# Code Enforcement/Property Maint. in building Dept?



## vegas paul (Apr 13, 2010)

How many of you have combined departments, where code enforcement (nuisance abatement, property maintenance, minimum housing, etc.) is included with your responsibilities?

We are considering a reorganization where the code enforcement inspectors would be brought into our fold in order to combine some of the responsibilities, and give a potential career path for climbing the inspection ladder.

I've seen departments that have them completely separated, and others where they are combined... What say you?


----------



## FM William Burns (Apr 13, 2010)

Ours is combined in the Building Dept. and offers opportunities where another official can aid when issues may cover other code deficiencies.


----------



## Bryan Holland (Apr 13, 2010)

Due mainly to recent budget constraints, departments including code enforcement, zoning, facilities maintenance, landscaping, and certain aspects of public works have been placed under the umbrella of my building department.  The code enforcement officers in my department also carry at least one ICC certification / state license as an inspector / plans examiner and serve as backups to the full time inspectors.  They are budgeted at 80% General Fund and 20% Special Revenue / Enterprise Fund.


----------



## Bootleg (Apr 13, 2010)

Building Inspector/Plans Review/Code Enforcement all in one, Cheesy.

WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN.


----------



## Alias (Apr 13, 2010)

I am the entire department so, I do it all.  I like it as an 'all-in-one' and would keep it this way even if I had more inspectors.

I have worked in another jurisdiction where it was two separate departments.  I didn't like that, the lack of communication between departments drove me nuts.

Sue, party of one and liking it....................


----------



## Bootleg (Apr 13, 2010)

I think Building inspection and plan review go hand and hand.

 I think it makes a better Building Inspector/Plans reviewer because you know what the builders are missing in the field and can put it on the plans as a heads up and everyone wins.

Code enforcement in a small town is hard because of the all the dirty politics.


----------



## FredK (Apr 13, 2010)

Here we are under the Development Service Depart.  Development Services is divided into two Planning and Zoning and Building.  Under the Building Department we have review, inspection and code enforcement.

As to if I find any code violations while in the field I am supposed to do the first steps (door tag, talking to owner, etc..) if it is a building code violation (building without permit, etc..) and turn it over to the code officers.  They are to follow up that permits are obtained and work is completed within a reasonable time if not it turns into a court case.

IMHO I believe code enforcement should be under the Police Dept (for funding purposes) and report to the BO.


----------



## JBI (Apr 13, 2010)

I've worked for three towns over the last 17 years. All three combined all duties under one Department - Building Code includes Property Maintenance (especially true pre-2003 when we switched to modified I-Codes). Zoning is a natural extension of the process, and modifies (to some extent) the process of review - would it really make sense to approve it from a Building Code perspective only to have it denied by a Zoning Official?


----------



## cboboggs (Apr 13, 2010)

One stop shop here and pretty much everywhere I've worked. Here my inspectors are the code enforcement officers. We also do most of the Planning and Zoning as well as some public works kinda stuff.


----------



## vegas paul (Apr 13, 2010)

Thanks for the responses.  I am proposing consolidation of Code Enforcement and Building Services in order to better use the resources and personel that we have.  Currently, the groups are separate, and have no communication or cross-training.  Wish me luck...


----------



## JBI (Apr 13, 2010)

Good luck! You're on the right track with this proposal...


----------



## Mule (Apr 13, 2010)

In the past municipalities (25 years) I worked for as code enforcement and building inspection and it was under the same department. It really made life easier. we could cross train code enforcement to be inspectors and during the slow times I had inspectors doing code enforcement. It made the building inspectors appreciate their jobs more and it made the code enforcement officers appreciate getting away from code enforcement.

I remember praying for the first hard freeze and a high wind to knock down the grass so I wouldn't have to deal with high grass and weeds! And speaking of weeds....wait until you write up an elderly lady for having high grass and weeds and finding out that the weeds you wrote up are her prize winning flowers!!

