HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.4 Code Enforcement Survey
CITY CLERK
File # DffiaJ[l2]-~[U]
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21, 2007
SUBJECT:
Report on Code Enforcement Survey
Report prepared by Gregory Shreeve, Building Official and
Christina Rodgers, Administrative Aide
ATTACHMENT:
Code Enforcement Survey Report prepared by 4LEAF, Inc., dated
June 19,2007.
RECOMMENDATIO~
\: 2)
~
Receive Staff presentation; and
Provide direction to Staff on the following alternatives:
a. Maintain the current level of code enforcement activity;
b. Increase the level of contract code enforcement activity;
c. Introduce a multi-tiered penalty program; and/or
d. Introduce a public education program for building permit
requirements and benefits.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
The financial impacts will vary based on the alternative( s) selected.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
The purpose of the Building Code is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life, limb, health,
property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction and quality of materials
for all buildings and structures. This is accomplished through the building permitting and inspection
process.
The City Council established a high priority goal in Fiscal Year 2006/2007 to conduct a study to determine
the amount of construction taking place without building permits to determine if an enhanced building
permit compliance program is needed.
Currently, building code enforcement is primarily a reactive process. Contract building inspectors
investigate complaints received involving life safety/Uniform Housing Code violations and construction
without permits occurring in the City. Proactive cases occur as a result of an inspector driving to a
scheduled inspection and finding an un-permitted project in the area.
COPY TO: File
4LEAF, Inc.
ITEM NO.
~.4
Page 1 of6
G:\Agendas\2007\Code Enforcement Survey\Code Enformcent Survey CCSRdoc
Building permit fees are based on the valuation of the project as stated in the fee schedule adopted by
Resolution No. 49-06. The permit fees are collected when a Building Permit is issued. In addition, code
enforcement fees are collected when a project begins prior to obtaining required permits. These code
enforcement fees are based on Section 7.28.430 of the Dublin Municipal Code: "Where work for which a
permit is required...is started or proceeds prior to obtaining such permit, the permit fee shall be, as a
minimum, doubled.. ."
Approximately 3 hours a day (63 hours per month) is spent on code enforcement activities in the Building
Division. Over the Fiscal Years of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 a total of 171 code enforcement cases were
opened (10 as a result of this survey). Over that two-year period, 140 cases were closed giving the division
an 82% closure rate.
Currently, the Building Division has 48 active cases. The current status of these cases run from having a
stop work order issued to a citation filed with the court. The open cases include: retaining walls in excess
of 3' in height; electrical, mechanical and plumbing work on dwellings; high pile storage racks; tenant
improvements; kitchen remodels; and a swimming pool.
The City of Dublin contracts with 4LEAF, Inc. (4LEAF) to provide Building and Safety Services. On
September 5, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 165-06 approving the Consulting Services
Agreement with 4LEAF to conduct a Code Enforcement Survey on behalf of the City's Building and
Safety Division. The Code Enforcement Survey was conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 1 :00
p.m., Tuesday through Sunday, for 2 separate non-consecutive months. The months selected were October
2006 and April 2007. October was selected because it is the beginning of the rainy season. This is the time
of year when homeowners discover that the furnace is not working or that the windows or roof are leaking.
April was selected as it is the time when residential permitting starts to increase for summer work such as
room additions and landscaping.
A surveyor drove the City streets during these 2 months noting all construction and improvement activities
by address, along with any details related to: types of materials; number of workers; activities; types of
equipment; and other details which pertain to the projects. The surveyor spoke with the individuals present
at the jobsites whenever possible. At the end of each driving day the surveyor returned to the City offices
to conduct research to ascertain whether or not a permit had been obtained.
ANALYSIS:
October 2006 (Phase I):
During Phase I there were a total of 73 construction projects observed requiring permits. Of these
projects, 49 had previously obtained permits. The remaining 24 projects were in process without the
required permit(s) (see Table 1). Seven of these 24 projects are included in the code enforcement cases for
the division. These 7 cases were opened immediately because of the serious nature of the violation. Cases
for the other un-permitted work found will be opened as Staff time permits. The un-permitted projects
included: window installations; sprinkler/irrigation pipe installations; a covered balcony; retaining walls; a
solar panel installation; a kitchen remodel; a garage conversion; and home renovations including
installation of a pantry, electrical rewiring, and a plumbing retrofit.
