The Grand Jury Stressed the Need for Strong Management in Code Compliance, The County Administration Agreed, and We Got David Laughlin and Ken Hart- that is NOT what they meant! ......and Remember, it was THIS David Laughlin, (with Building Official John DeCoursey) who would constantly complain about Ken Hart never doing anything, except pleasing Tom Burns- and it was David Laughlin that would complain about not being able to get Ken Hart on the phone or to return a call...REALLY!!! ASK Laughlin! Laughlin complaining about Ken Hart being not availible on the phone- Really. It is just like that all over that place, Laughlin's "employee's" also not listening to their voice mail and Laughlin is disciplining them- CRAZZZYTOWN!! Oh, the Bad Part, Tom Burns Hired His Friend Ken "Quixtar/ Amway" Hart to MANAGE CODE COMPLIANCE after David Laughlin went on to his huge retirement payments-bureaucratic bliss. Even that was not enough - he chose to then further to spread his incompetence -causing still further problems as a CONSULTANT trying to get more money from the same unfortunate citizens that he abused as Manager of Code Compliance. He was trying to "help" with his same level of incompetence and trying to use his position as a Long Time Bueruacrat to grab yet even more money. Now he is claiming to want to help the people he so callously (and hurt with his incompetence) - down to not even answering his phone... Seriously- SADLY- and all very well PAID! It Seems Completely Unbelievable, yet It Has Been Confirmed by the Director of the County of Santa Cruz Personnel Department, This is Stuff is REAL! and Real Sickening! How many YEARS do you NOT have to answer your phone to get FIRED? Hmm, wonder how many Red Tag Victims missed "their" chance for a "Protest Meeting" or even Uncle Tom's Kangaroo Court, did Planning Department Management ever disclose this problem to the Board of Supervisors or the CAO? or did they just tell them the same ole Planning Party Line, "the public complaining about the Planning Department is CRAZY!"
MEMORANDUM To: David Laughlin, Principal Planner From: David Lee, Assistant Planning Director Re: Notice of Intent To Suspend Notice is hereby given that the Planning Department intends to suspend you for a period of two days effective at 5 p.m. September 21, 2005. REASONS
The Planning Department intends to suspend you for two days without pay for repeatedly and chronically failing to address your incoming voicemail messages, in violation of the following rules or policies: · Planning Department Policy and Procedure I. D. Advanced Telecommunications. VI. Voicemail. Employees are expected to answer incoming calls unless they are already on the phone or away from their desks. Calls that cannot be answered for one of these reasons go into voice mail. Employees are required to check their voicemail boxes four times a day and to return calls within one business day. · County Policies and Procedures Manual Section 320 Advanced Telecommunications Voice Processing Capabilities. III. Operational Guidelines B. Public Impact 3. All incoming phone calls must be answered by an employee and not by an automated response except as may be permitted in an approved departmental plan. · Civil Service Rule 130 Section XIV B. Causes for Disciplinary Actions o 3. Inexcusable Neglect of Duty o 5. Insubordination o 11. Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees
CHARGES
For several years you have been counseled to keep current with incoming voicemail messages, but you have failed to do so. I will retrace the history, chronologically ending with the most recent occurrence.
As the Principal Planner in charge of Code Compliance you are accountable and responsible for the delivery of effective and efficient services to the public. Both you and your staff must be accessible to receive and resolve complaints. A full voicemail box indicates that you are not addressing stored phone messages in a timely manner or that you are not appropriately delegating these tasks to others. Code Compliance has frequent legal deadlines and time sensitive decisions that make timely communication critical. Your full voicemail box delays communication and reflects poorly on the Planning Department’s overall customer service. Your failure to promptly check and address phone messages demonstrates an inexcusable neglect of your duty as a Principal Planner.
Your supervisors are frustrated when they hear “this message could not be sent because the mail box is full” when they try to forward messages to you from the public. These supervisors have typically recorded an introductory statement and direction for you prior to attempting to forward the voicemail message. Your full mail box forces the department head or manager to find an alternative way to communicate with you when the matter could have been easily solved by a forwarded call. When you neglect to answer your phone directly, or fail to clear your voicemail messages, you create inefficiencies for others and negatively impact our Department’s overall effectiveness.
