Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fresno County moves to rebuild code-enforcement unit, asks board to authorize new staff and downtown office
Summary
After a six-month reorganization, county officials asked the Board of Supervisors to formally assign the code-enforcement program to the CAO, add five officers plus administrative leadership and relocate the unit downtown to improve responsiveness and public access.
Fresno County administrators told the Board of Supervisors on March 11 that, after a six-month internal reorganization, the county is ready to expand and formalize a rebuilt code-enforcement program to tackle an 1,866-case backlog dating to 2017.
The CAO’s interim code-enforcement lead, Matt Constantine, and program manager Ellie Harrison said the program has implemented new job descriptions, recruited five trained officers and created processes for case review, cost recovery and online complaints. "We now have a code enforcement officer job series — previously we used planner job descriptions — and we received more than 230 applications for the first recruitment," Constantine said.
Why it matters: County staff said the backlog included long-unresolved weed, trash and hazardous-structure complaints that create health and safety risks. The board voted to direct staff to proceed with the assignment of the program to the CAO and to return in April with a heat map and the specific costs of proposed staffing and location changes.
Details: Constantine requested that the board approve four steps: (1) formally assign code enforcement to the County Administrative Office; (2) add five code-enforcement officers to the existing five-authorized positions; (3) add a division manager and an administrative analyst to provide program oversight and coordination with County Counsel; and (4) relocate the program downtown for better access to the CAO and the board. He said the unit had 1,866 open, unresolved cases as of the report and that many older cases had stalled because code enforcement work previously used planner classifications ill-suited to enforcement.
Board discussion: Supervisors debated scale and approach. Several supervisors — noting comparisons to city-level programs — said 10 officers may still be insufficient for countywide enforcement, and they asked for stronger enforcement tools (for example, receivership) and closer involvement by County Counsel to make penalties enforceable. Constantine and the CAO said a hearing on resources and exact costs would return to the board April 22 with a heat map, workload counts, and cost estimates.
Vote and next steps: The board approved staff’s procedural request to proceed with assignment of program staffing and location and asked staff to return with specific financial implications on April 22. County counsel will be closely involved in drafting any ordinance or enforcement changes, staff said.
Ending: Officials said the goal is faster response times, clearer accountability, a public-facing case portal and an enforcement program that uses targeted cost recovery and higher-value fines where legally available.