Page 2 of6
Total
Driving
Days
26
April 2007 (Phase II):
Total Projects
Requiring
Permits
73
Table 1: Phase I Results
Had Obtained Had Not
Required Obtained
Permits Required Permits
49 24
Percentage of
Projects without
Permits
33%
During Phase IT there were a total of 98 construction projects observed requiring permits. Of these
projects, 31 had previously obtained permits. The remaining 67 projects were in process without the
required permit(s) (see Table 2). Of these 67, the 2 that were the most serious were opened as code
enforcement cases and are included in the current division case load. The other projects will be addressed
as Staff time permits. The un-permitted projects included home remodels, which ranged from upgrading
electrical and plumbing, to drywall replacement. There were also re-roof/roof repairs; heating and air
conditioning installations; retaining walls; a new pool; kitchen remodels; solar panel installations; and
home additions.
Total
Driving
Days
30
Summary of Findings
Total Projects
Requiring
Permits
98
Table 2: Phase II Results
Had Obtained Had Not
Required Obtained
Permits Required Permits
31 67
Percentage of
Projects without
Permits
68%
During 4LEAF's 2 month survey within the City, there were 230 construction projects observed, with 171
projects observed in some phase of construction that required permits. Of these projects, 80 had
previously obtained permits. There were 91 projects in process without the required permits. This is 53%
of all projects observed that required permits. If all of these un-permitted projects obtained the required
permits and paid the code enforcement penalties, the City of Dublin would have collected an estimated
$25,450 during the course of this 2 month survey. This amount would have partially off-set the cost of
providing inspections and code enforcement services.
Projects varied in type, size and seriousness of violation. In reviewing the type of work being done
without the benefit of proper permits, Staff determined that certain construction types carry a higher
degree of risk to the resident or property than others. Examples of the lowest risk items are: small retaining
walls used to terrace a large yard; minor foundation repairs; and the removal of solar panels. Higher risk
items include kitchen remodels, garage conversions into sleeping areas; gas fireplace installations; and
large retaining walls that support a neighbor's property. The results of this survey illustrated un-permitted
work to be equally divided between low risk and major risk items.
Below are three examples of potential risk factors when work is done without utilizing the building permit
process:
a. Window or door replacement - The improper installation of windows or doors can lead to water
intrusion into the structure. The water intrusion can continue for years without detection. As a
result of this intrusion there may be dry rot damage to the structure, weakening it and leading to
costly repairs. In addition tne dry rot, water intrusion can allow mold to grow within the walls of
the structure leading to an infestation that could have serious health consequences for the residents
Page 3 of6
of the home. Another area of concern with window replacement is the requirement that windows
are used for emergency egress from buildings. If they are installed improperly they may not
function as required in an emergency situation.
b. Lawn sprinklers - The most important aspect of an irrigation system installation is the sprinkler
controller. This is the back flow prevention device that keeps fertilizer or other landscaping
chemicals from entering the fresh water system in the building. This situation could arise during a
period of low water pressure in the system.
c. Garage conversions - In the majority of homes in the City the water heater is located in the
garage. There are specific rules governing the installation of water heaters in the dwelling due to
the automatic functioning of water heaters, they turn themselves off and on as needed. Improperly
installed and/or maintained units can produce carbon monoxide. In a well maintained garage this
poses only a slight risk; however, if the garage has been converted into a bedroom this could lead
to carbon monoxide poisoning ofthe occupant.
ALTERNATIVES:
Staffhas identified the following alternatives to address the findings of this Code Enforcement Survey:
1. Maintain the current level of code enforcement activity;
2. Increase the level of contract code enforcement activity;
3. Introduce a multi-tiered penalty system; and/or
4. Introduce a public education program for building permit requirements and benefits.
Alternative One- Maintain the Current Level of Code Enforcement
Over Fiscal Years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 the City spent approximately $132,600 ($66,300 per year)
for contract services in Building Division code enforcement. This amount funded contract inspectors' time
to work on code enforcement complaints for an average of 3 hours per day at $85 per hour. This amount
was partially offset by $87,357.19 collected in code enforcement penalties. For Fiscal Year 2007/2008,
$70,200 has been budgeted for code enforcement services ($90 per hour).
The benefit of this alternative is that there is no additional cost to the City of Dublin. However, the amount
of proactive code enforcement efforts will not increase beyond the current status. The survey shows that
over 53% of the work found in the City is being done without proper permits. If code enforcement efforts
are not increased this ratio will remain approximately the same. For every permit that is issued properly,
another construction project will be started without a proper permit.