Your full voicemail box has been the cause of repeated complaints from the public, planning staff and other County employees. Individuals who try to reach you and cannot leave a message frequently call and disrupt other staff members. When you are not accessible by phone or voicemail you are discourteous to your coworkers and to the public.
Your March 29, 2002 evaluation documented the customer complaints that resulted when you failed to return phone calls and your voicemail box was full. Your February 13, 2003 Special Evaluation included the objective to return phone calls and “make sure that your staff do so as well” within 24 hours. Your August 4, 2003 performance evaluation directed you to keep your voicemail box clear and to return all calls within 24 hours. You have repeatedly violated this directive.
You received a written reprimand on June 10, 2004 for failing to keep your voicemail box clear for new messages. Your voicemail box capacity had previously been doubled from 15 to 30 messages to ensure that you had ample voicemail capacity. The reprimand directed you to clear your voicemail box at least twice a day. You were told that you may delegate this task to support staff but that you would be held accountable for emptying the voicemail box. That letter notified you that failure to correct this situation would result in disciplinary action. You have insubordinately failed to follow the directives in this written reprimand.
In August 10, 2004, I reported to you that one of your employees was having a similar problem related to allowing his voicemail to fill up and failing to return calls in a timely manner. In response, you sent the employee an email stating “. I too have this problem with your work performance. As someone who has been criticized for the same thing, you have to understand how badly this reflects on your work performance. I realize that it takes time but, in the long run, it saves time, and it feels very good to respond directly and promptly when you get a call. When you don’t keep current, the entire tone of the conversation changes….” You directed the employee to take corrective action and indicated that you would take disciplinary action if you received further complaints. Your counseling to this subordinate demonstrates that you understand the importance of appropriate management of voicemail messages and promptly returning phone calls.
On at least two separate occasions in the past year, once last fall and again this spring, I have encountered a full voicemail box when I attempted to forward a voice mail message to you. I discussed the first incident with you, reminded you of your written reprimand and gave you the opportunity to address the problem.
On August 3, 2005 the Planning Director, Tom Burns, was unable to forward a message to you because your voicemail box was full. Mr. Burns sent you the attached email to tell you once again that a full voicemail box was unacceptable.
On August 3rd I spoke with you briefly regarding the Director’s complaint. At that time, you indicated that one customer, Mr. Gutter, had left you 7 separate messages and that his messages filled your voicemail box. You admitted that you shouldn’t have put yourself in the situation where 7 messages would take you over the 30-message limit. Mr. Gutter left you multiple messages because he did not receive a return call from you. Mr. Gutter then called the Planning Director because he was unable to reach you.
We met again on August 19th to further discuss the circumstances that led up to your full voicemail box on August 3rd. You admitted that you had last cleared your voicemail messages on Friday, July 29th, three workdays earlier. You said that you typically receive 7-8 calls a day and that it is your preference to both address the calls and clear them from the voicemail box at the same time. You also said that if you do not have an adequate block of time that you delay checking and clearing the messages.
The Planning Department policy requires you to check your voicemail messages a minimum of four times a day and to return calls within one business day. You violated this policy when you failed to clear your voicemail box for over two working days. On days when you are very busy with multiple meetings and deadlines, it is acceptable to listen to and clear your voicemail messages for the day and delay the return calls to the next day. However, you are expected to at least listen to all voicemail messages by day’s end. You should never end a workday without clearing your messages.
You also violated the County’s policy on Advanced Telecommunications Voice Processing when you did not answer your incoming phone calls directly and did not abide by the Planning Department’s policy on the use of voicemail. That policy requires that all incoming phone calls be answered by an employee and not by an automated response except as may be permitted in an approved departmental plan. PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS, COUNSELING AND DISCIPLINE · March 29, 2002 evaluation counseled you on the importance of returning phone calls and clearing your voicemail box. · February 13, 2003 evaluation counseled you to return phone calls within 24 hours. · August 10, 2003 evaluation directed you to keep your voicemail box clear and to return calls within 24 hours. · June 12, 2004 Written reprimand for failing to keep your voicemail box clear.
MATERIALS RELIED UPON
SUMMARY
As a Principal Planner and manager of the Code Compliance Section you are expected to be accessible by phone. If your supervisors, subordinates, customers and colleagues cannot reach you directly by phone they need to be able to leave you a voicemail message. On several occasions, and as recently as August 3, 2005, your voicemail was inaccessible due to an excessively high number of stored messages. You have been counseled and received a written reprimand directing you to clear stored messages and to keep your voicemail box clear. As a result of this continued problem you are hereby directed to: 1. Personally answer incoming calls from the public unless you are on the phone, in a meeting, or working on a pressing deadline. 2. Check and clear your voicemail box at least four times a day and return voicemail messages within one business day. 3. If you are unable to personally clear your voicemail box for some reason (e.g. in court or administrative hearings and away from your office all day) you are directed to delegate the task to another employee and insure that the task is completed as assigned. You will be held accountable for making sure that the voicemail message box remains accessible to staff, our customers, and your supervisors. Failure to follow the directives above and to correct this problem will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. As a result of your continual disregard for your supervisors’ directives regarding returning telephone calls, managing your voicemail messages and keeping your voicemail box clear, the Planning Department intends to suspend you for two working days.
Notice of Right to Respond
You, or your representative, shall have the right to respond either orally or in writing to the Department regarding the intended suspension. In order to exercise such opportunity to respond, you must schedule a meeting for this purpose with the Planning Department. Such meeting must be held by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 13, 2005 in the Office of Tom Burns, Planning Director, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz CA 95060. He can be reached at 454-2580.
You are entitled to attend such meeting in person or through a representative. On or after the conclusion of such meeting, the Department shall determine whether or not to proceed with its intention to suspend you.
Acknowledgement of receipt
_________________________________________ ______________________ Signature Date
Cc: Personnel File
MEMORANDUM Date: September 14, 2005 To: David Laughlin, Principal Planner From: David Lee, Assistant Planning Director Re: Notice of Suspension Notice is hereby given that you are suspended for the following two days without pay: Thursday, September 22nd and Friday, September 23rd, 2005. As we discussed, if there is a labor action that occurs that requires all managers to be present, the Department reserves the right to change the days of the suspension by written notice to you no later Wednesday, September 21st at 5 p.m. REASONS
The Planning Department intends to suspend you for two days without pay for repeatedly and chronically failing to address your incoming voicemail messages, in violation of the following rules or policies: · Planning Department Policy and Procedure I. D. Advanced Telecommunications. VI. Voicemail. Employees are expected to answer incoming calls unless they are already on the phone or away from their desks. Calls that cannot be answered for one of these reasons go into voice mail. Employees are required to check their voicemail boxes four times a day and to return calls within one business day. · County Policies and Procedures Manual Section 320 Advanced Telecommunications Voice Processing Capabilities. III. Operational Guidelines B. Public Impact 3. All incoming phone calls must be answered by an employee and not by an automated response except as may be permitted in an approved departmental plan. · Civil Service Rule 130 Section XIV B. Causes for Disciplinary Actions o 3. Inexcusable Neglect of Duty o 5. Insubordination o 11. Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees
CHARGES
For several years you have been counseled to keep current with incoming voicemail messages, but you have failed to do so. I will retrace the history, chronologically ending with the most recent occurrence.
As the Principal Planner in charge of Code Compliance you are accountable and responsible for the delivery of effective and efficient services to the public. Both you and your staff must be accessible to receive and resolve complaints. A full voicemail box indicates that you are not addressing stored phone messages in a timely manner or that you are not appropriately delegating these tasks to others. Code Compliance has frequent legal deadlines and time sensitive decisions that make timely communication critical. Your full voicemail box delays communication and reflects poorly on the Planning Department’s overall customer service. Your failure to promptly check and address phone messages demonstrates an inexcusable neglect of your duty as a Principal Planner.
Your supervisors are frustrated when they hear “this message could not be sent because the mail box is full” when they try to forward messages to you from the public. These supervisors have typically recorded an introductory statement and direction for you prior to attempting to forward the voicemail message. Your full mail box forces the department head or manager to find an alternative way to communicate with you when the matter could have been easily solved by a forwarded call. When you neglect to answer your phone directly, or fail to clear your voicemail messages, you create inefficiencies for others and negatively impact our Department’s overall effectiveness.
