On Tuesday Community Development Director Rick Coel, who oversees the code enforcement and planning divisions, took to the Board of Supervisors four options for how to address the needed changes in his department.
The board chose option No. 3, which would leave vacant the code enforcement manager slot, consolidate the code enforcement and planning divisions, plan for eventual staff reductions and pair planners in “micro teams” to work on cases.
Coel said staff currently includes four officers and one technician. He told the board that he was concerned about cutting too deeply into staff because it could result in a rollback on the things the division has accomplished over the last several years.
The county set aside one-time monies in its marketing and economic development budget in the 2002-03 fiscal year in order to bulk up the department, Coel explained. The money has lasted four years longer than anticipated, but its funds are expected to be completely depleted by this coming July 1.
Voris Brumfield recently transferred from the code manager job to the geothermal coordinator position, Coel said.
He proposed leaving that job open, and had discussed with County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox ways of reorganizing the department “in order to maintain an effective enforcement program with less staff.”
During the county's budget process last year, he said the board had been informed that this would be the last year of enhanced code enforcement.
One way to help fund code enforcement division would be to implement measures for cost recovery, Coel said. Otherwise, with the county's discretionary revenue declining, there don't appear to be other sources readily available.
“We still strongly believe that that code enforcement is a very important program and that much additional code enforcement work is required throughout the county,” he said.
Coel didn't want to see lost traction with regard to the significant progress they've made along highway corridors and areas frequented by tourists.
Looking at a budget of $405,000 for the year, Coel laid out his options, which also included maintaining current staff levels and cutting elsewhere or reducing staffing back to pre-enhancement levels, when they had about two to three officers at a time. At the division's peak, it had eight officers.
The fourth option, which he didn't advocate because of “a number of problems,” was to eliminate code enforcement altogether and transfer its functions to planning.
Instead, Coel suggested not filling the manager slot and relocating the division back to Lakeport from Lucerne. He would oversee code enforcement with assistance from his principal and senior planners, but taking on that responsibility would require the entire staff to be in Lakeport.
Planners would work with code enforcement officers on addressing violations, options and completing paperwork and reports, which would help increase efficiency, Coel said. In return, he envisioned seeing officers out in the field more.
He said that consolidating the divisions could help realize savings that would spare him from having to lay off staff. Coel added that he was willing to take on those extra management duties for a few years and, when the economy improves, look at handing those duties off again.
Coel said he believed the consolidation could offer a seamless transition.
Even with the potential cuts, Coel said, “There's still work to do,” especially in high priority areas such as near schools and resorts, and in the area of the Lucerne Hotel, which now is being marketed for sale.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington said the board has invested a substantial amount of time and money in the program, and there were frustrations along the way.
“We thought we might be able to accomplish more than we did,” he said.
Coel told the board that a chapter of county code was being amended and should be before them sometime in the next two to three weeks that would include a cost recovery process.
That process would apply in cases such as when people take too long to comply with enforcement but ended up cleaning up properties themselves. In those circumstances Coel said division resources still are used and the property owners should have to pay for them.
Supervisor Denise Rushing said she wanted to better understand how they were doing as far as getting people to voluntarily comply with county codes. “Voluntary compliance isn't something that's easily measured right now,” she said.
Coel explained that, each month, a roughly equal number of cases are opened as are closed. He added that most of the cleanups along the highway were voluntary.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he hated to see enhanced code enforcement go away. “It's had its ups and downs,” he said, but it was something for which he had long advocated, because it improves property values, especially in the redevelopment area.
But, like Farrington, Smith added, “My expectation was a lot higher than what we achieved,” which may have been a reason why the money lasted as long as it did.
“I hate to set you up in some ways to fail,” he said.
Smith said code enforcement has especially built up morale on the Northshore, where a lot of cleanup has taken place.
“That's been a concern of ours going in this,” said Coel. “We don't want to back off.”
However, he suggested that the code revisions for cost recovery could be one of the most cost-efficient ways to keep the program intact.
“Give me a couple years with this,” he said. “I'll do my best to reorganize it, boost up our efficiencies,” as well as dealing with scenic and tourism-related corridors.
Cox said all county departments are competing for the same discretionary funding, following a “very, very difficult” year last year.
The board unanimously approved Coel's option No. 3.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