Alternative Two - Increase the Level of Code Enforcement
Currently building code enforcement efforts, at 3 hours per day, result in opening an average of 86 cases
per year and closing an average of 70 cases per year.
During the two months that the City was surveyed, 91 additional projects were found that had not obtained
proper building permits. Ten of these resulted in new code enforcement cases being opened; the other 81
will be opened as Staff time permits. This amount more than doubles the number of code enforcement
cases that the division opens using the current level of Staff time. To add these 81 cases as they arise
rather than waiting for Staff to be available, an additional 3 more hours per day would be needed.
Increasing code enforcement hours from 3 llours a day to 6 hours a day, using Contract Staff, would
increase City costs from $70,200 ($90 per hour, new 2007/2008 rate) to $140,400. These contract services
Page 4 of6
costs are intended to take. the code enforcement cases from inception through permitting and final
inspection. This amount would be partially offset by code enforcement and/or special inspection fees
collected as a result of work in progress discovered to be un-permitted. Over the last two Fiscal Years 66%
of the expenses were collected in code enforcement fees. If this ratio were maintained the amount of code
enforcement fees collected would be approximately $92,664 for an estimated net cost to the City of
$47,736.
The amount of code enforcement fees collected will vary depending on the type of work being performed
without permits. With the current fee structure, the amount of the code enforcement fee equals the amount
of the original permit value, essentially doubling the amount the homeowner or contractor pays to obtain
the permit. For example, a homeowner or contractor was found to be installing new sprinklers without a
permit. The regular permit fee for that type of work is $80. Because the work was started without a proper
permit the code enforcement fee is an additional $80 for a total of $160. The additional $80 is
approximately equal to one hour of contract service time. The amount of Staff time to process the permit
application ranges from 30 minutes to 2 hours, depending on the nature of the permit and the level of
cooperation of the applicant.
The benefit of this alternative is that Contract Staff hours can be reduced as needed. Staff will continue to
monitor the amount of un-permitted work occurring in the City. As the cases decrease due to the increased
code enforcement efforts, the Contract Staff hours spent on code enforcement will be reduced. As a result
of homeowners and contractors becoming better educated through the increased code enforcement efforts,
there will be a corresponding decrease in the collection of code enforcement/special inspection fees over
time.
If this alternative is selected an immediate budget adjustment would not be necessary; however, the budget
will need to be evaluated at mid-year and a determination made at that time.
Alternative Three - Institute a Multi-tiered Penalty System
This alternative proposes instituting a code enforcement penalty system that increases with each
subsequent infraction by the same homeowner or contractor in a two year period. As an example, the first
violation ofthe building permit process would be subject to a fee equal to the original permit fee (the
current process). For each subsequent infraction committed by the same individual or contractor within
two years from the original violation the penalty would increase as listed below:
Violation within
two- ear eriod
First
Second
Third and
subse uent
Penal Fee
Equal to the original permit fee
(current ractice)
Double the ori "nal ermit fee
Ten times the original permit fee
For example, if a homeowner or contractor did not obtain a permit for a new residential water heater
installation they would pay the original permit fee of $50, plus an additional $50 penalty. If the same
homeowner or contractor were found to be doing a residential re-roof without proper permits, the amount
of the permit would be $240 and the penalty fee would be $480 ($240 x 2) for a total of $720 needed to
obtain the necessary permit.
This alternative provides a greater deterrent against repeated violations because of the increased penalty
costs associated with working without proper building permits. While the third level of penalty is severe,
Page 5 of6
it would send a strong message to people who have violated City Building Code three times in two years
by not getting appropriate permits. The increased penalty fees are also a greater off-set to the code
enforcement expenses.
Ifthis alternative is selected, Staff would bring an amendment to section 7.28.430 ofthe Municipal Code
to the City Council with the forthcoming Building Code Amendments, later this year.
Alternative Four - Introduce a Public Education Program
As a result of this survey, it was discovered that many homeowners did not obtain required permits
because they were unfamiliar with the permitting process and with which projects required permits. Many
homeowners may not understand the risks associated with performing work and/or having work performed
without the benefit of a permit and the services provided by a licensed contractor. An educational
campaign targeted toward City residents is suggested by this alternative.
Although the majority of un-permitted work found during this survey was being done by contractors, an
educational campaign would give homeowners the knowledge needed to ensure their contractors are
obtaining the required permits. The contractors should know the laws involved in permitting, but ensuring
homeowners have the information about the permit process will help reduce the amount of un-permitted
work being performed by licensed contractors as well.
