Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit County council hears that two code officers cover 1,800 square miles; staff say more resources, tracking needed
Summary
County planning staff told the council that two field code officers handle enforcement across roughly 1,800 square miles, most complaints resolve after a two‑week warning, and growing code changes (lighting, landscaping, short‑term rentals) mean the department needs more staff, training and better tracking tools.
Peter Barnes and Ray Milner told the Summit County Council on Dec. 4 that the county’s current code enforcement operation depends on two field officers and informal outreach, and that growing complaints and new ordinances are stretching the program.
Barnes, identified by staff at the start of the meeting as part of the planning team, and Ray Milner, who manages the two code enforcement officers, said the officers — Tom James and Zachary Jones — handle a large volume of cases across the county and resolve roughly 90 percent of complaints through warning notices and outreach before escalating to formal notices of violation.
"Generally, what we'll do is before we start going into the legal process, we'll give them a two week notice of warning," Milner said, describing the department’s approach. He added that when cases do not remedy within the given time they are issued a formal notice of violation and can progress to an administrative law judge and ultimately district court if necessary.
Council members pressed staff on whether the county should shift from complaint‑driven enforcement to more proactive inspections. Roger (a council member who asked questions during the session) said he was concerned that standards such as conditional‑use permit conditions, lighting and landscaping rules are not being checked post‑permit. "I’m not looking to collect fines; I’m looking for compliance," he said during questioning.
Staff explained obstacles to a proactive approach: limited personnel, the breadth of codes to enforce, the technical nature of some conditions and the limits of their current software. Barnes and Milner said the county uses an E360 case‑tracking system primarily designed for building permits and that public reporting workflows can be cumbersome; many members of the public instead call or email, which bypasses the formal tracking system.
Milner said increased enforcement would also push work onto other departments. "When you start running a lot of people to the ALJ, that increases the workload of the attorney’s office," he said, warning that stronger enforcement would require coordination and additional legal and administrative resources.
Council members offered several policy options: add dedicated staff to review permitted conditions and perform post‑occupancy checks; devote resources for periodic proactive inspections for select high‑priority issues (for example, lighting and short‑term rental complaints); and invest in a more user‑friendly complaint intake and tracking module.
No formal staffing motion was made during the meeting. Council thanked the presenters and asked staff to return with options that include estimated costs, scope of work for any proposed new positions, and software alternatives to improve complaint intake and follow‑up.
The council moved on to the next agenda items after the briefing.
