: "gotcha." If residents know and take the initiative to correct problems, then neighborhood inspections will go much faster and easier.

Code Compliance has moved that direction under Rick Barker, Neighborhood Standards Manager, Steve Killen, Director of Code Compliance, and Richard Briley, Managing Director of the Health and Code Departments. It is probably fair to term the new strategy as "more carrots" and "less sticks." I support their initiative.

Presented during the Dec 3 Council work session:

 

NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DIVISION

Rick Barker, Neighborhood Standards Manager

 

Code Districts

Click for larger version

Neighborhood Standards 2007 Productivity

• 20,610 citizen-generated responses by staff
• 19,065 staff-initiated inspections
• 1572 citations issued for non-compliance
• 76% of citations accepted by Municipal Court
• 1591 cases were abated by city contractor (Cost: $196,000; Lien Revenue: $201,546)

Reorganization of Staff

• 6 Service Request (Complaint) Inspectors
• 6 Proactive Inspectors
• 2 Specialists
• 2 "Sweepers"

Objectives

• Continue to provide prompt and courteous responses to all service requests (24-48 hours)
• Reduce reactionary responses via proactive inspections across the city; targeting obvious, abatable nuisance violations
• Minimize delays associated with nuisance abatements by observing the violation before a service request is initiated
• Improve neighborhood vitality

Previous Strategy

• Primary objective was to improve customer service
  • Ten inspectors were to perform a complete inspection at each property in response to a complaint.
  • Response to complaints was to be within 24 hours and considered the top priority of the department.
  • The volume of complaints received across an inspector's area coupled with the demand of a prompt service response created an inefficient inspection process.
    • This approach resulted in a reactive response mentality. Statistically, the goals of the department were being met, but, realistically, the neighborhood appearance was unaffected.

New Strategy

• Improved utilization of resources via modification of inspection tactics
  • Incorporate three new positions into the Neighborhood Standards Division.
  • Complaint responses will remain a priority and responses should still be within 24-48 hours.
  • A proactive component was added. These routed inspections will target nuisance violations, street-by-street and alley-by-alley, assuring a systematic process and thereby improving efficiency.
  • The desired result will be an aesthetic improvement in the neighborhoods.
• Redistricting to allow systematic approach inspecting the City
  • Previously, the focus on quick responses to Service Requests resulted in a random enforcement process
  • Now, Service Request (Complaint) Inspectors will free Proactive Inspectors to perform more thorough evaluations of the neighborhood and will not be required to cease proactive surveys to respond to Service Requests. Consequently, Proactive Inspectors will evaluate each street within a sub-area via inspection routes.

Methodology

• Goal: each property will be evaluated 3 times per year
  • The City has been redistricted to include six proactive inspection areas, each with four sub-areas.
  • One month will be devoted to each sub-area to perform initial and follow-up inspections. Prior to entering a sub-area to begin inspections, signs will be placed to inform residents of inspectors in the area.
  • At the completion of the month, each street within the sub-area will have been surveyed targeting properties with obvious violations.
  • At the completion of the fourth month, all properties within the six inspector districts will have been evaluated at least once.
• The two "sweepers" will be used when proactive inspectors report heavy concentrations of violations that would impede the completion of the respective sub-area within the specified month.
• The two specialist positions will be utilized as before, with emphasis focusing on thoroughfares and vacant parcels.
• Annual Notice utilization will be enhanced to allow timelier abatements of recurring nuisances.

Program Implementation

• The Proactive Program began October 15
  • Citizenry and staff have been receptive to the change in methods
  • Approximately 8000 Notices of Violations were issued in the first month (violations that may not have been observed without a service request under the previous method).
  • Completion of sub-area within the specified time appears achievable.

ANNUAL COMPARISON
FY 2005-2006 / 2006-2007

	2006	2007	Change
Complaints	14,431	20,610	43%
Inspections	33,982	94,100	177%
Citations	1167	1572	30%

 

EARLY INDICATORS
Four-Week Comparison (Oct 15–Nov 15)

	Prior Program	Current Program	Change
Notices	1556	7980	413%
Work Orders	88	344	291%

 

Challenges

• Inspector office time will increase due to data entry requirements and software limitations, the volume of notices, and related phone calls.
• Peak season (high grass/water restrictions) may require shifting staff to address complaint responses in a timely fashion.
• Work order abatements and associated costs are anticipated to increase.
• Compliance responses have overwhelmed Environmental Waste Services.

Performance Evaluation of the Program

• A quantifiable decrease in complaints received from the citizenry will justify the continuance of the proactive program
• A successful decrease in the number of violations per residence via departmental audits
• Desire to survey Neighborhood Associations as to the success/failure of the program on perceived results

Obviously from the data, the revised program is more effective addressing violations with the same number of personnel. It is too early to know how most citizens will view the results.

In the criteria, reference is made more than once to aesthetics. As a general principle, I do not believe it is government's role to determine and regulate aesthetics. Many people do want to live where aesthetics can be regulated and they often choose to live in a homeowners association where residents can determine their common expectations. But I don't believe the use in the document above is intended to be a statement for regulating aesthetics. Rather, if health and safety issues are addressed—if grass is cut low enough to not be a home to rodents and other pests, if roofs are kept in repair to not leak and cause structural and safety problems, if structures are painted to prevent decay and pest encroachment, if personal property is kept from the public right of way, if pools are kept clean to not become breeding areas for mosquitoes and diseases—there will invariably be a perceived quality in the neighborhood that can be aesthetically measured. Aesthetics may be a result while not have been the goal.

You can watch the total presentation on Garland's on-line CGTV web casts. There are two parts and both together are over an hour. The presentation reviews all of the Health and Code departments, not just the information above.

[Return to Website]