Code enforcement is not a fun job and no one knows what you go through until you've been there done that!

In the city I work for now I only have building inspections. No planning, no code enforcement...just building inspections. Sometimes it feels like I am on a vacation!


----------



## FredK (Apr 13, 2010)

Re Mule's comment on writing up weeds.

IIRC there was someone back in the mid-west that was cited into court for his "weeds".  Turned out to be native grass that hadn't been seen in over 80-100 years in the area.


----------



## Code Neophyte (Apr 14, 2010)

Bryan Holland said:
			
		

> .....  They are budgeted at 80% General Fund and 20% Special Revenue / Enterprise Fund.


So, Bryan, can I assume your Building Inspection personnel are budgeted at 100% Enterprise Fund?  And that the Enterprise Fund generates enough additional revenue to cover 20% of Property Maintenance?  Or is it structured that way because the Code Enforcement folks have other, revenue-generating responsibilities that constitute roughly 20% of their workload?  This seems to be one downside that I have observed to having the functions combined.  It's hard to explain to the Council at budget time that, even though we generate revenue through permits, at least half of our department's time is spent in Code Enforcement, which is basically a General Fund activity in the same way that Police and Fire are.

Another 'synergy' I can see in combining departments is that in many cases, the same house that has tall grass and trash accumulation also has building deficiencies.  The Code Enforcement person - if in a separate department - may only write the house for weeds, while ignoring the gaping hole in the roof or the hazardous electrical service or...  If you have adopted the IPMC, look at all of the references to the IRC - that document is essentially an offshoot of the IRC, and requires a certain level of knowledge of that document.

I agree with John, too, as to his point with zoning.  Many times zoning plays into a typical property maintenance issue, as well, with things such as outdoor storage of equipment, materials, and home occupations.  It's best to have one, multi-disciplined person in the field to look at issues in their totality.


----------



## Bootleg (Apr 14, 2010)

I agree with John, too, as to his point with zoning.  Many times zoning plays into a typical property maintenance issue, as well, with things such as outdoor storage of equipment, materials, and home occupations.  It's best to have one, multi-disciplined person in the field to look at issues in their totality.

As long as the law is the same for everyone and the muit-disciplined person is backed-up from above.


----------



## FredK (Apr 14, 2010)

VP if your all under general funding and not an enterprise fund I say go for it.  If in the future you want an enterprise fund for the building dept you may not get enough funds for the code enforcement people hence saying they should be funded from the PD's budget.

As to training them that's a plus for both groups.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 14, 2010)

Our Time Sheets have a code for building dept (permit fees) and one for fire prevention (general fund)  it is not complicated. It is just another line item in your budget no different than charging tires to vehicle maintinance or paper to office supplies.

Having the code enforcement and inspectors co-located creates a compatible working relationship that different levels of expertise can be drawn from.

VP I also belive you are on the right track to combine them.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Apr 14, 2010)

Our Property Maintenance inspectors also do the big zoning issues if we are already there for a P. M. inspection or a complaint call. We look at grass/weeds, inoperable vehicles, dogs, recreational vehicles (boats/rv's), and discarded materials. Any other zoning issues get referred to the zoning inspectors. This saves the county from sending multiple inspectors and writing multiple notices etc. for one location. We have some P.M. only trained inspectors and some cross trained combination ones. This method works well for us.


----------



## Durant (Oct 3, 2012)

Wow, long time ago;  I sometimes think about Vegas Paul and wonder what is happening to him.  I do miss him.

I'm in a new job and it looks like I'm getting "the give it to the new guy".  Just a couple of months here as Building Inspector and have found that the Code Enforcement Officer is in the Fire Department, never seen this before.  Anyway as I get time I'm looking to this.  I've been assigned to do the dilapidated buildings and as I investigate I'm finding that throughout the state this falls under "code Enforcement".

Anyone have an update on what's happening to Vegas Paul?


