San Jose City Council
May 13, 2025

Operational
Assessment for the
Code Enforcement
Division

CURRENT STATE FINDINGS REPORT
FEBRUARY 18, 2025
Guidehouse & The City of San José

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Functional Areas
Operational Workflow
Workforce Analysis
Peer City Overview
Next Steps
Topic name
Topic name
2-6
7-17
18-23
24-31
32-36
35-36
07 08
Executive Summary

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
3 The City is engaging Guidehouse over four tasks to conduct an operational assessment of the Code Enforcement Division.

Project OverviewPROJECT

APPROACH INPUTS PROJECT

PURPOSE
The operational assessment includes the analysis of processes and resources against the department’s current workload, a review of alignment between customer and council expectations and Code Enforcement Division objectives, and identifying opportunities to streamline, prioritize, or invest in Code Enforcement services.

Case Activities
Working Session
4 Process Mapping
Sessions
20 Stakeholders
Interviewed
82+
Documents
Reviewed
• Task 1 – Workplan and Status Report. Highlights the planned process, analysis, timelines, and objectives • Task 2 – Discovery and Current State Analysis. Understanding of priorities, services, challenges, and workload • Task 3 – Operational Analysis. Customer experience, customer expectations, and peer city benchmarking • Task 4 – Assessment Report. Future state recommendations and implementation roadmap Today’s focus
Workload Data
Analysis
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Guidehouse’s approach to conducting an operational assessment of the Code Enforcement Division.

Project Approach
Task 3:

Operational Analysis
Task 4:

Assessment Report
• Design future state and vet
supporting recommendations with
key stakeholders
• Evaluate recommendations based
on level of effort and impact to
understand the short-, medium-, and
long-term recommendations
• Develop a high-level
implementation roadmap that
includes sequence and prioritization
of the recommendations
• Select top three cities from initial
desktop research for interviews and
detailed benchmarking
• Interview external stakeholders
and up to 15 key city stakeholders
• Conduct customer research on
customer experience to identify
pain points and common
impediments to compliance
Key Activities
Task 2:

Discovery & Current State Analysis
• Conducted document review to
understand services, strategic
initiatives, partnerships with other
Divisions, and organizational
structure and staffing levels
• Interviewed internal stakeholders
to build the foundation of our
understanding of processes,
opportunities, and pain points
• Reviewed operational functions
and workflow processes to identify
pain points or challenges
• Completed staffing level analysis
based on current and projected
workloads
Task 1:

Work Plan & Status Report
• Develop Work Plan and Status
Report to include overview of the
work plan, timeline, and objectives of
the operational assessment.

Future State Recommendations
(April 4th)
Operational Report
(March 14th)
Deliverables
Current State Findings Report
(February 18th )
Work Plan & Status Report
(January 24th)
Project Phase Complete
Report Focus:
4 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
5 Current State Assessment Framework
Specific Focus: General Code
Reviewed organizational structure,
staffing levels, and common case
types to identify challenge areas
within each of the core functions

1. Functional Areas
Reviewed key processes for the
General Code functional area to
identify inefficiencies and process
improvement opportunities

2. Operational Workflows
Reviewed workload data to estimate
the current workforce staffing gaps
in the General Code functional area

