Code enforcement overhaul
Emporia's Building Futures
Saturday, May 29, 2010
In our first two articles, we pointed out the destructive effects of a look-the-other-way property code policy. Our remarks about leadership’s role did not single out any individuals, but addressed decades of leadership that has chosen to make the housing codes a low- or non-priority. Our goal is to encourage city-wide discussion that will lead to positive change.
Now that we have explored the problem, here is our proposed solution:
First, create a full-time code enforcement position. Currently, Emporia’s housing specialist has two duties: code enforcement and applying for and managing housing grants. The grants take up the majority of his day — and he does an excellent job at it — leaving only about 25 percent of his time available for housing code issues.
That gives Emporia a quarter-time code enforcement position.
Other Kansas towns that have made the safety and appearance of housing a priority allocate at least one full-time position to the job. Kearny County, population 4,159 in southwest Kansas, has one full-time code enforcement officer. That’s an officer to taxpayer ratio of 1:4,159; an equivalent effort in Emporia (population about 26,188) would devote 6.3 full-time personnel to the job. The Kearny County officer handles construction building code inspections, too, but most of his time is spent with housing and nuisance code violations.
“They keep me very busy,” he told us.
Leoti, a small town in western Kansas with a population of 1,598, recently created a full-time code enforcement job, removing it from the assistant city superintendent’s list of duties.
“We decided it was worth it,” said Leoti Councilwoman Lori Christensen.
Factoring in Emporia’s population, our equivalent effort would mean a code enforcement staff of 16.
Topeka’s Code Enforcement Unit is part of the Police Department and contains 17 full-time people, including 10 inspectors. It is completely separate from the building code inspection department. An Emporia equivalent would put 3.6 people on the job.
We should follow their lead.
Our housing officer does not have the time or resources to respond to all the complaints that come into his office or to follow-up on a timely schedule. His department does not have a computer program to organize the complaints or flag his calendar about inspection timelines. And for each complaint that he does have time to address, he must maneuver through a drawn-out bureaucratic maze:
- Inspect the property;
- Mail a “soft” letter that explains the violation and usually gives 30 days to respond;
- Inspect again and try to work out a solution with the owner.
- If no compliance mail a “hard” letter, giving another deadline to respond and warning about a potential court summons;
- More discussions with the owner and/or another inspection.
- If still no change, alert the city prosecutor. (If the prosecutor agrees to follow-up rather than drop the case, she will send out a Notice to Appear in Municipal Court.)
Does that sound doable for a 25-percent-allocated city job?
It’s obvious that the first step must be to hire at least one full-time code enforcement officer. Then we’ll at least be serving the city with 1/16 the effort Leoti’s residents are getting.
Next, we propose that the process be streamlined to a system like Olathe, Topeka and other towns use. In Olathe, which has four nuisance code inspectors, officers post an inspection report on violators’ doors and gives them seven days to respond. If it’s ignored, the officer (non-police) has the authority to issue a ticket or notice to appear in court. The court mails out those tickets. Tenant-violation tickets are mailed to tenants and owner-violation tickets are sent to owners. The ticket states how high the fine may be and that a warrant may be issued for a no-show.
If you think this type of system would just clog up the court, think again.
By issuing a report with a short deadline, followed up by a ticket that comes directly from the court, the Olathe department has found that violators are quick to comply. Things get cleaned up and fixed, quick.
“It usually gets them moving,” one Olathe code officer said, adding that there are resources for those who need assistance with complying.
To get violators “moving” in Emporia, we need a full-time officer empowered with the same authority and “we-mean-business” swift-ticketing approach. We need a court that will back up the policy with some teeth. But in most cases this kind of system will get results before the court has to get involved.
Do you agree that Emporians deserve a workable code enforcement system? Let us know online at The Gazette or at the Building Futures website, www.emporiabuildingfutures.com, using the “Contact Us” link. Speak up and keep those ideas coming.
This is the third of five columns dealing with housing issues in Emporia written by members of the housing committee of the Emporia Building Futures project.
koalemos (anonymous) says...
What is this?
June 15, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
Full time person sounds great, I bet he would in fact just be a lackey for the rich people in town to eliminate "problem" residents, and assure the upper crust that their "values" are being upheld.
YAWN
June 15, 2010 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
OutsiderJ (anonymous) says...
I guess I never knew. Blaming rich people is both easy and fun...reminds me of a girl I used to know. I think I will call her up, see if she has anyone I can blame.
June 15, 2010 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
IF the city hires a full time code enforcement officer, they just as well go ahead and hire a 40 man string trimmer crew to take care of code violations on city owned property. Tossing stones in a house of cards isn’t advisable. We rich will be taxed to supplement the poor sucker who sues us for selective enforcement of our laws.
June 15, 2010 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
" I bet he would in fact just be a lackey for the rich people in town to eliminate "problem" residents, and assure the upper crust that their "values" are being upheld. " OutsiderJ, you just don' t realize how much truth there is in this part of your comment. That you actually meant to be a " Snide " remark. Funny how the truth in ones own remarks, sometimes, escapes even them .
June 15, 2010 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Well said, Farm Raised, and probably very true. I remember keeping all the grades and comments up to date for grades 10, 11, and 12 -- about 90 students -- when I was teaching and that was in addition to grading papers. Why someone can't keep a simple schedule is beyond me.
June 15, 2010 at 6:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )