San Benito County is one of the few jurisdictions in California that does not have an administrative citation ordinance that would allow county employees the authority to issue fines – for such infractions as code violations or animal control issues – without getting law enforcement involved in minor issues.
At the April 16 board of supervisors meeting, supervisors directed staff to move forward with an ordinance that would give authority to animal control officers and code enforcement officers to write administrative tickets, with potential to expand the ordinance to include employees of other departments in the future.
The ordinance calls for a first violation fine of $100, $200 for a second occurrence within one year and $500 for the third or each subsequent occurrence of the same violation of county ordinances within one year.
Violations of the local building and safety codes are set at $100 for a first violation, $500 for a second violation and $1,000 for the third or each subsequent occurrence within one year of the first violation.
The idea for the ordinance was first broached last year during the budget hearings. That is when the planning department staff members suggested the county explore an administrative citation process that would help bring property owners into compliance with the California Building Code and other county codes.
Staff members at the April 16 meeting said the administrative citation process would allow the county to recapture some money because they could collect fines for the infractions that normally go to the court system. They also said the proposed ordinance would streamline the process that residents go through, so that they have the chance to pay a fine and come into compliance without starting a court proceeding, which can be timely for both residents and staff members.
The report included with the agenda item noted that animal control officers already have administrative citation authority within the city limits, while most counties and cities in California have some administrative citation authority.
At the meeting, Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz said he was most concerned about allowing county staff members, such as the code enforcement officer and animal control officers, to make the decision on when an infraction deserves an administrative citation versus when it needs civil or criminal actions.
“You will have to trust your staff,” said County Counsel Matthew Granger, on allowing discretion to the employees.
De La Cruz said that is what worried him about the ordinance – trusting the staff.
Stacey Watson, the county code enforcement officer, said in her many years with code enforcement, she is experienced with using discretion to decide when to pursue a citation and when she can work with a resident to become compliant.
“Most property owners want to do the right thing,” she said, of educating property owners about the codes they may be violating and how they can come into compliance.
Watson said the county would still have the potential to pursue civil or criminal action against people when necessary.
Barbara Thompson, who works in the county counsel’s office, said the supervisors would have discretion to review the ordinance to give administrative citation authority to other department heads such as planning and building or public works at a future time. At the meeting, county counsel staff recommended the administrative citation authority be given to code enforcement officers and animal control officers only.
Supervisor Margie Barrios said she was concerned about the hearing process described in the ordinance.
“I am not comfortable with one person being responsible for making the decision on whether it should be repealed,” she said.
In the ordinance, it allows a person receiving an administrative citation to contest the citation by requesting a hearing within 30 days of the date of the citation, with an advanced deposit of the total fine or a hardship waiver application form.
Barrios suggested creating a panel with three hearing offices to review any appeals. Granger said that would create a cumbersome process for appeals because it would require coordinating the schedules of three people for each appeal and it would be most costly to the county. He also noted that the current process has only one person overseeing the appeals process – Judge Steven Sanders.
Barrios said she understood Granger’s point and that the supervisors should move forward with the ordinance, with the understanding that they can revise it down the road.
At the same meeting, Supervisor Anthony Botelho expressed concern that animal control officers need more authority as he had had a recent run in with dangerous dogs on his rural property near San Juan Bautista. At the meeting, Botelho said he had shot at the dogs and injured them.
The supervisors directed staff members to move forward with the ordinance and to bring it back for a public hearing at a future meeting.