Your full voicemail box has been the cause of repeated complaints from the public, planning staff and other County employees. Individuals who try to reach you and cannot leave a message frequently call and disrupt other staff members. When you are not accessible by phone or voicemail you are discourteous to your coworkers and to the public.
Your March 29, 2002 evaluation documented the customer complaints that resulted when you failed to return phone calls and your voicemail box was full. Your February 13, 2003 Special Evaluation included the objective to return phone calls and “make sure that your staff do so as well” within 24 hours. Your August 4, 2003 performance evaluation directed you to keep your voicemail box clear and to return all calls within 24 hours. You have repeatedly violated this directive.
You received a written reprimand on June 10, 2004 for failing to keep your voicemail box clear for new messages. Your voicemail box capacity had previously been doubled from 15 to 30 messages to ensure that you had ample voicemail capacity. The reprimand directed you to clear your voicemail box at least twice a day. You were told that you may delegate this task to support staff but that you would be held accountable for emptying the voicemail box. That letter notified you that failure to correct this situation would result in disciplinary action. You have insubordinately failed to follow the directives in this written reprimand.
In August 10, 2004, I reported to you that one of your employees was having a similar problem related to allowing his voicemail to fill up and failing to return calls in a timely manner. In response, you sent the employee an email stating “. I too have this problem with your work performance. As someone who has been criticized for the same thing, you have to understand how badly this reflects on your work performance. I realize that it takes time but, in the long run, it saves time, and it feels very good to respond directly and promptly when you get a call. When you don’t keep current, the entire tone of the conversation changes….” You directed the employee to take corrective action and indicated that you would take disciplinary action if you received further complaints. Your counseling to this subordinate demonstrates that you understand the importance of appropriate management of voicemail messages and promptly returning phone calls.
On at least two separate occasions in the past year, once last fall and again this spring, I have encountered a full voicemail box when I attempted to forward a voice mail message to you. I discussed the first incident with you, reminded you of your written reprimand and gave you the opportunity to address the problem.
On August 3, 2005 the Planning Director, Tom Burns, was unable to forward a message to you because your voicemail box was full. Mr. Burns sent you the attached email to tell you once again that a full voicemail box was unacceptable.
On August 3rd I spoke with you briefly regarding the Director’s complaint. At that time, you indicated that one customer, Mr. Gutter, had left you 7 separate messages and that his messages filled your voicemail box. You admitted that you shouldn’t have put yourself in the situation where 7 messages would take you over the 30-message limit. Mr. Gutter left you multiple messages because he did not receive a return call from you. Mr. Gutter then called the Planning Director because he was unable to reach you.
We met again on August 19th to further discuss the circumstances that led up to your full voicemail box on August 3rd. You admitted that you had last cleared your voicemail messages on Friday, July 29th, three workdays earlier. You said that you typically receive 7-8 calls a day and that it is your preference to both address the calls and clear them from the voicemail box at the same time. You also said that if you do not have an adequate block of time that you delay checking and clearing the messages.
The Planning Department policy requires you to check your voicemail messages a minimum of four times a day and to return calls within one business day. You violated this policy when you failed to clear your voicemail box for over two working days. On days when you are very busy with multiple meetings and deadlines, it is acceptable to listen to and clear your voicemail messages for the day and delay the return calls to the next day. However, you are expected to at least listen to all voicemail messages by day’s end. You should never end a workday without clearing your messages.
You also violated the County’s policy on Advanced Telecommunications Voice Processing when you did not answer your incoming phone calls directly and did not abide by the Planning Department’s policy on the use of voicemail. That policy requires that all incoming phone calls be answered by an employee and not by an automated response except as may be permitted in an approved departmental plan. PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS, COUNSELING AND DISCIPLINE · March 29, 2002 evaluation counseled you on the importance of returning phone calls and clearing your voicemail box. · February 13, 2003 evaluation counseled you to return phone calls within 24 hours. · August 10, 2003 evaluation directed you to keep your voicemail box clear and to return calls within 24 hours. · June 12, 2004 Written reprimand for failing to keep your voicemail box clear.