3. Workload Analysis
The Team assessed the Code Enforcement Division across the following three dimensions. The Current State Findings Report is comprised of the following three sections.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
6 Current State Key Takeaways
The Division is facing key challenges across the following five areas, leading to overwhelming staff workloads, expanding duties, challenges in prioritizing strategic work, and barriers to effective communication Staffing Gaps and Workload Overextended Scope Process Inefficiencies Technology Gaps • Many inspectors are new to the
position, and therefore
encounter challenges in
operating independently
• Several vacancies in key
leadership positions causes
leaders to spend more time on
operations and less on strategy
• No strong pathway for internal
promotions, exacerbated by
differences in requirements for
staff at different levels
• Case volume is higher than the
staff available to process cases
leading to significant backlog and
long processing times
• Inconsistent reporting structures
lead to accountability issues
Staffing and workload challenges
lead to vacancies, reactive
management approach, and long
processing times
• Fireworks Program, added to
assist the Fire Department, has
received no dedicated funding
• Illegal Dumping Enforcement
Program and ADU Amnesty has
been absorbed by General Code
resources and lacks dedicated
funding
• E3 and Soft Story Programs, are
future programs with no
dedicated funding
• Massage Program, added to
assist Police Department, but
has resulted in significant
increase of work for inspectors
• Mobile Vendors Program,
overseen by supervisors, with
inspectors from all functions
volunteering based on interest
Division is assigned tasks beyond
primary responsibilities, expanding
scope of work without
corresponding increase in funding
or authority
• Complaint intake process is
decentralized and Code often
fields complaints for other
departments/ divisions
• Inconsistent case prioritization
can lead to high-priority cases
not being addressed in timely
manner
• Lenient processes and fees may
disincentivize compliance
• Responsible parties can deny
inspections, forcing inspectors to
request a warrant from the CAO
(~2-4 weeks)
• Hearing packets are
burdensome to assemble and
review, and simple errors can
lead to the case being thrown out
Primarily engaged in operational
and reactive work, taking away time
for strategic, proactive pursuits to
support an optimized organization
• Case management system
(CES) does not reflect
complexity of most cases (e.g.,
only allows one type of violation
per case, when many cases have
multiple related violations)
• Inspectors only have desktop
computers, which requires them
to take hand-written notes in the
field and transcribe notes in CES
at later time
• Technology does not exist for
complaining or responsible
parties to check complaint status
• CES does not provide
workflow/notifications for
efficient case management
Division’s case management
system and available devices
prevent inspectors from working as
effectively as possible
FindingsExamples
Communication Breakdowns
• Inspectors have difficulty
keeping up with necessary
customer follow-ups
• Though communication has
improved with key City partners,
there is opportunity to further
improve and formalize
collaboration
• Inconsistent communication
back to complaining parties
causes frustration and leads
residents to engage elected
officials as mediators
Communication breakdowns cause
frustration among stakeholders
and prolong case lifecycles
Functional Areas

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Code Enforcement Division Overview
8 1. Safety: Respond to health and life-
safety complaints within 24-72
hours

2. Quality of Life: Work alongside
property owners, residents, and
other stakeholders to resolve
violations and other issues related
to overall quality of life

3. Working Together: Collaborate
with stakeholders to achieve
compliance
Mission and Core Values Summary of Programs
Multiple Housing Program: Responds to community
complaints and conducts routine inspections of buildings with three or more dwelling units
Special Programs: Includes eight fee funded special
programs. Provides inspection and enforcement of niche
businesses and targeted community issues
General Code Program: Responds to public complaints
about other types of private property. Common violations include building, zoning, substandard housing, blight, and solid waste
Work in partnership with the people of
San José to promote and maintain a
safe and desirable living and working
environment.

