The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About43-Building and Safety C~T~ OF SAN BERNARDI~ - REQUE~ FOR COUNCIL' ~Ct?Ot( . From: MARK SUTTON, DIRECTOR Dept: BUILDING & SAFETY SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Date: JUNE 23, 1988 Synopsis of Previous Council action: 6-20-88 -- In re,:,iew of the 6-13-88 Ways and Means Committee Minu~elsl " Counc~l approved the placing of the Expanded qode Enfokcement Program on the July 5, 1988, agenda for consideration by the Mayor and Common Council. ' . Recommended motion: '. That the Expanded Code Enforcement Program outlined in Option II as provided be approved and continued to be included in the proposed 1988-89 General Fund Budget. Signature #1Uk- Contact person: Supporting data attached: Yes Phone: 5174 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS! Amount:$255,OOO 1st Year Ward: All ($84..000) ($90,000) ($81,000) Source: ROil, Refuse, Gen. Fund Fin8nce:_~ t)rr - Council Notes: A..,iliII"....~ I.......... 1'1.1.... 713. "-eC1TY OF SAN BE;BNARDINO) - MEMORANDU.~ .,' To Jim Robbins, Acting City Administrator ADMINISTRATION From Mark I. Sutton, Director 8UILDING & SAFETY Subject Date EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM OPTIONS JUNE 22, 1988 Approved Date At the Ways & Means Committee Meeting of June 13, 1988, the Committee asked me to come up with options to the Proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program so as to lessen the financial impact to the City. After careful consideration, the attached options were generated and the im- pacts of the proposed options. Briefly, Option No.1 will acomp1ish the goals as outlined in the Expanded Code Enforcement Program Report. Option No.2 re- duces the amount of work that can b~ acheived; however, does retain the Super- visora1 Structure that is desperately needed and is currently adequate. Option No.3 further reduces and limits the ability of the Code Compliance Division to meet the needs of this community; however, again retains the needed supervisoral aspects of the program, which has become deficient due to the un- planned evolution of the code compliance effort, and the emphasis that is placed on the Board of Building Commission, which is suffering from inadequate admini- strative procedures also. The program, ,as well as the options, emphasize establishing the basic super- visoral structure first, so as to provide the building blocks for future expansion as may be directed by the Mayor and Common Council. The funding for this program can be reduced if Option No. 2 or No. 3 are chosen, and the funding requirements could be reduced proportionally; however, if Options No, 2 or No.3 are chosen, the Redevelopment Agency's portion of funding shou19 be eliminated, due to the fact that currently little or no code enforce- ment activities are being performed in the redevelopment areas unless specifi- cally reported and without the staff to participate in the pro-active Code Enforcement Programs, this situation is unlikely to change, thus eliminating the ability to charge off expenses to this fund. The attached options note that part-time employee's are not recommended at this time, due to not having a working and viable program in place. Part-time em- ployees are not norma11y,used in the capacity of Code Compliance Officers, due to the complexity and the potential liability that this type of position could incur to the City. Training would pose another major problem, due to the lack of continuity of the part-time employee; however, once the supervisora1 struc- ture and administrative procedures are established and working for awhile, the Mayor and Common Council may want to experiment with this concept. From past experience, part-time employees are normally more effective when placed in more straight forward positions. ;:c:l'CE' ..,. ;'.~,. ->.,,~':_,- -'.~ '" ",-' . 'I~- - ~ ~": . "--'1 --~ ;;..;.\....~'j/' ~.---- ..;;.~. . 1.t - - \S.:t, ~ .'n.~1", .,,\~n" '!AG ~ , ,JIM ~INS, ACTING CITY ADMINISTRAT~ JUNE 22, 1988 EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM OPTIONS o o I am still strongly recommending approval of Option No, 1, and feel that it will make a npticeab1e difference in the community, not only in appear- ance, but also in the Public's eyes when their com~laints are answered in a timely fashion. Sincerely, #t/ 14- Mark 1. Sutton, Director/Building Official BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT MIS/TMO cc: Mayor Evlyn Wilcox Jim Richardson, Administration/Development Services t o' EXPANDED ~ ENFORCEMENT P~AM OPTIONS o I'tV. 1 1-Code Compliance Supervisor $ 31,450.00 1-Senior Code Compliance Officer 28,600.00 1-Typist Clerk III 16,800.00 3-Code Compliance Officers 77,650.00 $154,500.00 + $35,000 = $189,500.00 (Personnel Services) 67,500.00 (Vehicles and Supplies) 1st Year ($255,000.00) 2nd Year ($189,500.00) IMPACT: Option No.1 will allow the City to accomplish the goals as outlined in the proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program, as follows: 1) Resolve the case backlog, which is now grown to 609 cases. 2) Once the backlog is resolved, be responsive to Code Enforcement complaints within 24 to 48 hours of the complaint being reported. 3) 8e able to participate in pro-active Code Enforcement Programs. 4) Streamline enforcement procedures. 5) Provide an adequate level of supervision for the Code Compliance Officers, as well as effectively managing the 80ard of Building Commission matters. No.2 1-Code Compliance Supervisor $ 31,450.00 1-Senior Code Compliance Officer 28,600.00 1-Typist Clerk III 16.800.00 1-Code Compliance Officer 25,890,00 $102,740.00 + $23,120 = $125,860.00 (Personnel Services) 41.000.00 (Vehicles and Supplies) 1st Year ($166,860.00) 2nd Year ($125,860.00) IMPACT: Option No.2 would reduce the Code Compliance ~ivision ability to respond to Code Complaints, and would effectively limit this division to: PAGE 1 OF 2 o o o o OPTION No, 2 (cont.) I 1) Maintaining the current level of backlogged complaints with the the possibility of working down the backlog in the winter months. 2) Provide a mechanism for streamlining the enforcement procedures. 