----------



## jar546 (Oct 3, 2012)

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?8690-Vegas-Paul&highlight=vegas+paul


----------



## Coder (Oct 17, 2018)

I am getting pressure from the powers that be to start a "proactive" property maintenance code enforcement program. Up until now, it has been a complaint driven process unless there was an eminent threat to the safety of people. I recently did a "windshield survey" and noted close to 40 vacant, dilapidated, uninhabitable, or should be buildings. Between the IPMC and the Nuisance Code, there is going to be a lot of extra work for me and neighborhood services coming soon. I am not sure where to even start. Approaching the property owners and telling them they either need to renovate extensively or tear it down, isn't going to be easy. I see a lot of Notice and Orders in the future. Does anyone else out there have any experience with a start up program like this? Thanks in advance.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 17, 2018)

WOW, good luck with the start-up. It can be done, if the powers that be, support and back you up. If they don't, it'll be doomed from the start.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 17, 2018)

Talk about stepping into deep water full of sharks, hope your city council is on board.


----------



## cda (Oct 17, 2018)

Coder said:


> I am getting pressure from the powers that be to start a "proactive" property maintenance code enforcement program. Up until now, it has been a complaint driven process unless there was an eminent threat to the safety of people. I recently did a "windshield survey" and noted close to 40 vacant, dilapidated, uninhabitable, or should be buildings. Between the IPMC and the Nuisance Code, there is going to be a lot of extra work for me and neighborhood services coming soon. I am not sure where to even start. Approaching the property owners and telling them they either need to renovate extensively or tear it down, isn't going to be easy. I see a lot of Notice and Orders in the future. Does anyone else out there have any experience with a start up program like this? Thanks in advance.




Priority???

Apartments if you have them

Businesses


Houses last or by complaint


----------



## Coder (Oct 17, 2018)

cda said:


> Priority???
> 
> Apartments if you have them
> 
> ...


The priority is an attempt to create more "affordable" housing by forcing property owners to renovate or remove old mobile homes and stick built houses.


----------



## cda (Oct 17, 2018)

Coder said:


> The priority is an attempt to create more "affordable" housing by forcing property owners to renovate or remove old mobile homes and stick built houses.




Yep seen something like that before, does not look pretty

Hope the city has a solid demo ordinance and a lot of money.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 17, 2018)

Check your state environmental laws with regards to demolishing buildings. Some allow a property owner to remove an SFR without doing asbestos and lead paint abatement However if the government is demolishing the SFR then asbestos and lead paint removal must be done prior to demolishing the SFR which can add significant cost to the process. How are you going to dispose of the mobile homes? Most land fills will not take them.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Oct 17, 2018)

I'd check with your City Attorney and see if he can draft a process for you, might keep you and your boss out of hot water.


----------



## cda (Oct 17, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Check your state environmental laws with regards to demolishing buildings. Some allow a property owner to remove an SFR without doing asbestos and lead paint abatement However if the government is demolishing the SFR then asbestos and lead paint removal must be done prior to demolishing the SFR which can add significant cost to the process. How are you going to dispose of the mobile homes? Most land fills will not take them.





FEMA might buy them


----------



## Coder (Oct 17, 2018)

cda said:


> Yep seen something like that before, does not look pretty
> 
> Hope the city has a solid demo ordinance and a lot of money.


My thoughts exactly. That and a City Council and Building Official that is willing to cut their own throat with the public cheering them on.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 17, 2018)

Pcinspector1 said:


> I'd check with your City Attorney and see if he can draft a process for you, might keep you and your boss out of hot water.



Yes, please talk to your City Atty before you implement anything - this will save you endless aggravation if he/she knows what they're doing and is familiar with the laws and ordinances you're working under.  Also, it gives you another layer of "we did _this_ before we initiated _this_", to keep yourself off of the hot seat.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 17, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Check your state environmental laws with regards to demolishing buildings. Some allow a property owner to remove an SFR without doing asbestos and lead paint abatement However if the government is demolishing the SFR then asbestos and lead paint removal must be done prior to demolishing the SFR which can add significant cost to the process. How are you going to dispose of the mobile homes? Most land fills will not take them.