Based on stakeholder conversations and City documentation, we have identified the mission and programmatic areas to be as follows.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
9 Code Enforcement Organizational Structure
Deputy Director
(1 FTE)
Special Programs
Group 1
(7 FTEs)*
Special Programs
Group 2
(7 FTEs)
General Code
Group 1
(6 FTEs)*
General Code
Group 2
(7 FTEs)*
Field Operations
(1 FTE)*
Multiple Housing
Group 1
(9 FTEs)*
Multiple Housing
Group 1
(9 FTEs)*
Multiple Housing
Group 2/CDBG
(9 FTEs)*
Support Staff
(7 FTEs)**
• General Fund
• Solid Waste
• Multiple
Housing
• Vehicle
Abatement
• Building Code
Compliance
Sr. Analyst
(1 FTE)
LEA: Solid Waste
(4 FTEs)
Deputy Group Multiple Housing (MH)
General Code
• General Fund
• Massage
• General Fund
• Vehicle
Abatement
• Solid Waste
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
• General Fund
• Off-sale
Alcohol
• Tobacco Retail
License
• Neglected/
Vacant Building
Code Analyst II
(1 FTE)
Staff Specialist
(1 FTE)
Special
Operations
(1 FTE)*
Key
• Multiple
Housing
• Multiple
Housing
• General Fund
Multiple
• Multiple
Housing
• CDBG
• Support Staff
funding is
comprised of
10 sources
Special Programs Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA)
Planner II
(.5 FTE)
The Code Enforcement Division is composed of 70.5 positions, divided into six functional areas. The chart below is a high-level overview of each functional area, the number of FTEs, and its core functions. Included in the headcount below are ten vacant positions Vacancy *
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
10 Functional Area Overview
General Code
› General Fund and Fee Funded
› Oversees code inspections and oversight on
all Single/Two Family, Commercial, Industrial,
and Vacant Private Property
Multiple Housing
› Fee funded
› Provides proactive inspections on a three-,
five-, or six-year basis and responds to
customer complaints on apartments, SROs,
Hotels/Motels, Frats/Sororities, and other
multi-unit dwellings
› Oversees 6,752 Buildings and 102,862 Units
Community Development
Block Grant
› Grant Funded
› Enhanced Multiple Housing Program in CDBG
areas, providing inspections for ROP buildings
located in Project Hope areas across the city,
including Cadillac Winchester, Foxdale,
Guadalupe Washington, Hoffman Via Monte,
McKinley Bonita, Mclaughlin Area Tenants,
Poco Way, Roundtable, and Welch Park
Special Programs
› Fee funded
› Oversees Vacant Buildings and Storefronts,
Tobacco Retail License, Off-Sale Alcohol,
Abandoned Shopping Carts, Building Code
Compliance, and Massage
Local Enforcement Agency
› Fee Funded
› Serves as the State enforcement arm for
regulation of 34 local landfills and solid waste
facilities including landfills, materials recycling
facilities, zero waste facilities, and green waste
facilities
Deputy Group
› General Fund and Fee Funded
› Management staff provide strategic and
operational direction for the Division
› Support staff assist with administrative and
support tasks, including Public Record Act
requests, support with the Appeals Hearing
Board process, issuing vehicles to inspectors,
and providing support to inspectors and
supervisors
The Code Enforcement Division has the following six functional areas, which demonstrate the range of Division’s scope CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
11 Staffing
Provides an overview of the total FTEs, the description of the role, and the funding source
Source: 2025 Organizational chart and budget personnel allocation spreadsheet provided by Rachel Roberts and Kelly Diez
Common Case Types
Defines the common case types and average time to close1 Source: Calendar year 2024 cases by program reports provided by Raymond Ho
Current State Findings
Categorizes functional area pain points and provides examples Source: Current state interviews with key stakeholders

ILLUSTRATIVE
Case Workload Summary
Defines the number of open, new, and closed cases by
program in 2024
Source: Calendar year 2024 actions reports provided by Raymond Ho Functional Area Summary User Guide
The functional area profiles provide an overview of staffing, common case types (when applicable), and current state findings for each of the functional areas within the current state of the Code Enforcement Division. 1Calculated by averaging the difference between case open date and case close date for each violation type
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Functional Area: General Code
12 OVERVIEW: The General Code Program manages all single/two family, commercial, industrial, and vacant private property concerns. It operates exclusively on a complaint-based basis. Programs in General Code are funded through a combination of the general fund and fee funding.