3) Establish an adequate supervision structure, which will provide proper supervision and will allow a more comprehensive monitoring system for Board of Building Commission matters. No.3 1LCode Compliance Supervisor $ 31,450.00 1-Senior Code Compliance Officer 28,600.00 1-Typist Clerk III 16.800.00 $ 76,850.00 + $17,300 = $ 94,150.00 (Personnel Services) 28,000.00 (Vehicles and Supplies) 1st Year ($122,150.00) 2nd Year ($ 94,150.00) IMPACT: Option No.3 will limit this Division to: 1) Establishing a supervision structure, which will provide supervision for the Code Compl iance Officers and 1 imit the administrative problems that the Board of Building Commission is experiencing. NOTE: ANY OF THE ABOVE OPTIONS COULO UTILIZE PART-TIME EMPLOYEES; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT RECOMMENDED UNTIL THE SECOND YEAR OF FULL OPERATION. PAGE 2 of 2 . o o o o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Attached is the Program as requested January 11, 1988. proposed Expanded Code En~'C'~e~~loIlll. OFF. by the Ways and Means commi,~~r.t1 yg ~ Also attached are the staff comments that were received after the presentation of the draft report. This report gives you a brief overview of the City and the problems that this City is facing, with regards to a Code Enforcement effort, a proposed Staffing Requirement with Funding Requirements and Revenue Sources, and a time line of implementation. The proposed Staffing Requirements consist of six (6) new positions (Code Compliance Supervisor, Senior Code Compliance Officer, Typist Clerk III, and three (3) Code Compliance Officers), which will bring the strength of this Division up to nine (9) employees. The Funding Requirements for this proposed program is $255,000.00 for the first year and $189,500 in subsequent years. The Funding Source is consistent with previous funding proposals as follows: First Year Second Year *Redevelopment Agency $ 84,000.00 $ 84,000.00 *Refuse Enterprise Fund $ 90,000.00 $ 90,000.00 *General Fund $ 81,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $255,000.00 $189,500.00 The General Fund portion is completely offset by the increase in fees. The time line for implementation of this program is three (3) months to develop and implement the supervisoral structure, and three (3) months to catch. up on the backlog, with a six month review of the program. The development of the supervisoral structure is currently under way and is 'scheduled to be ready for implementation by July 1, 1988. The goal of the program is to provide a service to the community that will enable the community to combat the deteriorating effects that are plaguing this community, and to assist others in their efforts to revitalize this community and make the City of San Bernardino a better community to live in. Staff is recommending the approval and implementations of the proposed,Expanded Code Enforcement Program. ..I . o o o ipY\ C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8805-302 , - ;. TO: Ways and Means Committee FROM: Mark I. Sutton, Director of Building' Safety SUBJECT: Expanded Code Enforcement Program DATE: May 4, 1988 (7430) COPIES: Mayor Evlyn Wilcox, Common Council, Jim Robbins- Acting City Administrator, Jim Richardson-Deputy City Administrator, Jim Penman-City Attorney, Shauna Clark-City Clerk, Ann Siracusa-Director of Planning, Glenda Saul-Executive Director Redevelopment Agency, Ken Henderson-Director of Community Development, Chief Gerald Newcombe-Fire Department, Manuel Moreno, Jr.-Director of Public Services, Police Chief Don Burnett ------------------------------------------------------------- Attached is the proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program, as requested by the Committee on January ll, 1988. The first draft went out on April 12, 1988, asking for comments and concerns. Attached are all of the comments that were received. I have discussed all departments and have appropriate. , Staff is respectfully submitting the proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program for the Committee's consideration and implementation. Thank you. of the comments with the concerned incorporated their concerns, where ;;;;Jt I Mark I. Sutton, Director/Building Official BUILDING , SAFETY DEPARTMENT MIS/tmo Enclosures . o C I T Y OF J:JN BERNDDINO INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8804-1118 o TO: Mark sutton, Director of Building and Safety FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: COMMENTS TO EXPANDED CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT DATE: April 26, 1988 (7422) COPIES: Acting City Administrator; Deputy City Admini- strator-Development Services; Director of Planning; Director of Public Works; Director of Public Works, File ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark, this memorandum is a written follow-up to my oral comments provided to you at the April 15, 1988 agenda brief- ing: 1. The expanded code enforcement program you have developed is excellent in concept and proposed implementation. This assessment is modified only to the extent as noted in items numbered 2 and 3 below. 2. Include the Community Development Department as department working closely with Building and Safety, particularly as it relates to demolition and rehabilitation projects. 3. Expanded code enforcement is expected to increase workload of department in those areas noted in item number 2 above. Much of the workload increase could be successfully mitigated if Building and Safety and Community Development can develop information dissemination techniques which will expedite the processing of various requests for financial assistance. Please call me at 5065 if additional information or clarifi- cation is required. ~ ! .. '", '" If, \~J JL, i',-..:' r:'i~i~.3 }., "r . v ....- Kennet J. Henderson Director of Communit Development n' fl" ~ wJ". . . ,...-~! , ' " ~,;.:"f'f . .'. " .:".~.'.~~~; ....-. KJH/lab . . c9rv OF SAN BERrQRDINO Q. MEMORANDUIVP TO~~rk Sutton, Director, Bldg. & Safety Dept. Frocn Council Office Subject Expanded Code Enforcement Date April 21, 1988 Approved Date Your memo on code enforcement strikes a positive mood fer me. However, I am concerned with the financial impact a::d type of funding. I must say that I would like to see CDBG f'.:nding, if at all possible, and would hate to fund it from t::e General Fund. On page 7 of your memo you refer to the g=als for the program and I believe that items 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the most important aspects of the goal. I support good, tough code enforcement and I support your e:forts. -/ t1.M ~ TOM MINOR Councilman, Fifth Ward TX:sr ".. ,- ":;-', ~ I ~Ll) ..J ,c\PR 25 1988 ~^-......."'- 3V!LOIN~ & :-:..' ~.. ':"'y Cf SAM S~~,"'<"'-' -" PF:JE .I ,~ESS 'c~v OF SAN BERARDINO .Q. MEMORANDUNP To Mark Sutton. Director Building 6 Safety Code Enforcement Report From Subject Date Shauna Clark City Clerk April 21, 1988 , Approved Date Code will I have reviewed your report dated April 18. 