Illinois (outside of Chicago/Cook County) is surprisingly cool about this.  If you're tearing down multi-families over 4 units or a cluster of houses in the same neighborhood then you have to jump through the hoops, otherwise just tear 'em down and haul 'em off.


----------



## Coder (Oct 18, 2018)

JCraver said:


> Illinois (outside of Chicago/Cook County) is surprisingly cool about this.  If you're tearing down multi-families over 4 units or a cluster of houses in the same neighborhood then you have to jump through the hoops, otherwise just tear 'em down and haul 'em off.


Asbestos and lead are harmless there.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 18, 2018)

Coder said:


> Asbestos and lead are harmless there.



Must be the altitude!


----------



## JCraver (Oct 18, 2018)

It works for me, less nonsense I have to keep track of.

But really - pay the EPA their fee, pay the muni fee, set up containment, dismantle/take down/scrape all that stuff off, double bag it, get inspected, tear down the house, and then take it all to the landfill.  OR..  Pay the muni fee, get a hydrant meter and a water hose, wet the house down while you're bashing it to pieces, and then haul it all to the *same landfill*. 

One way is easy, and creates no measurable harm to the community.  The other way is not easy, also does not create any measurable harm to the community, and helps employ half a dozen government inspectors and administrators to check on it, oversee it, and collect dollar bills.  Which way makes more sense to you?


----------



## Coder (Oct 18, 2018)

JCraver said:


> It works for me, less nonsense I have to keep track of.
> 
> But really - pay the EPA their fee, pay the muni fee, set up containment, dismantle/take down/scrape all that stuff off, double bag it, get inspected, tear down the house, and then take it all to the landfill.  OR..  Pay the muni fee, get a hydrant meter and a water hose, wet the house down while you're bashing it to pieces, and then haul it all to the *same landfill*.
> 
> One way is easy, and creates no measurable harm to the community.  The other way is not easy, also does not create any measurable harm to the community, and helps employ half a dozen government inspectors and administrators to check on it, oversee it, and collect dollar bills.  Which way makes more sense to you?


Thanks for the clarification and now that you have explained it, it does make sense to me. Unfortunately, our municipalities and County landfill still rely on documentation from the State for demolition permits verifying that the asbestos has been tested for and if found to exceed the trigger levels, abatement procedures are required and monitored. I wish I could just allow the demo contractor to wet it down and go. Maybe there is a way to get a local demolition ordinance passed that supersedes the State? We are a home rule municipality. Just hunting for insight and answers so I appreciate your response and apologize for my uninformed comment.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 18, 2018)

We have a process from the province we follow. The way we approach it is to assess the risk to life safety and environmental contamination. Properties are coded as green for low hazard, yellow for medium, and red for high. When it comes to enforcement, worst is first. The process is to notify the resident of the issue and attempt some voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance fails, we issue a notice to comply with a deadline of between 2 weeks to 2 months to complete the work. The property owner can appeal this notice to a committee of council who can confirm, modify or rescind the notice. Typically, the only thing done is to extend the time frame. If the property owner does not agree with the appeal at this level, they can appeal to the provincial appeals court, but only for a procedural review (it is not a court hearing). The appeals judge will confirm, modify, or rescind the notice. After all this, if the notice is not complied with, we contract the work out to a local contractor through a public bid process and the property owner is responsible to reimburse the municipality. If the property owner refuses to reimburse the municipality, we can notify the province who will reimburse us and apply the outstanding balance to the property tax bill next year once we provide all documentation that we have followed the proper process.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 18, 2018)

Coder said:


> Thanks for the clarification and now that you have explained it, it does make sense to me. Unfortunately, our municipalities and County landfill still rely on documentation from the State for demolition permits verifying that the asbestos has been tested for and if found to exceed the trigger levels, abatement procedures are required and monitored. I wish I could just allow the demo contractor to wet it down and go. Maybe there is a way to get a local demolition ordinance passed that supersedes the State? We are a home rule municipality. Just hunting for insight and answers so I appreciate your response and apologize for my uninformed comment.



