Helen Milenski, left, and Heather Ortega make a presentation to Council regarding the code enforcement program Tuesday night in Council Chambers. Photo by Kirsten Laskey/ladailypost.com 

It was a full house during the County Council work session Tuesday night. Attendees included Community Development Department Director Paul Andrus and Chief Building Official Michael Arellano, seated in the middle of the front row. Photo by Kirsten Laskey/ladailypost.com
 

While there was support shown for a code enforcement program during the Los Alamos County Council work session Tuesday night, many residents in the audience argued the program needs to be modified.

Citizens packed into County Council chambers to tell council their thoughts on the issue. In addition, representatives of the political action committee, Los Alamos County Citizens in Action, Heather Ortega and Helen Milenski made a presentation to County Council about the code enforcement program. The presentation included data from a survey Citizens in Action conducted on Survey Monkey. The survey began in October and Milenski reported that 1,300 people participated in the survey.

According to the survey’s results, 17.92 percent of survey takers said they or a family member had received a notice of violation. Another 33.75 percent said they knew someone who had received a notice of violation. Additionally, 43.29 percent said they did not know anyone who had received a notice of violation but they were aware of the code compliance division and the increased enforcement efforts in Los Alamos. However, less than 13 percent of respondents felt they were fully versed and knowledgeable on the nuisance ordinance.

Ortega and Milenski further reported that less than 14 percent of the survey participants responded in favor of avid enforcement that includes aesthetics as well as taking action to elevate community standards and preventing blight.

“It’s overwhelmingly against avid enforcements especially for aesthetics,” Milenski said.   

Furthermore, survey takers expressed dissatisfaction with how the County and Council dealt with the issue. According to survey results, 16 percent felt that action by County staff and Councilors is fair and balanced. While 33 percent were split on whether the Council or leadership is steering regulations or if it is staff. Almost 52 percent believed the County is out of touch and the regulations are punitive and aggressive to its citizens.

Ortega and Milenski offered several options on how to resolve these issues.  

Their suggestions included:

• Restore quarterly pick up or consider a semi annual pick up;
• Increase trash pickup to twice a week;
• Add a yard waste bin;
• Rewrite the code with public input, possibly through a board;
• Allow for curb rescues or leave items by the curb for anyone interested in possessing them;
• Expand the location and advertisement for upcycling at the Eco Station;
• Have communication between the County and local gardeners or offer ongoing training requirements on natural horticulture; and
• Enact a six-month moratorium on all nuisance violations while the issue is addressed.

In another presentation to council, County Manager Harry Burgess pointed out that the County receives very little revenue from the code enforcement program and the two code enforcement officers do not have quotas to meet. Responding to concerns about anonymous reporting, Burgess said there were very few; only 49 between May and September. According to agenda documents, the total number of notices from May to September this year totaled 1,005. Broken down, there were 478 notices of violations in Los Alamos and 527 in White Rock. The agenda documents also showed that 34 individual commercial properties received notices, 467 individual residential properties were cited and seven County properties.

Looking at the numbers, Burgess said Los Alamos does tend to mimic cities rather than counties. In looking at other municipalities, Los Alamos code enforcement activities are usually in the middle range.

He further pointed out that the Community Development Department (CDD) staff has been responsive to concerns. “As we precede with this … I do want to highlight that our CDD and staff have looked at the concerns and altered (practices) to address those concerns.”  

For instance, code enforcement officers include a second notice in addition to the notice of violation with information on how to contact code enforcement. The drive is for compliance, Burgess said, not to take people to court. Additionally, he said the CDD has worked with nonprofits to produce a list of organizations that can help with violations if an individual cannot do it themselves.

“Through the process our staff have been looking at it … they want to achieve a good relationship with the people they are interacting with,” Burgess said.

Several Councilors voiced their appreciation to Ortega and Milenski and agreed revisions to the code enforcement program should be considered.

Councilor James Chrobocinski, who asked that the issue be placed on the work session agenda, offered several opinions. He said he felt the code enforcement program should focus on commercial and vacant properties and perhaps the International Maintenance Code, which the County had adopted, could be tweaked to focus more on the local community. He added addressing education about the program seemed like a “no-brainer” and perhaps the deadlines to resolve notice of violations should be extended.

“Let’s make it real clear,” Chrobocinski said. “Let’s make it real clear to our citizens. I want to focus on solutions.”

Council Vice Chair Susan O’Leary echoed Chrobocinski’s thoughts. She said the code enforcement program is an issue that certainly needs attention. O’Leary shared her own personal experience with the code enforcement program; she and her husband received a notice of violation for incorrectly parking a trailer. At first, she said she got upset but after the violation was resolved, she realized the experience wasn’t as bad as it initially seemed. The notice served its purpose; they will never incorrectly park their trailer again. Still, O’Leary said she can understand people’s frustration.

O’Leary said there seemed to be two issues: the code and its enforcement. Citizens, she said, want to live in a community that is clean, safe and attractive. A code is needed to achieve those qualities and O’Leary said she sees most homeowners striving to achieve those qualities on their properties. Several things do need to be modified in the enforcement program, she added; the program should focus on commercial properties that don’t meet the code. Plus, if a notice of violation on a residential property is not for an immediate threat, the timeline to address the violation should be extended. O’Leary also encouraged private and public partnerships to help those who cannot address violations either because they are disabled, elderly or can not afford it. She also supported the idea of creating an ad-hoc committee with citizens to review specific aspects of the code.

Councilor Chris Chandler added she appreciated the discussion. “I like meetings like this … this is a process; it’s a process we can work through together and make it better.”

The public’s opinion on this issue ranged from fully supporting the enforcement program to likening it to George Orwell’s “1984.”

Many who spoke felt the code needs to exist but should address health and safety and not aesthetics. One individual pointed out there is a human factor every time a notice of violation is issued. Another noted, “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure and one man’s weed is another man’s flower.”

Chrobocinski explained that he recommended the issue be discussed at a council work session because he felt the enforcement program had gone too far.

“Earlier this year we as a group voted to basically escalate our code enforcement,” he said. Chrobocinski cited safety reasons; there were concerns that furniture and other items were being left outside for pickup months in advance. However, “We’re going beyond what I anticipated and what I was comfortable with,” he said.

The hope for the worksession was to gather feedback and modify the code enforcement plan as needed.

“Our job as council is … we represent the people to the County not the County to people,” Chrobocinski said.

A line of speakers prepare to give their thoughts on the code enforcement program. Photo by Kirsten Laskey/ladailypost.com