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO RESPOND
In the prior Notice of Intent that was given to you on September 6th, 2005, you were advised of your right to respond either orally or in writing to the Department regarding the intended suspension. In order to exercise such opportunity to respond, you were advised to schedule a meeting for this purpose with the Planning Department by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 13, 2005 in the Office of Tom Burns, Planning Director, 701 Ocean Street, Santa Cruz CA 95060. By not doing so by this date and time, you have waived your right to such meeting with the Planning Director.
MATERIALS RELIED UPON
SUMMARY
As a Principal Planner and manager of the Code Compliance Section you are expected to be accessible by phone. If your supervisors, subordinates, customers and colleagues cannot reach you directly by phone they need to be able to leave you a voicemail message. On several occasions, and as recently as August 3, 2005, your voicemail was inaccessible due to an excessively high number of stored messages. You have been counseled and received a written reprimand directing you to clear stored messages and to keep your voicemail box clear. As a result of this continued problem you are hereby directed to: 1. Personally answer incoming calls from the public unless you are on the phone, in a meeting, or working on a pressing deadline. 2. Check and clear your voicemail box at least four times a day and return voicemail messages within one business day. 3. If you are unable to personally clear your voicemail box for some reason (e.g. in court or administrative hearings and away from your office all day) you are directed to delegate the task to another employee and insure that the task is completed as assigned. You will be held accountable for making sure that the voicemail message box remains accessible to staff, our customers, and your supervisors. Failure to follow the directives above and to correct this problem will result in further disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. As a result of your continual disregard for your supervisors’ directives regarding returning telephone calls, managing your voicemail messages and keeping your voicemail box clear, the Planning Department suspends you without pay for two working days.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO RESPOND
Pursuant to County Code Section 3.24.030(b), you may appeal this suspension to the Civil Service Commission by filing an appeal with the County Personnel Director within seven calendar days after presentation of this notice.
Acknowledgement of receipt
_________________________________________ ______________________ Signature Date
Cc: Personnel File | Except in rare instances, code violations are only reported
via citizen complaints. County personnel are not required, or even encouraged,
to report violations unless they observe very significant health or safety
issues. |
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
To: Fiscal Staff
Code Compliance Staff
From: Nancy McCollum
Re: PROPOSED
COST RECOVERY PROCEDURES
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
BACKGROUND
A number of questions have come up recently surrounding our code cost recovery efforts. These include:
1.) Is there a minimum amount of staff cost due under which we will not bill? (wouldn’t this also potentially apply to at-cost as well??)
2.) What is the minimum amount in staff cost recovery that dictates something will be taken to the Hearing Officer?
3.) Will we take cases to the Hearing Officer only for staff cost recovery, or will there always be civil penalties?
4.) Are we going to refer all non-Hearing Officer or non-court cases to County Collections?
At a minimum, we have a responsibility to bill for amounts due, even if they are very small. We do not have the authority to forgive accounts receivable. (unless we find out that there is a statutory limit- I’ve asked Rahn) That said, it does not make good economic sense to expend the same effort on small accounts as we would on larger ones.
COUNTY COLLECTIONS PROCEDURES
After we have attempted collection of code costs due by mailing the party a letter and invoice requesting payment, (followed by a second request notice?) we are in a position to either forward non-responders to County Collections , to the Hearing Officer, or to Court.
County Collections will accept accounts for amounts over $10 if we can provide a good address. If we do not have a good address they will only accept the account if it exceeds $100.
In addition to unpaid invoices, we also refer cases to County Collections where the Administrative Hearing Officer or a Court has declared that unpaid code costs, civil penalties, and/or illegal rents are the person obligation of a property owner. This may be in addition to filing a lien on the property for the same amounts.
County Collections prefers getting accounts promptly from departments. They will then do the following: (do they always do all of them, except for the bolded items, even for a small amount? If not, maybe change the into to “They will then do one or more of the following, depending on the amount owed“:
· Debtor is sent 2 automated notices
· Debtor is assigned a Collection Officer who will send at least 1 or more additional notices.