1988, entitled: "Expanded Enforcement Program Report". I feel that the report is very good and be supported by the Council; however, I have a slight prob~em. Our department has been seriously impacted by a change in the weed abatement lien process (see letter attached). This chanr,e is a result of a requirement imposed by the City Attorney that an additional notification be sent to property owners. Our first experience with this was last month and the impact has been much greater than we anticipated in terms of tracking down information for property owners and answering questions. Even if Public Services were to pass on these costs to the property owner, the additional income never comes back to this department; therefore, we have no way to recover the time and money spent on the lien process. We find that due to increased Council meetings and staff shortages we cannot keep up with the liens that are coming now. lfhen we were asked about increased demolition liens we felt that we could keep up. Now that the additional burden of imposing 2000 weed abatement liens is with us, we must re-evaluate. One solution would be to transfer the lien process for building demolitions to the Department of Building and Safety. If that is not acceptable, then the other solution would be to charge an additional administrative cost for our expenses and pass the money back to us for temporary help. ~ I realize it will take at least six months from implementation for expanded code enforcement to be fully operational; therefore, if the second is selected I will not be asking for additional staff until we can gage the full impact. -\C ",' ~?1A{4/~./ /' City Cler SC:khb \ ' ' cc,: Mayor, Co1lllllQn Counci1,City Administrator, Deputy City' Admlnfstt;ator, City Attorney, Planning, iedevelopmentAgency, Community Development, Fire D<!pattment . COO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - o MEMORANDUM w- To Manuel Moreno, Jr. Director, Public Services Subjec! Weed Abatement Notifications - Costs From Shauna Clark City Clerk Date February 4, 1988 Approved Date The purpose of this memorandum is to communicate the costs associated with the requirements in Resolution 88-7. Resolution 88-7 confirms the costs of abatement of public nuisances (weed abatement) and imposing liens. Prior to Resolution 88-7, the City Clerk's Office has absorbed the cost of preparing the resolution for recordation and getting it recorded. A new provision in Resolution 88-7 requires the City Clerk's Office to send individual notification to the owner of each parcel. Since this will greatly impact this office, I have estimated the additional costs and am requesting that these administrative costs borne by the City Clerk's Office be added to all future billings for weed abatement. The following is an estimation of direct costs based on notifi- ing 2,000 per year: Cost of photocopying form letters for each property owner Cost of photocopying each resolution to be sent to the property owner $ 200.00 600.00 Supplies: 12 reams of paper 2,000 envelopes & 2,000 sheets of stationary 144.00 Labor: Typing of envelopes or address labels for each property owner 203.00 600.00 Recordkeeping 625.00 75.00 250.00 440.00 Preparation of form letters Recording of lien resolution Postage (Assuming we do not have to send the notices certified) TOTAL $3,137.00 =====a=a_ The above costs are direct costs. Nothing has been added for overhead. Il . o o o o Manuel Moreno, Jr. February 4, 1988 Page 2 Aside from these quantifiable costs, there are many costs that cannot be estimated. For example, a number of persons, after receiving our notice and a copy of the resolution, will come to the City Clerk's Office to pay the charges so that the charges do not appear on their tax bill. At that time, there is the labor involved in looking up the records, preparing a cash receipt and running it through the system. This is at least a fifteen minute process from start to finish. Others will wait until it is too late and the resolution has gone to lien, but for some reason or another, they will want to pay the bill and have it removed from the tax records. This is a very costly process for this office, as, aside from preparing , the cash receipt, we must prepare a release of lien and have it signed before a notary public (30 minutes). The City Clerk's Office is also required to calculate and collect interest on liens once they have been placed on the tax bill. The liens cannot be released until the interest, in addition to the amount of the lien, has been collected. The property owner is responsible for recordation and does not always follow through. There have been several occasions on building d~olition liens where we have prepared another release because the first one was never recorded. When the County sends a check to th~ City for building d~olition liens paid through the tax process, we take the listing that comes with the check and prepare releases for all those who have paid. When we have received a similar statement on weed abat~ent, we have forwarded it to your office for you to prepare the releases. I'm assuming that your office will continue to do this. Please let me know if I have omitted anything. ~r,(/ tf'd:r:rd SHAUNA CLARK City Clerk SC:dr cc: City Attorney City Administrator . o o o o C I T Y 0 F SAN B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8804-2103 TO: Mark Sutton, Director of Building and Safety FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning SUBJECT: Expanded Code Enforcement Program DATE: April 29, 1988 (7425) COPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry I was unable to respond to your request for com- ments prior to April 21, and I hope that this memo will still be useful to you. I have no problem with the basic program as it is described. I do have many concerns and questions regarding the policies and procedures that you indicate are being written, and would like to have the opportunity to work with you on these, since there is considerable impact on the Planning Department. Regarding the description of the program, I have the follow- ing suggestions: 1. The program should describe in greater detail on page 2 the responsibilities of the Code Compliance function, particularly in relation to enforcement of the zoning code and related sign code. The emphasis seems to be on building code enforcement but it is my understanding that the section would also enforce many city codes. 2. In terms of increased workload discussion (pages 8 and 9), it should be noted that there would be an increase in Planning Department workload (assuming that the Code Compliance Section enforces the zoning code) in the form of Variances and Conditional Use Permits. Violators generally seek administrative relief through this process. 3. A better description of how costs are charged back to property owners (page 11) who do not correct violations would be beneficial. I assume that you intend to place a lien on the property. However, will the owner be billed directly first? when will the City actually collect the money if you use the lien process -- immed- iately, or do we have to wait until the property changes hands? Have you looked into placing the charge directly . . c o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-2103 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 29,1988 Page 2 on the tax bill the way the County does? 4. Regarding funding on page 10, you do not mention using fines to pay for ongoing costs. Is this intended? Just in terms of zoning code violations, adequate fines which must be paid to the City like parking or traffic tick- ets, could fund a substantial part of the program after start up. In Santa Monica we were setting up such a program with a $500 find on the second notice of correc- tion. If the violation had to be referred to the City Attorney (third notice), the fine became $500 per day. 5. My experience is that unless there is someone in the City Attorney's office who takes a wajor interest in enforcement or whose sole duty is to prosecute enforce- ment cases, the enforcement