Staff proposes a mass mailing twice a year, once in March and again in October, highlighting projects that
are usually started during those times of year and outlining the processes involved with them. Also
included would be relevant safety tips, helpful contact information, and the benefits of working with
licensed contractors. This program could be expanded to include many other areas of home improvement,
including upcoming changes in applicable building codes. Staff would also augment the Department
section of the City web site and the City newsletter.
The cost of this program would be primarily postage and printing. There are approximately 15,000
residences in the City. The estimated cost of mailing to all residents using a bulk postage permit is $2,550;
printing costs are approximately $580 for a total approximate cost of $3,130. A budget adjustment for
fiscal year 2007/2008 would be needed to add this additional cost to the division's line item budget.
Alternatives two, three and four can stand alone or can be combined with any of the other alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive Staff presentation; and 2) Provide direction to Staff on
the following alternatives: a) Maintain the current level of code enforcement activity; b) Increase the level
of contract code enforcement activity; c) Introduce a multi-tiered penalty program; and/or d) Introduce a
public education program for building permit requirements and benefits.
Page 6 of6
. 4LEAF, INC.
lObS
ENG~NEERiNG .
l"-AANAGE:\\1ENT . it"'iSPECTION. PLAN CHECK
CODE ENFORMENT SURVEY
REPORT
I. Purpose of Survey
During the 2006-2007 Goals & Objectives budget review process, the City Council set as
a high priority the need to survey the amount of construction taking place within the City
without the benefit of Building Permits (i.e. illegal construction) in order to determine if
an enhanced building permit compliance program is needed. The survey outlines several
areas, including type of work performed without proper permit(s), illegal construction
performed by property owners vs. contractors, and life safety components as opposed to
maintenance items such as window replacement and re-roofs.
II. Research Methodology
The code enforcement survey was conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m.,
Tuesday through Sunday, for 2 separate non-consecutive months. The months chosen were
October 2006 and April 2007. October was selected because it is the beginning of the rainy
season. This is the time of year when homeowners discover that the furnace is not working or
that the windows or roof is leaking. April was selected as it is the time when residential
permitting starts to increase for summer work like room additions and landscaping.
A surveyor drove the City streets during these 2 months noting all construction and improvement
activities by address, along with any details related to: types of materials, number of workers,
activities, types of equipment, and other details which pertain to the projects. The surveyor spoke
with the individuals present at the jobsites whenever possible. At the end of each driving day the
surveyor returned to the City offices to conduct research to ascertain whether or not a permit had
been obtained. This research was conducted for an average of 2 hours per day from 1 pm - 3pm.
III. Data Analysis and Findings
The data below illustrates the types of construction projects taking place in Dublin without
proper permits. It also shows a breakdown of who was managing the un-permitted work as this is
the individual responsible for obtaining the required permit(s). Lastly, conversations the surveyor
had while visitingjobsites are analyzed to understand the reasons why permits were not obtained
when required.
In October (phase 1), thirty-three percent (33%) of the total work performed had not obtained
proper permits. Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of un-permitted work by the various types of
work performed. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the un-permitted work were various landscaping
projects which included; retaining walls, terracing of yards, electrical yard lighting, and
plumbing of yard sprinklers.
21 10 RHEEM DRIVE, SUITE A. PLEASANTON, CA 94588 .
PHONE (925) 462-5959 . FAX (925) 462-5958
<t -2..\-07
Attachment Page 1 of5 ~.'t
. 4LEAF, INC.
~~
.
r!ff\NAGEr<fiEt-rr '*
. C:I"iECK
Another large percentage of un-permitted work included new window replacement, which
represented seventeen percent (17%) of the work performed.
Home repairs/additions were twelve percent (12%) of the work performed. Home
repair/addition work included; additions to floor plans, garage conversions, new electrical
installations, new plumbing installation, new heating and air conditioning units, and new drywall
installation.
The least frequent project types were commercial projects totaling four percent (4%) and roof
repairs totaling two percent (2%).
In April (phase 2) of the Code Enforcement Survey the results varied significantly from the
October results. Only thirty-one percent (31 %) of the total work performed had obtained proper
permits.
In Phase 2 sixty-nine percent (69%) ofthe total work performed had not obtained proper
permits. This represents a thirty-six percent (36%) increase from October 2006 to April 2007.
Figure 2 illustrates the percentage of un-permitted work by the various types of work performed.
Sixty-four percent (64%) ofthe un-permitted work was home remodels/additions. The home
remodels/additions in this phase were the same as phase 1 with the addition of a solar panel
installation.
