Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs staff to draft tougher code-enforcement rules after residents report rats, hoarding and repeated noncompliance
Summary
After multiple residents described long-running trash, animal and hoarding problems, the board instructed staff to return with ordinance language that would add administrative citations and a single complaint intake pathway to speed compliance.
The Amador County Board of Supervisors directed staff to draft ordinance changes that would add administrative citations and consolidate complaint intake to address persistent code violations that neighbors say are damaging property values and public health.
Michelle, the county’s code enforcement officer, told the board that the current process routes complaints to multiple departments, requires multiple inspections and often ends in a costly abatement. “I just want this as a tool because it works,” Michelle said, describing a proposed middle step with administrative warnings and escalating fines that would aim to secure earlier compliance and reduce county abatement expenses.
Residents at the meeting described years-long problems next door, including overflowing trash, abandoned vehicles and a reported rat infestation. Tim Rickford, a resident of Amador Pines, said the conditions near his home left him feeling unsafe and pushed him to file restraining orders after conflicts with a neighbor. “This timing is impeccable because what they’re presenting has just recently affected me,” Rickford said during public comment.
County counsel (Chuck) and staff outlined an approach that would keep existing abatement and appeal rights while adding an administrative-citation stage similar to noise-ordinance enforcement. Staff said citations could start at modest amounts (for example, around $100) and escalate; an appeal or hearing process would remain available to property owners. Staff also noted practical collection steps would likely require court judgment or collections action for persistent nonpayment.
Board members said they were sympathetic to neighbors while cautious about creating overly broad enforcement power. After debate, the board gave direction to staff to draft proposed code amendments and return with ordinance language (county counsel said staff would aim to bring a draft back within about two weeks). The item was direction to staff only; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
Next steps: staff will prepare drafted ordinance language addressing single-point complaint intake, administrative citations and appeal procedures and present it to the board for consideration.