program is less effective than it should be. Does your proposal include an attorney for this purpose? (I don't believe the state- ment on page 8 that the program will decrease the workload in the City Attorney's office.) As I indicated, I am particularly interested in working you on ,the development of the policies and procedures enforcement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. with for ,~ R. ANN SIRACUSA Director of Planning mkf P.S. It's my understanding that zoning enforcement was in the Planning Department until 1979. . o o o o C I T Y 0 F 5 A N B ERN A R DIN 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8804-211 TO: Mark Sutton, Director of Building and Safety FROM: Council Office SUBJECT: Expanded Code Enforcement Program DATE: April 21, 1988 (7417) COPIES: ------------------------------------------------------------- Except for a few typographical errors, the Expanded Code Enforcement Program Report isa well thought out, well organized and well presented report. I feel the members of the Common Council will find it very acceptable and will recommend implementation as soon as possible. I assume that will be in July. The immediate feedback is positive. Go for it. ---~ \ '- \ -L...---l PHILIP A. ARVIZO Executive Assistant to the Council PAA:jv ~ . c o o ~ 1~7 C I T Y q F SAN B ERN A R D t N 0 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 8804-307 i , TO: Ways and Means Committee FROM: Mark I. Sutton, Director of Building & Safety SUBJECT: Expanded Code Enforcement Program DATE: April 12, 1988 COPIES: Mayor Wilcox, Common Council, Jim Robbins-Acting City Administrator, Jim Richardson-Deputy City Administrator, Jim Penman-City Attorney, Shauna Clark-City Clerk, Ann Siracusa-Director of Planning, Glenda Saul-Executive Director Redevelopment Agency, Ken Henderson Director of Community Development, Chief Gerald Newcombe- Fire Department, Manuel Moreno, Jr.-Director Public Services, Police Chief Don Burnett . ------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND The City of San Bernardino has a complex code compliance problem. In general, the City has an aging housing stock. In recent years, growing numbers of units have been occupied by families with lower income, and on the average, more persons per family or household. There is also a substantial number of absentee owners. This combination of aging structures, lesser ability to pay for maintenance or renovation, absentee ownership, and, in some cases, more intense use of structures all contribute to deterioration and a range of code violations. The problem is widespread in older cities, especially those located near the centers of metropolitan areas. Experience in similar cities has shown that if there is to be any success in meeting the problem, there must be long-term , d o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April l2, 1988 Page 2 and well organized efforts. These efforts have to be aimed at both prevention of ,further deterioration and renewal through development of new structures or renovation of existing ones. An additional important factor, of course, is the income and employment situation of the community's population, a situation over which the City has relatively little power in the short range. At the present time, the City has limited capacity for code enforcement. The Building Department has three (3) Code Compliance Officers and is responsible for the enforcement of the services of the City Attorney's The City utilizes Office for code virtually all Municipal Code Violations. enforcement services in cases where prosecution is involved. The Department always tries to resolve code violations in an amicable manner, but it is sometimes necessary to go to court. Procedures are currently being developed that will heighten the awareness of the community as to the intent and willingness of the City to implement the code compliance program, as well as the steps that will be taken if voluntary compliance is not achieved. The violations are varied and may include such problems as cars parked on lawns, unsafe refuse heaps, illegal garage conversions, vacant and open structures, and overcrowding. Whatever the problem, the longer the system takes to deal with the problem, the less likely the problem will be resolved voluntarily. These problems are not limited to L. . o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 3 residential areas, commercial and industry areas are sharing in this unfortunate evolution. The City has dealt with this evolutionary problem on a reactive basis. When notified of the problem, a code officer responds and upon verification of the complaint, this complaint is put into the process. The Code Compliance Unit has evolved over the past ten (10) years from a one-man shop to the three (3) Code Compliance Officers that are currently employed. The problem I with this evolution process is that ten (10) years ago, the main purpose of the Code Compliance Section was to facilitate the demolition of aging structures. This evolved into rehabilitation of structures, to now servicing all Zoning and Municipal Code Violation complaints in conjunction, with proactive code compliance programs, such as MAC and Project Renaissance. The proactive code compliance programs have only met with limited success, due to not having the appropriate administrative procedures or supervision structure capable of handling the dramatic increase in paperwork and caseload tbat a successful expanded code enforcement program will generate. Currently, the administrative procedures a,re being reviewed and updated by this Department in conjunction with the City Attorney's Office. The major problem areas are: Q o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 4 l) The lengthy process that is'required in order to take cases to the Board of Building Commissioners. 2) The lengthy process that is required to file cases with the court on property owners that will not voluntarily comply with the codes. 3) The recovery of funds that are committed to projects such as staff time, clean-up costs and administrative costs. 4) The philosophy and actual charges for services rendered. 5) The organizational structure, which is inadequate to handle the increase in inquiries and complaints. 6) The tracking of cases from the beginning to the resolution of the violation. All of these problems are currently being worked on and when completed, will make the enforcement of the codes more efficient and cost effective. PROPOSED EXP~D CODE ENFORCEM~NI~OGRAM The proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program combines the updating of the administrative procedures, along with a change in the organizational structure. Attached is the Organization Chart of the Department of Building and Safety as it is currently (Exhibit WAW), and the proposed organizational chart (Exhibit WBW) with the recommended changes. The recommended changes encompass the reorganization of the Code Compliance Section, so as to resemble the already proven structure that is being used for the Field Inspection . c o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 5 Services Section. These changes are necessary to insure that the staff will have proper supervision, that the procedures are established to handle the day-to-day problems' and special circumstances, and that the procedures and paperwork are done so as to provide a more comprehensive tracking system for complaints. STAFFING: The proposed changes consist of adding six (6) new positions: 1) A Code Compliance Supervisor - to assist the Director in the overseeing of the Code Compliance Program; attend public meetings; coordinate the Board of Building Commissioners Agendas; coordinate the clean up demolition, and rehabilitation work that is required by the Board of Building Commissioners; to organize and direct the work of the Code Compliance Section as required. 