Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement And Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DHHL enforcement unit details seizures, lease recoveries and calls for streamlined contested‑case process
Summary
DHHL’s Enforcement Unit reported multiple recoveries of homestead properties, cooperation with federal investigations involving fentanyl, and recommended streamlining contested‑case and sanctioning procedures to reduce time and cost.
David Hoke, administrator of DHHL’s Enforcement Unit, gave a detailed monthly report for the period May 12–June 8 that described investigation requests, coordinated law‑enforcement work on drug cases and successful efforts to recover multiple DHHL homes and parcels back into inventory.
Hoke said the unit received six new requests for investigation during the reporting period and that the unit’s cumulative calendar‑year total of requests stands at 76. He reported that the unit submitted 30 reports since the last submittal and 121 reports total for the calendar year. He highlighted cases in which federal partners alerted DHHL to fentanyl packages mailed to an ag parcel, one multi‑visit effort that culminated in a search warrant and recovery of a property, and other cases where the unit’s persistence led to lease transfers or cancellations without a full writ/eviction process.
Hoke described several examples of time‑intensive enforcement work: a case involving mailed fentanyl where a named successor was the individual who ordered the package; an ag‑parcel squatter who was a potential federal informant and whose removal required coordination with law enforcement; and contested‑case hearings in which the department assembled large evidence submissions (one submittal was 158 pages with over 30 police reports). Hoke commended staff members by name for “going above and beyond” on these matters.
Hoke said the contested‑case process can be burdensome for the department and suggested exploring graduated sanctions or alternative procedures so that the department does not always need to compile an extensive evidentiary package before behavior change occurs. Commissioners and staff discussed staffing and resource options; one commissioner said he had approved extra staffing for the unit and encouraged Hoke to document cost savings tied to enforcement work as part of future resource requests.
Ending: Commissioners praised the enforcement team for recovering homes and working with federal partners. Staff agreed to return with any proposals to streamline contested‑case procedures and to quantify cost savings from enforcement activity.
