Code Enforcement Meeting

[Guest]

Flipping through the channels last night I caught the last hour of the City Council code enforcement meeting. Was this a real council meeting or a workshop? It seemed so confusing with people popping up to the microphone, the audience was noisy and some council members just seemed basically rude to the new director. Did anyone else see it? Would like to know your impression.

[Mel]

I also was flipping the channels at 8:oo and started to watch. I was very interested. I don't know who you are speaking of that was rude... I felt it was a meeting that maybe was trying to accomplish the agenda. I thought the meeting was informative and got no bad vibes.

[Lisa of Vintage Ranch]

I'd like to know when this City Council meeting is televised. Time & station?

[Guest]

Council meetings are held on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month. You can watch them live on Channel 28 at 7:30 (sometimes they start a little late but usually by 7:45 P.M.) Last night's meeting was an additional meeting this month just to discuss code enforcement.

[homeboy]

I watched the council meeting on code enforcement. I thought one council member was alittle rude when it came to the law. I sure like the new planning director. He was very good and kept the meeting going. I appreciate the information and the attitude. I did not miss Mark Joseph talking and argueing throughout the evening. Coffey and Luporini didn't roll their eyes one time! Mayor Shaver sure gets upset! At least I wasn't bored to death.

[a/c resident]

I am finding that the televised study sessions are more informative then the city council meetings. Probably because they focus on one issue and work it out.

The new planning director is awesome. He is professional, gave a solid and informative presentation, and was very respectful to the council and public.

He also managed the crowd and respectfully asked them to wait for comments until his presentation was over. You know how there is usually no control over the meetings and people get up and interrupt all of the time or shout from the audience. He quickly controlled it, something I noticed the current Mayor doesn't do.

The presentation helped me understand how things are done in the city. I know I have been frustrated because things aren't getting done or at least I think so with reference to trash problems or weeds growing, but after discussing how long it takes to process a problem now I know why.

It was good to see the planning director working with council and clarifying what he needed and what his direction was. He kept saying " do I understand that the council wants me to do this and this"? This is great as I have never seen the city manager doing that. And he needs to be.

I hope the council can see the degree of service and structure that this person offers, Bob the public works guy has it too, but tends to bow down to the city manager. I want strong leadership with the departments that do what my elected officials tell them. Does anybody else agree with me on this?

So to sum up the code meeting for everybody as I saw it...(anybody feel free to add if I missed something)

1. Name change of Code Compliance and not Code Enforcement probably for PR purposes.
2. City divided into sectors. It was hard to tell how many but I think I counted 6. Hwy 29 is one and the warehouse district is another. Each sector will be focused on for about 2 months.
3. City will no longer accept anonamous complaints, all complaints are to be filed with a name on them. The complainers name will be available at the public works office for review if the violator wants to see it.
4. There were 3 or 4 warning steps but now I think there will be 2.
5. There were 5 fine steps but now I think there is 4. And there was some criminal phrase that Coffey wanted on all letters in this but I couldn't gather what it was.
6. Tarps in good shape can still be used to cover vehicles on pavement only. And you have to use rope or bungees. No bricks, tires, or boards to hold down tarp or its ticket time.
7. No vehicle storage on lawns, no broke down cars on driveways, all cars must be checked by the VIN to see if it is termed abandoned. That was a huge conversation.
8. Problems using handicap corners for driveway access some want some don't new houses can't.
9. Businesses on 29 that violate will get fined and no more breaks.
10. Business licenses were discussed but no viewed as a major issue.

I didn't get the order because of the bad sound, but I think there was like 15 types of code problems. The planning director wanted council to agree on five that needed immediate attention. I think they were

zoning
unsafe housing conditions
code violations
abandoned vehicles
maybe business licenses (somebody help me)

There was talk of a better process for business license handling especially for the people who work at home like me for some of the time. There was discussion about a major business in one of the major shopping centers that won't get a business license. I can't wait to figure that one out. I think I will walk all of the businesses and look for a license on the wall let me know if you figure it out first.

To me this shows a complete lack of respect for our city. I got my license and so did my friends, why don't they? I tell you what when I find out who won't you can bet I will be sure to post it here because we shouldn't do business with them, what other bad business practices do they have? All cities require a business license. That is just bad. The council said to shut them down and personally I agree if they don't comply. Don't you? Let me know how you feel about this.

They also talked about telling the public about the changes I think it was 100 days or something but people who are already in the hot seat don't get extra time.

Good job to council on this meeting and I look forward to more like this. I learned alot. I will also be sure to check if I need permits for my future projects. That was brought up by a woman at the microphone who was a realtor saying she has problems with people doing work on houses she is selling and they don't have permits. It causes problems for all people. My house is older so I will now call and see if I need one as I don't plan to live here beyond 5 more years when I retire.