2) A Senior Code Compliance Officer - under general supervision to investigate and inspect the circumstances and conditions involving citizen's or businesses in non-compliance with applicable laws and City Ordinances; to perform the more complex investigations; and serve as a technical resource to other code compliance staff and to perform related work as required. 3) A Typist Clerk III - under general supervision performs a variety of clerical and typing work requiring the exercise of some independent judgement, supervises assigned personnel and various clerical office functions and performs other related work as required. 4) Three (3) Code Compliance Officers - under general supervision to investigate and inspect the circumstances and conditions involving citizen's or businesses in non-compliance with applicable laws and City Ordinances; to prepare . Q o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 6 correction notices and citations; and to perform related work as required. The proposal is to establish the supervisoral and clerical aspects of the program first, then adding the additional Code Compliance Officers. This will allow the adminstrative procedures to be updated and the positions filled, that will take care of the required paper flow and complaints that this type of a program will generate. This should take approximately three (3) months to complete. After the basic program is established, future expansions will be relatively easy and enforcement will be a function of manpower. Such expansions could be the use of retired safety employees, as was suggested at the Council Workshop. This should only necessitate the addition of a Senior Code Compliance Officer to do the supervision, training, and coordination of the part-time employees. After the expanded program has been in effect for six (6) months, a re-evaluation of the program needs to take place and another look at the supervisoral structure and the staffing levels to see if they are sufficient. At that time, a determination can be made in relationship to further expansions. Currently, the Code Compliance Section has a backlog of three hundred and sixty-nine (369) cases (Exhibit .C.), that date back to the beginning of November 1987. These cases are being worked on and it appears that the current rate of cases . c o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 7 handled is approximately twenty-five (25) cases per Code Compliance Officer per month. This number may increase to forty (40) cases per Code Compliance Officer per month once the administrative procedures and the supervisoral structure is updated and in place. GOALS: The goals of the Expanded Code Enforcement Program are: 1) Resolve the case backlog and response to citizen complaints within twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) hours of the complaint being reported. 2) To assist the City's MAC Team and Project Renaissance in their future endeavors. 3) Assist the Planning Department and Redevelopment Agency in their efforts to clean up the signage in the commerical districts. 4) To streamline the enforcement procedures so as to allow problem properties to be brought into compliance in a more efficient and effective manner. 5) To insure that property owners that are unwilling to comply with the prescribed ordinances of this City are properly charged for all expenses incurred in bringing their property back into compliance. 6) And to assist the Mayor and Common Council on working on special projects, as the need arises. IMPACTS: At the Ways and Means Committee Meeting of January 11, 1988, the Committee was very concerned about how this program was going to affect other Departments. In looking at the . Q , l' ! I' i ! i o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 8 earlier code enforcement proposals, there seemed to be an indication that the Public Services Department would be unduly burdened with an increase in workload, inwhich they would be unable to handle. It appears that with the reduction in part-time employees, that the es.entialptojeets are being done and all other projects are having to wait until resources are available. This proposal addresses this problem by utUizJ.I)g' the services of outside contractors to perform the servio...l boarding-up, cleaning-up, and in some cues, the 4t~..:t~.1~ . ,:':' !<.>.'\:'j<Y\;:t:-}~ of the property. The merits to this propO'!Sal,arel 1) Reduction in the City's liability 2) The transfer of the manpower tequh:uenta fr_. the City to the private sector. 3) The ability to have several projects bei~g abated at one time. 4) The ability to charge the property for all costs involved in abating the property, plus the re~~very of administrative costs. The administrative costs are, but not limited to, the cost of the equipment, building, utilities, Attorney'sott1c:e services, interest on the capital outlay, supervi.it>n..bourlY wages and fringe benefits, etc. In checking with the City AttorneY'sOfficlt,tblill'fe81 that the new enforcement procedures will help alleviate the workload and, after an initial start-up surge,th_tln,t:be long run may reduce the enforcement reqtiirementsof<tbelr office. o . o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 9 The Planning Department will experience an increase in workload that will be proportional to the enforcement of Zoning Codes. The actual increase will be in the form of Variances and Conditional U$e Permits, as citizens and merchants look for some form of administrative relief. This will impact the Planning Commission Agenda's, as well as staff time. One way to minimize the increase in workload, is to coordinate the enforcement efforts closely and begin to work in these areas, after the General Plan is approved and implemented. The Community Development Department may provide an avenue for administrative relief, for homeowner occupied i 1 properties that may become involved with the expanded code enforcement effort. This increase in workload can be offset by having the proposed program assist the Community Development Department in their demolition and rehabilitation projects. The City Clerk's Office will experience an increase in the amount of liens recorded against properties, however, working with the Clerk on the required