Other significant findings include new window installations which totaled eighteen percent
(18%) of properly permitted projects.
Landscaping projects totaled twelve percent (12%). These landscaping projects were comprised
of the same examples as in phase 1.
The least frequent project types were roof reconstructionlroof repair totaling six percent (6%) of
the work and commercial construction totaling only one percent (1 %) of un-permitted projects.
21 10 RHEEM DRIVE, SUITE A. PLEASANTON, CA 94588. PHONE (925) 462-5959 . FAX (925) 462-5958
Page 2 of 5
. 4LEAF, INC.
c. L.:.I I ~ C.R
,.,::> L
'? ffb ~
,..::
_ T )1 ~ ..., ~ , E
October 2006
'il'..
,.... ('\'S,;"~ :, ',' :.,~ ,.- ....~
l
r
~'
'11' ,.
l:,
~,~
I I ~ ;~
. ~~.
. ,
,t,
..,
I~;,
.......'
: "~t
~ if:
{
I;;:i
~.
if'
t"
April 2007
./ ~'.
,~
f
1'..'...1....'...'...
(~
~
l'
jf.
~
~ i:
~ L
b.':' I.'
~.~. '1 ~
~.!y
~~
.~
:r,
-. I.'
'"
~ ~l
,~.
i?
'Ii
If:
";..
,
: ~ ".
, r
4':
Figure 2
'~.t">:C; .::.~.,," I; ..,',y'"
. .J ''>
~
:i.
,
-a
l>
j
':
,
:!
';.
T~ ·
::t
~i!)
".
11'
1 ,,',y;
. ..": ..""............,-''ir''. '.- ".~-~::.~,
".... : :~. ~;)~.. ,........
.~, ;!~,.;
21 10 RHEEM DRIVE, SUITE A ·
PLEASANTON, CA 94588 ·
FAX (925) 462-5958
PHONE (925) 462-5959 ·
Page 3 of 5
. 4LEAF, INC.
, ..
YOb~
Iii..
co ~ ~T. =~. _, J. ,E {
October and April Compiled Data
During both Phases of this Code Enforcement Survey, 4LEAF Staff was able to interact with
contractors and property owners to ascertain the scope of work and the status of the permit (i.e.
who was responsible for obtaining the permit). Of the properly permitted projects, 4LEAF
Staff found eighty-four percent (84%) of the permits were obtained by the Contractor and sixteen
percent (16%) were obtained by the Property Owner.
Of the un-permitted projects, 4LEAF Staff found that eighty-two percent (82%) of the projects
were being managed by the contractor while eighteen percent (18%) were managed by the
Property Owner. (As represented by Figure 3)
fj' Figure 3
Bf!F
....'.
Through conversations between 4LEAF Staff and property owners and contractors some of the
reasons for not obtaining permits were identified. 4LEAF Staff found that most homeowners
were not aware of the City's requirements and/or risks associated with un-permitted work. Other
homeowners found it either too expensive or considered it an unnecessary expense. Here are
some selected quotes encountered in the field:
"I didn't think 1 needed a permit. "
"It is just a water heater, what is the worst that can happen. "
21 10 RHEEM DRIVE, SUITE A. PLEASANTON, CA 94588. PHONE (925) 462-5959 · FAX (925) 462-5958
Page 4 of5
. 4LEAF, INC.
5U(;G
.
.
.
Conclusion
Analysis of the data revealed the following information:
. There was a 36% differential between the two months in un-permitted work completed
within the City (this could be in part due to seasonal change, economic change and other factors)
. 82% of the non-permitted work completed in the city was completed by a contractor
. Many Homeowners were uneducated in regards to the building permit process
. Most contractors knew of the need for building permits but chose not to obtain them
Dllring the two month survey, 4LEAF covered the city streets a total of 22 times during a single
month. Evidence shows a majority of the work being performed (both permitted and un-
permitted) was completed by contractors. Most contractors were aware of the need to obtain
permits, but chose instead to risk the chance of getting penalized. Some contractors even went as
far as changing their working hours in an effort to avoid detection of their un-permitted project.
The un-permitted work presents a serious risk to the community. An increase in the Code
Enforcement could significantly lower the risk to the community
Appendices
1. Daily Reports (available for review in the Building Division)
2. Maps (available for review in the Building Division)
21 10 RHEEM DRIVE, SUITE A. PLEASANTON, CA 94588. PHONE (925) 462-5959 . FAX (925) 462-5958
Page 5 of5