[Rancho Resident]

A/C Resident... I think your recap was excellent. I only caught the last half of the meeting but that portion of your observation is pretty accurate.
I totally agree that the new Director is just what we need. He was able to continually bring back the group to focus on the issues. Excellent job for such a short time on the job and such a hot subject. I missed the slide presentation that was referenced in public comment, but my feeling is if all it took to embarass someone into cleaning up their property and getting into compliance was a picture, we should have more public slide shows. We also still have those threats from certain citizens and I think the Mayor, that if you overstep your bounds, we will get everyone together and we will fight this issue like last time. Leave us old residents alone crap! In my opinion, the worst offenders are the older area's residents and they require the strongest concentration. I live in an older area and if I'm a slob I deserve the city to come down on me. I also totally agree that the sound system was experiencing problems that night (again).And as a last comment, where was this meeting announced. I know I heard about it at a previous council meeting but forgot. I wish we had a public calendar of future meetings and subjects that are to be discussed. (Issa, maybe a new project?)

[Issa]

I cant do everything! The calendar on my site is open for anybody to post, as long as you are registered you can post any upcomming event.

[Paul Maguire]

There is much work to be done in the area of code enforcement/compliance in American Canyon.

THe meeting was a productive first step. The issue is now on the radar screen.

Now, lets see if there is follow up.

With regard to business licenses, it is incredible to me that a business would operate within the city without a local business license. Once again, allowing some to operate without a licenses, and others ordered to get one, creates a dual system of enforcement that is illegal, unfair, and subjects the city to litigation for selective enforcement. On the one hand you hit day care at home for 1300 a year(outrageous) on the other you allow a business to knowingly operate without a license.

Now that we are apparently actually going to do something about code compliance, lets hope we once again do not end up with a dual system, allowing older residents to slide and hammering newer ones as their compliance issues are more obvious in a newer neighborhood.

It would make sense to create a 3-5 member citizen mediation board to work out any disputes and with the power to resolve disputes on code enforcement.

I do not like the fact that one cannot report issues without letting the neighbor know by going to public works. This is ass backwards, as the whole idea of a code enforcement is to have a neutral third party that looks into complaints. Who the complaint is from is not a matter of concern, the concern is whether or not there is or is not a violation of the municipal code. By public disclosure of complaints, you are creating the potential for retalitory acts againsts the complaintant, which discourages residents from noticing the city out of concern that in doing so they may create a conflict with someone they have to live with for years, decades perhaps.

The whole idea of government is to REPRESENT the people, and here, with this public disclosure of complaintants, the government fails in its representation, because, the complaintant cannot get anonymous representation. They might has well just go next door and haggle it out.
This of course can lead to feuding neighbors, and a whole host of other problems. This is why we have representative government in the first place. The reason you can call the police without your name being used it to protect the identy of the caller, to encourage calls, and to allow the police to resolve and investigate the callers concerns/report, and take appropriate action, or no action.

Code enforcement is a police action, but is done civilly, like parking tickets, or stop work orders on construction sites.

I think this needs to be thought out by the council and reconsidered.

[guest]

Paul you are correct on a couple of issues, but as it was stated by the city council and residents by allowing the complaints to remain anonymous people retaliated anyway by driving around the neighborhood and reporting everybody they thought was a problem. Under to old rules that is how the department operated.... period.

With the new directive those reports will still be acted upon quickly if there is a risk of health or harm to people even though they are not in the current sector. But if it is a garden variety complaint, then my understanding is that they will keep it until they are in that sector to follow up on it.

As for the discrepancies with the violations I believe it can be brought before the planning commission and appealed to council. I could be wrong.

[Guest]

Personally, I was diappointed that the Council decided that reporting neighbors who are in "serious violation" of the City codes would not be anonymous. If that is the case, they have created more expense for future Sheriff action. I have lived here for 20 years, and I would never dream of knocking on a resident's door to complain about their property. This code enforcement should avail all residents the opportunity to report a "serious violation" without any repercussions.
Question? Was this a work session or a council meeting? If it was a work session, I'm somewhat surprised it was televised and will there be another session?

[Paul Maguire]

So the solution is to make every complaint filers name known? Thats how you keep people from "driving around and reporting every violation" in retaliation to getting a complaint against them?

That is ridiculous. Should such an event occur, the city knows who made the complaint, can see the pattern, and handle it appropriately.
(the old story of crying wolf all the time)

But the city does not have to publish that information, or make it available to the public. THe public has a RIGHT to privacy. The government has a responsibility to the public, to protect the public. How are you protecting the public by publishing the name of the complaintant?

It could be argued, that you are in fact putting the public at risk, by publicly allowing the name of the complaintant to be given to the offendee.

I see someone selling drugs. I complain. My family is threatened. Do I complain anymore?

A neighbor puts in a driveway in thier front lawn, and parks on the lawn, 2 cars. I complain. The neighbor sees that I complained, and comes to my house telling me to come outside, angry, irritated, and wanting to retaliate. Does he or she havea gun? Weapon? Do I know this person?

With regard to your sector - on teh one hand, the claim is made that these things will be acted upon quicker- on the other, they will be acted upon when that sector is up to be acted upon- so the question is, do we change sectors everyday? Sector 1 on Monday, 2 on Tuesday- do you mix and match days and sectors- or- are you going to go to section 1 for 2 weeks, sector 2 for 2 weeks- so if I am in sector 5, I am 3 months out on even investigating the violation, then 30 more days to comply, then another 2 months before that sector is looked at again, now we are 6 months out.