notification letters, we have been able to reduce some of the correspondence that is required. The Clerk's Office originally felt that they could absorb the increase in workload, however, with the new requirement from the Attorney's Office that requires the . Q o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April l2, 1988 Page 10 individual notification to the owner of each parcel that requires weed abatement, the Clerk's Office feels that they may need part-time assistance, on occasion, and feel that if they could charge this help back to whichever department that is impacting them, that this would satisfy their concerns. With the unexpected impact of public services and the proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program, the Clerk's Office would like to re-evaluate the workload once the program is in place and functioning. Wit~ the increase in the Code Compliance Program, an , } o increase in vehicle abatement will likely occur. The administrative fees for vehicle abatement have been raised to offset the increase in assigned staff for this program. The negative aspect of using outside contractors is the requirement for having to front the capital, which could be as much as $200,000 for the first year. This fund would eventually be self-supporting and with the institution of the increase administrative fees and the cost recovery measures the City Attorney's Office is developing, the time it takes for the money to be paid back, may be cut to as much as half the time it is currently taking_ This will mean a reduction in the cost recovery time from eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months to less than a year. With the use of outside contractors, the focus of the increased workload should stay, for the most part, in this Department. . o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expandeq Code Enforcement Program April l2, 1988 Page II FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: The revenues that are required to fund this portion of the Expanded Code Enforcment Program will be $220,000, plus $35,000 in benefits, or $255,000. This is broken down into recurring costs of $154,500, plus $35,000 in benefits, or $189,500; and non-recurring costs of $67,500 (Exhibit "D"). The recurring costs consist of the required personnel, and the non-recurring costs consist of the vehicles, radios, and supplies that will be needed to insure that the new employees have the proper tools to allow them to perform the assignments in the most efficient manner. Future years would be $189,500, plus whatever salary ~ increases are granted. FUNDING SOURCES: There are many ways to fund an Expanded Code Enforcement Program, such as this one. The available sources are: * Community Development Block Grant Funds * Redevelopment Agency Funds * Refuse Enterprise Funds * General Funds The Community Development Block Grant Funds are becoming a more common way to expand or establish an active code enforcement program within communities. o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 12 , Federal Regulations permit the use of Block Grant Funds (or this type of activity; however, you would only be allowed to fund the expanded portion of this program and the entire $255,500 for the first year; and the $189,500 plus increases, for subsequent years would be eligible. These funds can also be used as the funding source to pay for the clean-up, board-up and demolition, as long as the funds are repaid. The priorities for these funds are such that they are committed to other projects; however, if the funds become available, future expansions of this program can be funded with the use of these funds. The second possible funding source is to fund the entire expansion out of the projected increase revenues for Fiscal Year 1988-89 (Exhibit "E"). With the release of the moratorium and the increase of building fees, it appears that an increase of 1.2 million dollars in Building Department fees will occur. You can verify this by looking back at Fiscal Year 1986-87, the year prior to the moratorium, and apply the increase in fees. Another source of funding is the updated charges for abatement proceedings for property owners that refuse, or are unwilling to bring their property into compliance with the City Codes and Ordinances. Taking a typical abatement, the old cost for boarding up the property and doing all of the required administrative . Q' o o o INT~HO~flCE ME~OHANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 13 procedures was $l,85l,OO (Exhibit "F"). Under the update char<jes, the cost is $2,8l9.00 (Exhibit "G"). This is an increase of $968.00 or fifty-two percent (52%), and comes closer to recovering the actual cost of facilitating this type of process. With the current workload of the Board of Building Commissioners and using ten (10) abatement cases a month, this increase could generate approximately $l20,000 per year. With past experience, once the absentee and slumlords find out that this City is serious about cleaning up the City, you will find that more and more voluntary abatements will occur; however, you could expect at least a $50,000 increase in revenues by this newly updated costing schedule. The funding source that is being recommended is similar to the funding recommended previously. The funding is a combination of Redevelopment Agency Funds, Refuse Enterprise Funds and General Funds. In reviewing the previous proposals the breakdown is as follows: First Year - * Redevelopment Agency Fund - $84,000 33% * Refuse Enterprise Fund - $90,000 - $81,000 35% * General Fund 32% $255,000 lOO% . Q o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expan~~~ Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page 14 Second Year - * Redevelopment Agency Fund - $84,000 44% * Refuse Enterprise Fund - $90,000 48% * General Fund - $15,500 8% $l89,500 lOO% Again, the General Fund portion ~ill be completely offset by the increase in revenues generated by the increase in Building Permit Fees, and the update fee schedule abatement proceedings. SUMMARY The City of San Bernardino is in need of an effective code enforcement program to combat the deteriorating effects that older cities normally encounter. The City currently has three (3) Code Compliance Officers and is responsible for the enforcement of virtually all Municipal Code violations. The proposed program would establish an organizational structure and administrative procedures that would adequately handle the workload that ,would be generated by this program. This is accomplished by adding six (6) new positions, bringing the total strength of this Section to nine (9), employees. The success of this program will be predicated on the programs ability to assist other departments and the . o o o o I INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April 12, 1988 Page l5 community on their goals to clean up the City. This will consist of working closely with the MAC Team, Project Renaissance, Planning Department, Community Development Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department, Redevelopment