No need to apologize to me.  I was just throwing out how we do it, and why I think it's better than adding more gov't. to the process.

I don't know what the rules are in CO but I'm going to guess you probably can't get a municipal ordinance that will supersede your State, homerule or not - most States don't like to give up any "powers" (whether they should have them in the first place or not).


----------



## JCraver (Oct 18, 2018)

NESHAP, from the Fed EPA, is how this is governed and where all the State rules come from.  https://www.epa.gov/compliance/nati...azardous-air-pollutants-compliance-monitoring

My State has decided to follow (but not build upon) that guidance, and is the reason we operate as we do.  The Fed rules say 4 units or more or commercial buildings.  Therefore: no residential requirements from the Feds, and (so far!) nothing from the State of Illinois - unless you live in Cook County and/or Chicago.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 18, 2018)

tmurray said:


> We have a process from the province we follow. The way we approach it is to assess the risk to life safety and environmental contamination. Properties are coded as green for low hazard, yellow for medium, and red for high. When it comes to enforcement, worst is first. The process is to notify the resident of the issue and attempt some voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance fails, we issue a notice to comply with a deadline of between 2 weeks to 2 months to complete the work. The property owner can appeal this notice to a committee of council who can confirm, modify or rescind the notice. Typically, the only thing done is to extend the time frame. If the property owner does not agree with the appeal at this level, they can appeal to the provincial appeals court, but only for a procedural review (it is not a court hearing). The appeals judge will confirm, modify, or rescind the notice. After all this, if the notice is not complied with, we contract the work out to a local contractor through a public bid process and the property owner is responsible to reimburse the municipality. If the property owner refuses to reimburse the municipality, we can notify the province who will reimburse us and apply the outstanding balance to the property tax bill next year once we provide all documentation that we have followed the proper process.




Similar, but different, here.  We don't have the hazard levels, but send the notice and provide a means of appeal before a City board.  Fail to comply or appeal, then we take you to court.  Court says "tear it down", you don't, then court says "ok City, you tear it down".  We do, you don't pay for it, we lien the property and then foreclose on the lien.  Now we own it, and we sell it cheap so we can get a new house on it.


----------



## Coder (Oct 18, 2018)

Simple as that. Same process here.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 19, 2018)

I've only had to force a teardown of a complete house once. Took quite a while, a couple years start to finish, but ended up with a real nice new duplex on the lot.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 19, 2018)

The biggest question for the elected officials is "Have you budgeted funds to follow this through to the end" You may be able to lien the property but the vacant lot value may never cover the cost incurred by the local government.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 19, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> The biggest question for the elected officials is "Have you budgeted funds to follow this through to the end" You may be able to lien the property but the vacant lot value may never cover the cost incurred by the local government.



Foreclose on the lien, so then the City owns it.  Sell it for a penny so someone can build a new house on it.  New house = tax revenue = all that money comes back in the end.


----------



## my250r11 (Oct 19, 2018)

Coder said:


> rely on documentation from the State for demolition permits verifying that the asbestos has been tested for and if found to exceed the trigger levels, abatement procedures are required and monitored.



