County code enforcement slammed as too reliant on voluntary compliance

The Nevada County Grand Jury slammed the county's code enforcement policies this week, saying they rely too much on voluntary compliance.

As a result, code violators are slow to correct a problem once they are cited, and the county is losing a revenue source that could boost its budget.

County officials argue that heavy-handed tactics are not needed when complaints do not risk public health and safety.

“You don't want to come out like Gestapo and enforce all the codes,” said County Executive Officer Rick Haffey. “Currently (the board of supervisors) try to work with people. Sometimes it's a matter of education.”

County supervisors will respond to the grand jury report in coming weeks.

Both the Code Compliance Division and the Building Department are components of the Community Development Agency, an umbrella of departments, such as planning, environmental health, housing and the agricultural commissioner.

Three officers and a program manager oversee code compliance within a division of the planning department. They investigate complaints of code violations.

“If it's a threat to health and safety, they're right there,” Haffey said.

Violations include building without a permit, letting trash accumulate, a failing septic system and excess junk vehicles.

‘Pick and choose'

Some have complained the county policy encourages neighbors to tattle on each other, presenting problems when officers cite one with unduly harsh fines while others in the same neighborhood who blatantly break the rules are not given a second thought, said Tony Bochene.

Bochene has been a landlord for 30 years in Grass Valley and recently was reported to the county by a neighbor for a trailer and old building he had on his property.

He said the visit will cost him thousands of dollars to update his septic system and wiring, while his neighbor's yard — littered with abandoned industrial equipment, leaking oil and two unpermitted buildings — got little notice by the inspector who drove by.

“How do you pick and choose which you're going to enforce and which you're not going to enforce?” Bochene asked.

The grand jury criticized the code enforcement process, saying it “inhibited communication” with the building department, which issues building permits. Instead, code compliance should be consolidated with the building department, the report found.

“Issuance of a permit is no guarantee a violation will be corrected; dangerous, substandard and illegal conditions may persist,” the report found.

When dealing with such conditions, the building department should issue limited-term permits, the grand jury recommended.

The building department should also limit the number of permit renewals and extensions it authorizes. The grand jury recommended the board of supervisors direct the building department to follow up and close permits issued because of a code violation.

Taking a stronger stand on enforcement would, in many cases, “be faster, reduce officer caseload and generate funds for the county budget,” the grand jury report found.