What it should be- is complaints are investigated as brought up to the city, in order, with health and safety issues handled the same or following day- regardless of the SECTOR-

THe sector idea is about handling and focusing on an area of town, but should have NO effect on handling reports-

Its is not like the city gets 10 reports a day- they may get 10 in a week- t his is not that complicated.

I have yet to hear any valid argument against keeping the complaintants name private, or allowing complaintants to file complaints anonymously-

You are creating potential conflicts, and the policy is dangerous. IT is a threat to public health and safety, and wrong.

[Paul Maguire]

Final thought:

I complain to the city about a code violation. The problem is not resolved. I complain again 30 days later. The violator gets my name, comes to my home, and starts shooting.

I sue the city. I win. The city is found negligent, and pays MILLIONS!

It concerns me that we have people on this council that cannot realize the consequences of their actions, and forsee these type of problems.

Fortunately, this was a study session. Now they can study it, figure out where they went right(enforcing the code uniformily) and where they went wrong( public disclosure of complaintants) and put together a policy and direction to staff that is both fair, equitable, timely, and just- as well as safe.

We shall see. But this public disclosure of complaintants names is a non starter and bad public policy.

[guest]

Paulette Griffin stated that she felt you should be able to go to your neighbor and discuss problems such as abandoned vehicles or trash in yards. She is not in favor of the anonymous system and neither is the Mayor.

You are confusing criminal vs civil. If I ask my neighbor to stop with something and it continues then what rights do I have if there is nobody to enforce the code? Of course I am going to file a complaint and if I did my best to let them know it is not ok then so be it.

If there is a drug house on my street then I call the cops, they take your name too although that information is not public record.

Bottom line if somebody is going to retalliate they don't really need to know your name they will make thier own assumptions based on your dirty looks and obvious concern. It is best to find out if your neighbor is a renter and go to the landlord and make the complaints.

But you are being ludicrous for assuming that a drug related complaint would be disclosed and additionally code compliance wouldn't handle that.

[guest]

Mr. Maguire maybe you should have attended the meeting and you will find that the urgent complaints are to be handled immediately regardless of the area currently being served.

You would have known this if you attended or viewed the meeting. Although the a/c resident tried for the purposes of information attempt to summarize and did a basically good job, the bottom line is there was about 5 hours of good conversation debating all aspects that was not touched upon.

Yes this was a study session and nothing is done, only a blueprint for proceedure that can be adjusted prior to approval by council. But then you probably knew that this was the case right? You are just trying to show potential conflicts.

If you saw the actual statistics then what you "believe" could happen is highly unlikely because of the nature of the calls.

As for working it out before it becomes a code enforcement call, I would advise you to get out and meet your neighbors and let them know if you have issues and vice versa. It is also good for community safety.

Maybe it is this mindset that is prohibiting people from participating in neighborhood watches, nobody cares to know thier neighbors or has the time.

[Paul Maguire]

No, I am not being ludicrious, but speaking from extensive experience with property management and with people, who are all very different, and who all act very different. Your assumption is that people will act reasonably, as you or I may, and that assumption is not supported by my experience in managing property, from single family homes to multiple units. What purpose does it have in dislosing the name of the complainant? Why do it? Whats the point? Why is it now necessary, when it has not been done for years, and most cities dont do that. Why must we re invent the wheel here again?

Code enforcement (civil) and police reports ( criminal) are used all the time in taking action on problem properties. I am certain of that, because I have owned problem properties and worked with both agencies to resolve the problem.

As for your suggestion on attending the meeting, had I been available, I would have. But I was on a flight to Arizona to give a presentation. I attend meetings when able.

Referencing your "highly unlikely" comment, perhaps it is- but is it likely enough for hte city to have liability? I think it could be. Thats a concern.

I stand by my statement that these complaints should remain confidential.

With regard to "urgent" matters being address whether the city is working one sector or another, that still leaves the problem of potentially being 6 months out on a non urgent matter, like car parked on the front lawn(non urgent)-or other non urgent matters that are still a nuisance, especially if you are trying to sell your home next door as one example.

As for meeting your neighbors, I have. Your statement presumes I have not. None of my neighbors came to my door. I went to all of theirs. Say what you want about what should be- most people just want their privacy-and most people do not meet their neighbors like they did in the days gone by. You are protesting what is, saying it should be something else. Its not.

[Guest]

A guest wrote: Paulette Griffin stated that she felt you should be able to go to your neighbor and discuss problems such as abandoned vehicles or trash in yards. She is not in favor of the anonymous system and neither is the mayor. There in lies the problem! She also stated that her husband at one time had 5 vehicles on the property. I wonder how many of her neighbors came knocking on her door? As for the Mayor, I felt he was rude to anyone that did not agree with his and Paulette Griffin's opinion. I agree with Paul Maguire that complaints should be anonymous (unless someone chooses to give their name).