Agency and other special projects that the Mayor and Common Council feel are necessary, in an effort to upgrade the communities standard of living. The current program is limited in resources and cannot keep up with the current work and has a backlog of complaints of three hundred sixty-nine (369), which date back to the beginning of November 1987. With the increase in staff, the number of complaints resolved should go from seventy-five (75) cases per month to two hundred (200) cases per month. catch up period to three (3) months. With the start-up time of three (3) months and a catch This would reduce the up time of three (3) months, the actual performance measuring time would begin about six (6) 'months after the program receives approval from the Mayor and Common Council. One year from the approval date, the program will be re-evaluated and any further expansion can be assessed and implemented at that time. With the proposed use of contractors for board-ups, clean-ups and demolition, the main focus of the increase workload will reside within this Department. This increase will also touch other departments with minimal effects. 1 . o o o o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 8804-307 Expanded Code Enforcement Program April l2, 1988 Page l6 I The cost of the Expanded Code Enforcement Program will be $255,000 for the first year (including benefits) and $l89,500 in subsequent years. The proposed funding is consistent with previous funding proposals, which involve the Redevelopment Agency, Refuse Enterprise Fund, and General Fund, all sharing in the increase in program costs. Note has been made that alternate funding sources could be the Community Development Block Grant Funds, which the expanded portion of this program is eligible. The goal of the program is to provide a service to the community that will enable the community to combat the deteriorating effects that are plaguing this community, and to assist others in their efforts to revitalize this community and make the City of San Bernardino a better community to live in. Staff is recommending the approval and implementations of the proposed Expanded Code Enforcement Program. ~~ Mark I. Sutton, Director/Building Official BUILDING & SAFETY DEPARTMENT MIS/tmo 0' C~RRENT "oONIZATlONAL CHARO o u"V"O'f'T'I'V ' ."'''0 T ""TT.nT~'r'! Director (u) (m) (1) I ADMINISTRATION SERVICES Senior Secretary (u) 1 Typist Clerk II 2 Account Clerk II l (4) I FIELD !SSPECTION SERVICES PLAN CHECK/COUNTER SERVICES Bldg Insp Super (mm) 1 Plan Check Engineer (m) 1 Plan Checker 1 (2) , . SOUTS SECTION MIDDLE SECTION NOR'l'B SECTION CODE COMPLIANCE Sr Bldg Insp 1 Sr Bldg Insp 1 Sr Bldg Insp 1 C C 0 2 Gen Bldg Insp 3 Gen Bldg Insp 2 Gen Bldg Insp 2 (4) ('J) ('J) EXHIBIT "A" . o' PROPOSED "OQ'HZATlONAL CHARP o ~V/'lR/('T"'" NT TOR BUILOINt': ANn ...De..... ARTM~N'I' Director (u) (m) (1) I ,.._~., C:l:'RUT Senior Secretary (u) 1 Typist Clerk III 1 Typist Clerk II 2 Account Clerk II l (5) I I 1 l'T"'LD !N~PECTION SERVICES PLAN CHECK/COUNTER SERVICES rODE COMP SERVICES Bldg Insp Super (mm) 1 Plan Check Engineer (m) 1 C C S (mm) 1 Plan Checker 2 Plans Technician 1. , (4) SOUT!! SECTION MIDDLE SECTION NORTH SECTION CITY-WIDE SERVICES Sr 81dg Insp 1 Sr 81dg Insp 1 Sr 81dg Insp 1 Sr Code Comp 1 aen 81dg Insp 1- aen 81dg Insp 1. aen 81dg Insp 1. CCO 6 ( 4) (3) (3) (7) EXHIBIT "B" . . 0 C::>Ot CO"P~IA.C( '~~Al~ 0 100",11.' R[POlI IOO"IM 01 MARCH . 1981l.. ~ ~ 1) TOIAl COMPLAINTS FOR MONTH:--11L 1) TOIAl COMPlAIIIS FOI NOIIH:--ZJl. 2) RESOlYED (110,1:...1.- 2) RESOly[D (110. ):..!- ]) ,'UDING (1IO.1:...ll... JI 'UDING lllO.I:..1L 4) CASES RESOlYED - 41 CASES IfSOlltD . ('RnIOllS IIO"IMS):-L ('RmOllS IIOITHSI:L 51 CASES 'EIDIIIG - 51 CASES 'EIDIIC - ('REYIOUS MONIHSI:~ ('REYIOIIS MDNIHS):~ II TOIAl RESOlYED '0 OA'E:~ II lOT Al RESOl flU '0 DATI: L 7) 'OlAl PE"DING TO DATE:~ 71 TOTAl 'E"DIIIC TO DAlt:~ 8) TOTAl IIS'ECTlO"S:.-!L II TOTAl IIS'ECTtORS:~ ~ ~ 1) TOTAl COMPlAI"TS FOR MONTH:..A II TOTAl CQMPlAIITS FOl NOITH:~ . 21 RESOlYED (1IO,I:l 21 RESOly[D (1IO.1:..ll. ]) 'EIDI"G (110. ):-29... ]) 'UDII' (110, l:..1L 41 CASES RESOlVED . 4) CASES I[SOl'tD - (,.nlous IIO"TMSI:~ (PREYIOIIS MDNTHS):~ 5) CASES 'EIIOING - 51 CASES 'EIDIIC . ('REYIOIIS IIOITHSI:..1!- ('REYlOUS IIOllTHS):1!.. II TOTAl RESOlY[D TO OATE:--12- I) TOTAl RESOlnD TO DAlt:-1!.. " 7) TOTAl 'EIDIIIG TO DATE:~ 7) TOTAl 'UOIIC TO 0AT[:,2L I) TOTAl INS'ECTIO"S:~ I) TOTAl '"S'ECTIOIS:.JtZ.. ~ ~ I) TOTAl COMPlAIITS FOR IOOITH: ...1!. I) TOTAL COMPLAIITS FOI NOITH:~ 2) IESOUED (IIO.):...!- 21 RESOly[D (110. ):---1.. ]1 'UOIIIG (1IO.1:.J.!.. ]) 'UDING (110. ):-H. 4) CAStS RESOl no - 4) CASES RESOlYED - ("nIOUS IIOIITHS):--.!.. ('RmOUS MDNlIIS):..!i.. 51 CASES 'ENOII& . 51 CASES 'EIIOII& - ("[VlooS IIOIITHS):~ ("mOOS MDNTHSI::]L I) TOTAl RESOlYED TO OATE:,L I) TOTAl RESOlYED TO 0AT[:-1L 7) TOTAl 'ElIOtllll TO OATE:~_ 7) TOTAl 'EIIOIIC 10 OAT[: 71 I) TOTAl I"S'ECTlONS:-ZL I) TOTAl IISPECTlORS:~- ..--.- !!!!!.l SIHWl' Of _IS I - 7 I) TOTAl. COMPLAINTS FOR IIOIITM:~ I) TOTAl COMPlAtlTS FOl NOITM: 199 2) RESOlVED (IIO.):~ 2) RESOl YEO (IIO.):..!L ]) 'EIIOIN' (1IO.):-1!.. ]) 'UDtllG (IIO.I:~ 4) CASES IESOlYED . 4) CASES ItSOl'ED - ("niDUS MDNTH51:...!l.. ("mOOS NOITHSl:..ll- 5) CASES 'EIIOI. - 5) CASES 'UOIIII - ("mOOS IIOIITHS):-!O- ("mOOS NOITHS):.213. II TOTAl RESOl'EO TO DATE:....1B.. I) TOTAl RESOlftD TO OATI:-95- 7) TOTAl 'UOING TO OATE:..2!... 7) TOTAl 'E"OIIlG TO OAlt:..J6.9.. - 8) TOIAl I"SP[CTtO"S:~ 8) TOTAl IISPECTlORS:.lii COI9lfITS: COI1l'lET[D Sf:, ~..,~?;~ OATE:~b"./ ~ /9;;1" SUllOING ,~y 1l('" I~.~ EXHIBIT 11(11 . 0' '" = ~ ~ c ~ .. '" z "" ~ => '" ~ z .. 2 ~ c c ~ .. o co .. I- -' i ~ ~ ~. C) .. ; z j: ~ ' ~ l:i .. ~ ... -' ::> o ... % W Z o ;: c u ;;: ~ ::> ... w u z ~ ~ ... ~ u w '" '" u ~ ;: u .. II! ~ ;;; ;: o ~ c 8 c .. ! z I c a .. c z i " z i c il .. c ;; '" . IE i .. l:i .. ~ o z :> .. i ~ S f z c c 8 c .. o .. 0, ~ .. .. .. 1 ~! .. .. u ;: c .. .. .. c z lit IE .. .. o z c .. .. u ;: c .. .. ~ c.. -.. c- .... i5 .. .. ~ .. ~ o ~ .. 0 ~ .. .. ... .. o ... u u ;: .. c 3 ! ~ ~ ~j!~j Ij8';1 5U~.IllU~., f:c~:;~ i 8 J: U ~ : E II Z ... - ... .., 1ft '" ~ :; u c .. .. c .. ~ u ~ .. z I w V . ... ~ u ~ '- . c .. .. ~ .. z .. l Ii .. :! ~ Z D .. ..- ! ~ I i; ~: f .... i ! o~ is ~ ilia I ~ ~5! i: >.. C .... U 11:0_ ~ ~ w c ~ :: ~ t w ~ ~ . .. 0 - .. w .. U tift '" ... .. .. c: ., ~~&. =: c: ." '" U ~ .. .. u ...- ~ o 0 v .. .... " o 0 tit.. ~ - .. C::I ~ . .,. ~ :> ., 0 0 ~ ... .. I e ~ ~ .. .. V :; ~ i ~ e c c ! .. .. ~--= .. - ..... .-. .. .. .. ~ Q. .. ~ ~ w .. c vc I ..- 0'" ~.. v .. .. .... co ! .:~':; c.... 51 .. . u!l .. , v ..oc U"" ... cc.o ..-... _ v "il...t 8-.... u~ :.& ~ - :b''O 0....8... vcz 0'" ... u.. ~ .0 _ 0 ., 11 _... > U.~t Ii .-..- III t~... .. ::I > 00'" Z5 o,a.... c '" U' II" 2 ....S~I:; .. >>>> u_ e 00......:1> ,...... 0'0- r I e-c ~ __ CLU" ... c . .. ~ o oS .. ~ o .. c . ~ ~ c .. o. - E W~ . ... -.. w. ~... .. .- c_ .... vc ~o " ..0 ..w .. ~ U .. .. c .. c e ~ .. ;: c .. ~ ~ .. c 0 ~ .. .. .. ~ :I :5 U c .. z .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. u c . 