· Debtor is contacted by Collection Officer by phone if a phone number is available.
· Debtor will be skip traced if mail is returned or phones are disconnected, etc.
· Debtor will be reported to national credit file database and the information will remain there for 7 years, even after paid in full.
· Debtor is asked to voluntarily provide document of financial status.
· Debtor is given the opportunity to make monthly payments.
· Debtor is served with legal proceedings.
· Debtor is served with notice of court ordered "Order of Exam" for financial status.
· Debtor's state income tax refund is withheld.
· Debtor's wages are attached.
· Debtor's bank account is seized.
The last 4 items in bold can only be used if the County has been awarded a judgement as a result of Court action, as occurred in the Tate case. Just having a Hearing Officer award would not be sufficient. (query- do they take the unpaid amount to court and get a judgement in order to take these additional steps?? Last unbolded item infers that they will. This is important, because if they would do that, that may influence our decision as to when we go to admin hearing)
All of these actions have certain criteria that must be met before Collections can proceed. For example, the first item on the list is also the first step for all accounts. However, if the address is not valid and the mail is returned they cannot proceed until they get good information. Also, the last item on the list is reserved for severely delinquent accounts with a high dollar amount. It is only used after all other steps have been unsuccessful and it does require that Collections has the debtor’s valid and current bank information to proceed, in addition to the aforementioned judgement. This process can only be attempted once per account and will only allow Collections to seize funds currently available; they cannot keep going back until we are whole.
Once a debt is paid, an owner may still need to pay an additional amount to Planning in order to expunge a recorded red-tag.
Also, when I mentioned that Supervisor Stone had inquired
into the status of the Tate collection, I found that they were at the point of
attempting to serve Ray Tate, Jr. to require him to appear before a judge and
provide information about his financial status (i.e., Order of Exam). They had heard that Mrs. Tate is in a rest
home and, if that proves to be the case, they will not be able to serve
her. Apparently, if someone is in the
hospital or a rest home they cannot be served to assist in this sort of
collection effort. (I
don’t think this belongs in the final
PROPERTY TAX COLLECION PROCEDURES
When the Administrative Hearing Officer
or a Court has ordered a lien has At a minimum, we need the Hearing
Officer’s approval to place a tax lien on someone’s property, . When we record the lien and
forward it to the Auditor. They will send out an amended tax bill that includes
the lien amounts. If the party does not
pay their taxes, the lien will “fall off” the secured roll, but remains as a
recorded lien against the property. “Falling off” the roll in effect means that
the lien is not carried forward and put on the tax bill from year to year, it
does not mean that it is no longer due. The party will have to clear it in order sell,
refinance or otherwise change their title to the property. So, as long as we get the lien placed timely
before ownership changes we will recover our costs sooner or later.
If the taxes are not paid within 5 years the property can be auctioned off and “sold to the State”. In that circumstance, our lien is on an equal footing with other special levies and will share in the distribution of the tax auction proceeds.
Once a lien is paid, an owner may still need to pay an additional amount to Planning in order to expunge a recorded red-tag.
HEARING OFFICER PROCESS
This is good language to get us moving, but lets land on the threshold and then put that in here. Frankly, given all that collections does, especially if they will get court judgements, my inclination is to move that bar up now to a much higher amount, like $1500…
It is estimated that it currently costs about $500 in staff time to
prepare and present a case to the Hearing Officer. That amount would also accrue to the account
due from the party, but we need to determine the threshold amount that
determines which cases are going to be sent to hearing. In fact, the amount due may not be the only
determining factor; circumstances of the violation(s) may have an impact on
this decision. The Daves need to decide
and indicate if that needs to be part of the decision.
SUMMARY
SUGGESTIONS
We will send a two bills?
for every Code case and
any other unpaid obligation regardless of the amount due to meet our due
diligence requirements. We will refer everything over $10 to Collections if we
can provide them with a good address. If
we do not have a good address, that threshold becomes $100. Amounts that are under the referral threshold will remain in our billing
system, and if the owner either requests an expungement or applies for a permit
in the future, the unpaid amount will be collected at that time. However, if
the property ownership changes, the amount is reversed in the system and
excused. Collections costs for handling our accounts will be charged
back to us through the County’s A87 Cost Plan.
