Code Enforcement Background

The highlighted section below describes a JWT request for assistance in improving access to information about open code enforcement cases for interested citizens.

I had an eighty minute meeting with Andrea Ibanez, Interim Head of Housing and Community Development and Teresa Williams, Code Enforcement Administrator, on December 13, 2012.  We talked over the City of Tucson's code enforcement process, what is written in Tucson City Code - Chapter 16 - Neighborhood Preservation, Code Enforcement's administrative procedures, data availability and the arena in which the City's code enforcement process operates.

From a broad policy perspective, Code Enforcement in Tucson is caught in a crosswinds of strongly differing opinions. Portions of the population want strong enforcement of existing Neighborhood Preservation ordinances, short time lags between steps toward compliance and penalties as needed to compel remedy of violations.  Equally vocal portions of the community want lax or no enforcement of such ordinances and to be left alone with no interference from surrounding neighbors or government. The Code Enforcement Division straddles this divide regularly through phone calls it receives and encounters between property owners and code enforcement inspectors in the field.

In order for there to be any tightening up of procedures, including shortened lags between enforcement steps and a 'tightening of the leash' mentality, there will need to be a clear statement from elected officials that this is to be so. Reduction of several thirty day lags as the default to fewer days for problem resolution is a place to start.  Thirty days is the usual offering by inspectors as the time allowed for fixing a violation. Many factors come into play as to what is a reasonable timeframe for resolution: finances, health/disability, family circumstances, owner lack of involvement to name a few. Additional pressure by inspectors on property owners to comply sooner rather than later will be appreciated by some portions of the population and resented by others.

Code enforcement efforts are supposed to be applied evenly across the community's many sub-groups.  Certain parts of town and certain residents in any neighborhood have firmly held views on both sides of the enforcement issue.  Code Enforcement internal policy sets the thirty day lag for compliance as the default.  This is the currently defined 'reasonable' length of time for compliance after first inspection, or after a subsequent inspection reveals partial compliance, or maybe after a third inspection reveals an incomplete job due to sickness or a lost job.  The lags add up and government seeks compliance, compassionately.

Code Enforcement takes in complaints for violations against City owned property but simply passes them on the City Department responsible for remediation.  Some followup promptly, some have no resources to respond and some respond slowly. Code inspectors have lists of bank programs for taking care of complaints against bank owned properties.  Properties in some stage of foreclosure technically belong to the owners until the process is complete. Many owners in foreclosure proceedings have abandoned their properties and have left the state or have disappeared. Many doors slam in the faces of committed code enforcers as they try to find compliance. Of course, once a citation is issued, City Court procedures and timeframes take over in reaching final resolution.

Rough numbers related to Tucson Code Enforcement include: 900 - 1000 new complaints per month, 2000 - 3000 cases pending at any one time, 50 - 150 second inspection $75 invoices sent each month and approximately 350 citations written each year. Code Enforcement currently has eighteen inspectors in the field and five customer service personnel in a call center.

Ibanez and Williams were open and forthcoming about their situation.  Things can be tightened up if there is consensus to do so. If directed, they will shorten the default timeframe for remediation steps to some number of days less than thirty. They will issue more second inspection fee invoices and write more citations.  Some people will cheer and others will howl their objections.  Elected officials need to be ready for the howl and firm in their resolve to hold the line.

Information about code violations is entered into the City/County Permits Plus computer system. Ibanez and Williams agree that there is value in making the information more accessible to citizens than is currently the case.  I described what information flow would be helpful - daily updates on all code enforcement cases active in the system - and indicated that such a public data extract could be fully automated and need little regular attention. The data could be left for pickup by another automated process (non-City) that would organize case information by neighborhood and produce web pages for easy access by neighborhood leaders, the complainant and other interested parties.  In addition to keeping the public updated on the status of code violations of neighborhood interest, the Code Enforcement office, and Ward offices, should receive fewer calls from citizens wondering about open cases.

Additional meetings are foreseen on Code Enforcement enhancements. Ibanez will discuss internal procedures with the City Attorney's Office and with City management. Data access will be discussed with City Information Technology and with Planning and Development Services who are managers of the Permits Plus system. Ibanez and Williams recognize the central role that Code Enforcement plays in managing much of the disorder seen in the community. They rightly point out how much progress has been made in recent years, as well as recognizing that changes can be made in their ways of doing business.  D. S. Ijams