1 v. .. n 6 ~ ., . i ~. v .. . t.. !~ . t i . :> V. .. .. . . ~I ~ J : i 2i !," v .. . ~, i ii ~ .. ! .. .. u ;: c II ... c I r 5 f i II .. o i . ~ ~ . J . ;: 5 - i ~. ~ ~ g g o '" ~ N ~ .. .. .. :> '" " c .. .. .. " , .. u ~ w v i .... ~ ~ o o .. .. i: .. " .. .. o .. :;; ~ : i co .. .. ~ ~ N ~ N N ~ N '" ~ ~ ~ 8 g 8 g !a;~ co ~ ... N ~ N ~ . ;:; - ~ - - .. - N ~!~ :: ... ~ .. o .. ~ .. .. v ~ ~ o .. u " .. w .. t! .... .. .. .. 1 !! .... .... .. .. .. u .. " .. .. ~ ... .. u c .. r .... .. 1 .... - r .... .. " o ...... .. ..u .... -~ ,,~ ~ '" . '" . ~ . .. ~ . ... . ~. 8: ,. 8: .... . . . . ~ . - . .. o o o o g '" M - .. o ... ... .- .... 01 " 1IJ .Q C i ! t ~ N N '" '" ~ "- .. .. . EXHIBIT "0" . ci l 6 , ~ ; I- III o o :;) III ~ e :;) z z e '" ... , ... ... '" - '20- -... ;:: k I - ii'... ",... Ill'" - . .. > ] ... .. - .. ,~ ... - - e> ... I -w,.. Je> ..'" z- .. .r. ;J~ -~ ,.. -: .~ - ... en III l- e ~ ~ en w III :;) Z III > III II: ii'" _",e> . - I -u'" <: ... iie> _ '" t ..-'" -Ue> e~ ~ .. ... .. '" ~ j = I II: l! .. 01 e: - ... - .- :0 ... ... o .... c ~ ... ~ .! ~Ij ;~8 ~~~ ...NN ""....- 0.... - ""....0 ,.,.... "" "".... .... . . . ",_N ""....- ....N "'-.... OON ,.,""- .. -.. .. ....-... "'- N_ ....NO ....,.,N .....,..,..N . . . ...-.... .... co ....,., 008 00 ,.,00 . . . ,.,0.... ,.,...- ...,., lit .... 1It_ ~E e~ lit .. .. ...-- Ol~E c - .. _ e:... ..... _.I: e: ._ u ~ '" ..'- "'Z:III O-N ,.,,.,... ...,., ... --- ......... ONMC o~,.....o q-:~"";. ,...,U"tOQ-..,. NNCI) ...'" OMNM =,...,".)\0 --\0.- .. .. .. .. lJ")CX)OM N...... N... 0""'-0 C7\""'ON .no.. C7\ .. .. .. ~ NCO__ _N"" -- ......."'8 """'0 011')....... .. .. .. .. -0'\0\_ N....... -... 8c:!.S!~ OtO. . .. "" ...... - '" .... e-.. e:.. ~... ~ :0"" 0 uc _ ~I E ... 0 _ 0- .... .. - lit> .. .... ... -1C:l oK .. .. u... u_ .. -4.C'ca Ile-'-UC _:0 _ ....~c:" ~- "'- ":0-.. uuo..:a .......-- ...... roO ,.,... ...... ---- ......-- o .... "" III ,., "" CD <T> "" '" - - . .......... --'" 0-.... . . -- -0.... 00'" N"'CI) . . . CD "',., ......0 ...."'.... U'),.... 0\ .......N ...,.,... . . . ,.,....N "'(1)- NC')fM "'... 0 (1)0.... ..."',., . . . ...0'" N_N "'0.... . - 800 088 . . . -00 <T> CD... qtD.. - .... .... ...... ....e: co.. l:e~ o..e: - c_ ..C.. >0'" .....0 o ...~E "'~o ...... ..."'''' ----- ....... '" ......... NNN -- "'Nca NN_ ....caca --- ......... o o co - ... o .. .. ... ~ '" ,., '" . .... ... CI . ... .. .r. .. ... o 01 C '. CI .... ... . .... CI .... . ,., - .. ... - - .. .r. .. ,., .... - . - '" .... .I: .... - . 01 e: o - .. - . lit .. .. ... 01 e: - ... - - :0 .&J C - c c ~ . c I " < " N - ... . ... .... ... . ... o CIO .... . .. lit .. .. ... u e: - c ~ c \C - CIO . ,., .. .J::. .. o .... o ... lit - .. :0 e: .. > .. ... c - .. lit .. f u e: - ... .. ... o e 0- .. .J::. I- J . ! . , . ! EXHIBIT "E" .0' " o o ::7"( CF ~:l 30~i<~ ::10 J~?~:<i11E:rr OF 3U IL:: ,:iG .l,NO SAr~~"( S7A72~E~li OF COS7S ?RO';~':7 /l0. 3121 RESOLUTION /l0. 1202 SAN 3~:<~IA:<DI:iO I1lJNIC:?,~L COCE. iITl~ IS 2'lE~GC::ICY ,~BAT;:~~'li ine unde!"signed !"~soe,=";fully submitz to"e ~ollowing s:at!!llent of COStS inc:;r,.~-: j'j :: Cit'j of San 3er!'lardino in aDatinq tne :luolic nuisanc! tMt !xisted on t:,e ~r:oer:'j locatad at: 1365 North Pennsylvania Owne!": Goldome Realty Credit Corooration ~dd~$s: P,O. Box 9000 Buffalo, New York 14221 - Attention: Foreclosure Deot, Assessors :io: 143-201-05 Mor~ :lar~ic~larl'j desc~ibed as: Tract No. 11949 - Lot No. 15 ITEMIZATION W/O and/or E/A Stre~~ Oect's Cos~: ~ Labor " S Administrative cos~ S Building Pennit S Equipment ~ S Material ~ S ('., S Dwnllinq ,_ V'/ , . New ~~~I!'~$ Buildino and Safety Dect's Costs: Title Search Special Inspecter f Inspec";:!r's Time 3hrs. @ S16. 00 . S~ta"'J's Time3hrs. @ 513.00 Comll ~ Reti remant 25% Equi pment .50 oer mi 1 e Cemfied l4ail1nq ~? 00 ... P1et.1res 51.00 x 6 Administrative Costs 40% Hearing Time Newspaper Advertisement Additional Costs City Attornev SUB iOT~ Costs From Previous Hearing S 165.C: S S 48.CC S 39. O( S 21. 7: S 6.0e S 4.0C $ 6.0C $ 864.1l S 100.0C $ 4.0C S 40.0C $1.279.89 5 S 51.521. 60 $2,819.49 TOTAL S Demolition Contract Preparation: Contrllctors Costs:, Date: March 28. 1988 TOTAL COSTS ' MARK I. ~TTlI.N aUIL:JING & ":'1"( DIREC'iOR SSMC 15.28 By: INSP~CTOR ~XHIBlT "G" Pc Qm OF S,\N SER:iAQNO( 0 DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND ..,\FITf STATEMENT OF COSTS PROJECT NO. 3121 RESOLUTION NO. 1202 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE. TITLE 15 t~ERGENCY ABAT~ENT The undersigned respectfully submits the following statement of costs incurred by the City of San Bernardino in abating the publiC nuisance that existed on the property located at: 1365 N. Pennsv1vania Ave Owner: Go1dome Realty Credit Corp Address: POBox 9000 Buffalo. N,Y. 14221 Attn: Foreclosure DeDt Assessors No :143 201 OS More particularly described as: Tract 11949 Lot no. 15 ITEMIZATION Costs From Previous Hearing_____S S S 1.521.60 TOTAL COSTS S 1.851.38 lmlolNG c;IL~::TY DIRECTOR WID andlor EIA ~ ~' Street Deot 's Cost.s: ". Labor '\. S Administrative ~~ts " S Building Penni t" S EqUipment~ \, S Material '- S Dumping. S \ /~ 1/""" 0 IJ Cf,~~t;'.S' Bui1dinq and Safety Dept's Costs: Ti t 1 e Search Special Inspector I Inspector's Time 15.14/hr x 3 Secretary's Time 10.40/hr x 3 Comp & Retirement 15~ Equipment .25/mile Certified ~ilingl.67 ea x 2 Pictures .90 x 6 Administrative Costs lOll Hearing Time Newspaper Advertisement Additional Costs SUB TOTAL ,/ TOTAL S Demolition Contract Preparation: Contractors Costs': Date: March 28. 1988 15.28 saMC ./ktJ ~(S EXHIBIT "F" S S S S S S S S S S S S S 165.00 45.42 31.20 11.49 3.00 3.34 5.40 26.48 26.00 4.00 8.45 329.78 ~o o CITY OF ~Il SERQOINO 0 I DEPARTMENT OF 8UILDING AND ~FrrY STAT~~ENT OF COSTS PROJECT NO. 3121 RESOLUTION NO. 1202 SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 15 E.~ERGENCY ABATE'lENT The undersigned respectfully submits the following statement of costs incurred by ~~f City of San Bernardino in abating the public nuisance that existed on the property located at: 1365 N. Pennsv1vania Ave Owner: Go1dome Realty Credit Corp Address: POBox 9000 Buffalo, N.Y. 14221 Attn: Foreclosure Dept AssessoM No: 143 201 05 More particularly described as: Tract 11949 Lot no. 15 ITEMIZATION Costs From Previous Hearing_____S S S 1,521.60 TOTAL COSTS S 1,851.38 ~ c;IIT!!ltI. BUILlTING & SAF~TY DIRECTOR W/O and/or E/A ~ ~' Street Deot' s Costs: \l Labor '\. $ Administrative q6\ts \. $ Building Permit"! S EqUiPment--f' \" S Material ~ " $ Dumping. $ \ I/!~ '?' Old Cf,31L&n Buildinq and Safety Dept's Costs: Title Searc!l Special Inspector' Inspector's Time 15.14/hr x 3 Secretary's Time 10.40/hr x 3 Camp & Retirement 15~ Equipment .25/mile Certified Mailingl.67 ea x 2 Pi ctures .90 x 6 Adm; nistrative Costs 1 O~ Hearing Time Newspaper Advertisement Additional Costs SUB TOTAL '" TOTAL $ Demolition Contract Preparation: Contractors Costs: Date: March 28. 1988 15.28 saMC EXHIBIT "F" S S S S S S S S $ S S S $ 165.00 45.42 31. 2C 11.49 3.00 3.34 5.40 26.48 26.00 4.00 8.45 329.78