The Daves need to determine
whether we need to consider circumstances other than financial when deciding
what cases are to go to the Hearing Officer.
If the financial is to be the only determining factor, executive
management needs to indicate what the threshold will be to send cases
forward. Perhaps we could discuss this
and come up with a recommendation for Tom’s consideration.
|
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
|
Planning Department |
MEMORANDUM
To: Code Compliance Staff
From: David Laughlin/Ken Hart
Re: Cost Revision Policies and Procedures
There are instances in which it is appropriate to adjust the amount of code costs due. In the past, these adjustments have been made on a case-by-case basis by Code Compliance Investigators using their best judgment. However, there are no written policy criteria to guide these determinations. Therefore, to ensure consistency and to ensure the appropriate level of review for making these financial adjustments, we have developed a uniform set of criteria to use in the future when you review the case histories and code costs for possible adjustments.
As you know, code costs are calculated at various times: at the time of permit application; permit issuance; hearing officer case preparation; referral to County Counsel; at the time of expungement, or when a case is resolved without a permit. In these instances, or any other situation that may arise when costs are calculated, the cost information in ALUS must be reviewed and either confirmed or adjusted, using the criteria set forth below. (Remember, if a tax lien has already been recorded, please do not identify any liened amounts as costs owed)
Code Compliance Investigators are responsible to review and, if appropriate, propose revisions to Code Costs as presented in the Code Cost Determination Screen. However, the Section Manager or Lead Worker must approve any revision of code costs in advance. Once the manager or lead worker approves the adjustments, the Code Compliance Investigator makes the entries into ALUS to reverse any charges. To reverse any code cost, simply enter a negative amount of time for the date in question and enter the wording listed under “SCREEN ENTRY” as appropriate. A copy of the back-up documentation supporting any adjustment must be kept in the Code file, which at a minimum would be the print-out of the costs summary with the stricken adjustments bearing the appropriate manger/lead worker approval signature.
|
CRITERIA |
ADJUSTMENT |
SCREEN ENTRY |
|
|
|
|
|
Complaint not valid
|
Reverse All Charges |
Complaint Not Valid |
|
Violation Resolved- No Red-Tag |
Reverse All Charges |
Violation Resolved- No Red-Tag |
|
Investigation/Field Time Prior To Red-Tag |
Reverse All Charges for Time entered prior to issuance of Red-tag. Charges start at date of Red-Tag. |
Reverse Charges Prior to Red-Tag |
|
Protest Meeting |
Reverse Charges to prepare for or attend Protest meeting |
Reverse Charges- Protest Meeting |
|
Change of Ownership Prior to Recordation |
Reverse All Charges Prior to Change of OWnership |
Change Of Ownership Prior To Recordation |
|
Duplicate Entry |
Reverse Charge |
Error-Duplicate Enrty |
|
Redundant Staff Action due to Reassignment or training
|
Reverse all charges due to staff reassignment or training |
Reverse Charges due to reassignment or training |
|
Communications with Complainant/Reporting Party
|
Reverse Charges in excess of 1 Hour Total TIme |
Reverse Charge- Excessive Public Contact |
|
Costs in excess of Hearing Officer or Court Award |
Reverse all charges accrued prior to decision |
Costs in Excess of Award |
|
Duplicate Costs Charged to At-Cost Agreement and Code Screen |
Reverse Duplicate Charge |
Duplicate Charge |
There may be other situations that arise where an adjustment to Code Costs may be appropriate. These cases should be brought to the Section Managers attention for an individual case determination.
Cc Tom Burns
David Lee
__________________________________________________________
Thanks from Management -A Small taste of how it works with "NON-PROFIT" Housing and County Planning- Vista Verde & San Andreas,easy as 123
The UnOfficial Building Official- Tainting the Title with Incompetence, Jennifer Hutchinson
If Santa Cruz County Management is so Bad, Why isn't any one Complaining? Or What Happens to Employees Who Complain About Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power?
If Santa Cruz County Management is so Bad, Why isn't any one Complaining? Or What Happens to Employees Who Complain About Fraud, Corruption and Abuse of Power?