Resident raises formal complaint about shed tied to council affiliates; city lays out code-enforcement intake and privacy rules

Jeff McClure told the Oroville City Council on Aug. 5 that he submitted a formal complaint on July 17 alleging a shed installed on property affiliated with city members may lack required permits and inspections and could present electrical and zoning violations. He also said a council member shared his complaint with community members, which he described as retaliatory.

"This wasn't just a public comment. It was a formal complaint submitted in good faith, expecting accountability and transparency," McClure said, adding, "I will not be intimidated or silenced." (Public comment by Jeff McClure.)

City leaders said the complaint would be handled through the city's operational code-enforcement process rather than treated as a legislative matter. The city attorney explained that complaints about potential noncompliance should be filed with the city's code enforcement department using the citizen-complaint intake so staff can investigate and, where appropriate, redact sensitive information in public records responses.

"Whenever there is a complaint about noncompliance... it should be brought forward to the code enforcement department. We have a citizen complaint form to handle those kinds of intakes," the city attorney said. The city attorney added that the complainant normally receives confirmation from code enforcement that the issue was reviewed and, when possible, some form of closure.

Council members told McClure that the city is reviewing the structure and that staff are working with planning and building to ensure required permits and inspections are completed. Councilman Johnstone said the property is "working with the city to get all the necessary permits and make sure that everything is above board." The mayor and other councilors said an operational response from code enforcement would be more appropriate than a council-level discussion and apologized that McClure had not received a direct referral earlier.

Natalie Deakins, who said she was speaking on behalf of local young professionals and small-business owners, told the council that peers perceive inconsistent application of permit and fee rules and said that perception harms trust in the city's processes. "Why do the rules seem to shift for someone and not for others?" she asked.

Council members and staff responded to that broader concern by urging business owners to use the city's predevelopment meetings and intake forms and by pointing to outreach efforts intended to make permitting clearer. The city administrator and planning staff said they are working to improve communications and encouraged affected residents and business owners to meet with staff directly.

Direction given at the meeting: council members and staff agreed the complainant should be directed to file or re-file the issue through the code enforcement intake so operational staff can document and investigate it. The mayor said the city would follow up with McClure and apologized that staff had not earlier walked the complainant through the intake process.

No formal policy or disciplinary action was taken by the council at the meeting; the matter was described as an operational complaint to be handled by departments.

Ending: Officials said they will respond to the complainant through the proper code-enforcement intake process and reiterated that the city has an online complaint form for code and building concerns. Council members said they welcome residents bringing concerns to staff or the front counter so they can be routed to the correct department.