We have to test any demo, if hot, abatement, clearance letters, then demo. State requires licences for ACM workers, haulers, inspectors, etc. Only a couple of landfills in the state that take ACM, some goes out of state to Arizona or Texas. If we demo a condemned structure we have to file for a State NESHAP, bid out abatement, and demo to contractors and put lien on property.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 19, 2018)

I think you missed my point. The local government has to have the cash upfront to pay for the demolition cost. They lien the property by placing the lien on the property taxes. That is usually a minimum 3 years of unpaid taxes before they can file for a tax deed. They can not sell government property for less than the appraised fair market value. As far as a pay back through taxes paid for their expense through taxes collected I suggest you look at you tax bill and see how much goes to the jurisdiction that incurred the expenses. My guess probably 10 to 15% of the total tax bill to the general fund. So a $2,000 per property tax would net the local government $600.00 per year it would be decades before the cost would be collected. 
10% of my tax bill goes to the general fund %5 to the state, 67% to the schools the remaining 18% is divided to various other agencies such as sheriff, fire, land fill, water district etc. 

If the demolished property is in a blighted area good luck on finding an investor to build a new home on it.


----------



## JCraver (Oct 19, 2018)

Things/laws/rules/prices are different all over, but that's not how it works here. 

Get the judgment to tear it down and hire a contractor.  Normal house demo averages $6K.  As soon as it's down you pay the contractor, and then send the landowner a bill for the amount.  If they don't pay in 30 days, file the lien (and I don't know how you can lien a tax bill, but in IL the lien is against the real property itself).  At the very same time the lien is filed, the City Atty files a foreclosure notice on that lien.  Muni demo liens are "priority" liens in IL, so all other creditors are out.  Process/litigate the foreclosure, then the City owns the lot.  Sell it for as little as you can (80% of FMV here).  At 80%:  a normal residential infill lot in town is ~$6K, 80% is $4800.  Sell it for $4800 and then you only have $1200 in it (6K demo - 4,8K sale).  The $1200 the City is out is repaid at your $600 a year in 2 years, AND you've got a brand new house in town that'll be paying that $600/year for a long, long time.  Maybe you don't sell it right away at $4800, but there's not many RE investors I know that wouldn't build a duplex on a sub-$5K lot in any part of most any town.


----------



## Coder (Oct 19, 2018)

Thanks for all the feedback. hi ho hi ho a land banking we will go.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 19, 2018)

You have a far better system then what I dealt with in FL and here in MT


----------



## my250r11 (Oct 22, 2018)

We never make anything back. Lucky to sale a 1/4 of market value. the hope is that someone will build but most of the areas we demo are not good neighborhoods. They are safer for the people and PD and us as well not having homeless and druggies in them.


----------



## Coder (Dec 18, 2018)

Update in case anyone is interested. The neighborhood clean-up proposal that has been presented to City Council for consideration is to implement a monetary incentive program. This program would provide the property owner a one time $400 contribution from the City to help cover the cost of a voluntary asbestos inspection. An overall inspection of the building to determine if it is capable of being habitable or needs to be demolished would also be available free of charge from the City.Then depending on the results, the property owner can either voluntarily fix it up or remove and replace with a habitable unit and recieve a $1,000 reward for the succesful completion of providing additional housing. If they choose to not participate in the "carrot" approach then the "stick" of enforcement action will be the alternative.


----------



## cda (Dec 18, 2018)

Four years now

And life without parole 

Life is strange sometimes


----------



## my250r11 (Dec 19, 2018)

Coder said:


> Update in case anyone is interested. The neighborhood clean-up proposal that has been presented to City Council for consideration is to implement a monetary incentive program. This program would provide the property owner a one time $400 contribution from the City to help cover the cost of a voluntary asbestos inspection. An overall inspection of the building to determine if it is capable of being habitable or needs to be demolished would also be available free of charge from the City.Then depending on the results, the property owner can either voluntarily fix it up or remove and replace with a habitable unit and recieve a $1,000 reward for the succesful completion of providing additional housing. If they choose to not participate in the "carrot" approach then the "stick" of enforcement action will be the alternative.



Interesting approach that may work well.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 19, 2018)

There are many things local governments can do to help get old homes demolished and replaced with new homes in blighted areas. Tax breaks over a 5 year time frame on the new homes is one way. Low interest loans through grants are another. Help with disposal fees


----------