STAFFING OVERVIEW
Theme Key Examples
New Hire
Challenges
Many Code Inspectors are new to the position and therefore encounter challenges in operating independently and trusting their judgement, which can cause case delays
Overlapping
Violations
Many cases have overlapping violations, creating complexity which can be difficult for newer Inspectors to navigate
Caseloads Inspectors are assigned double the target number of cases Structure There are two dedicated General Code Supervisors, but additional general code staff report to other supervisors within Code Enforcement Other
Services
In addition to enforcing the Municode, Mobile Vendor permitting is now overseen by General Code Supervisors

COMMON VIOLATIONS

KEY CHALLENGES
1Includes two vacant positions
2 See Appendix D for details on funding source by position Violation
(Avg. Days to Close) Description
Blight (60 days) Improperly stored household items, debris, inoperable vehicles, parking on unpaved surface, visible disrepair, and overgrown/dry vegetation Building (623 days) Unpermitted construction, additions, and structures. This often requires planning approval, adding a level of administrative review/enforcement Solid Waste (220 days) All putrescible and non-putrescible solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes Substandard Housing
(406 days)
Anything related to the Housing Code, including regulating sub-standard housing and controlling for environmental hazards
Zoning (57 days)
Unpermitted land uses for all zoning districts/land use types, noncompliance with permit conditions. Includes violations for front setback paving, fences, odor, constructions hours, and late-night use Other (277 days) Includes violations for nuisance, public property, sight obstruction, signs, smoking, tree cutting/tree maintenance, and water waste 2024 CASE WORKLOAD SUMMARY
Role FTE1 Description Funding2
General Code
Supervisor 2
Supervises programs in General
Code and Special Programs,
provides inspections as
needed, and works with and
oversees inspectors
General Fund, Massage,
Vehicle Abatement
Code
Inspector I/II 15
Conducts inspections on
properties based on customer
complaints
General Fund, Solid Waste,
Vehicle Abatement
17 Total FTEs
311
2206
56 808
479 420
1595
696
84 378 316 335
1566
480
99 303 316 433
Blight Building Solid Waste Substandard Housing Zoning Other Open New Closed
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
13 STAFFING OVERVIEW
Theme Key Examples
Complex
Processes
Due to the multiple overlapping tier cycles, the process has grown more complicated and challenging to manage
Logistical
Challenges
Because the templates are complex, the volume of paperwork needed is growing, exacerbating delays and challenges
Caseloads Due to limited staffing and logistical challenges, staff are stretched thin and supervisors are pulled in to take on inspecting work

COMMON VIOLATIONS

KEY CHALLENGES
1Includes three vacant positions
2 See Appendix D for details on funding source by position 3Blanket category for violations found during a regular inspection.

Violation
(Avg. Days to Close) Description
Blight (80 days) Improperly stored household items, debris, inoperable vehicles, parking on unpaved surface, visible disrepair, and overgrown/dry vegetation Building (495 days) Unpermitted construction, additions, and structures. This often requires planning approval, which is a layer of administrative review and enforcement Health & Safety
(223 days)
Related to housing code, blight, and building. Can include any form of Substandard Housing that poses a hazard to either occupants or others Substandard Housing
(212 days)
Regulates health and safety for multiple housing including substandard housing violations, fire code violations, and other threats to health and safety Other (128 days)
Includes development permit, nuisance, req’d inspection 3, sight obstruction,
signs, solid waste, smoking, tree cutting/maintenance/heritage trees, and zoning violations
2024 CASE WORKLOAD SUMMARY
11 168
357
1421
3 3891 88
400
2023
17 6495 85
282
1922
17 66
Blight Building Health & Safety Housing Zoning Other
Open New Closed
Role FTE1 Description Funding2
Multiple
Housing
Supervisor
2 Supervises MH inspectors
and programs
Multiple Housing
Code
Inspector 17.25 Conducts proactive
inspections
Multiple Housing and CDBG
Community
Activity
Worker
1 Assists property
owners/managers with
resolving code violations
and tenants with reporting
code violations in MH
properties, focusing on
underserved neighborhoods
Multiple Housing

20.25 Total FTEs
Functional Area: Multiple Housing
OVERVIEW: The Multiple Housing (MH) Program responds to resident complaints and provides proactive inspections of dwellings with more than three units (including Single Room Occupancies, fraternities, and apartments). Inspections are conducted on a three-, five-, or six-year basis.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
14 OVERVIEW: The Community Development Block Grant Team provides enhanced Multiple Housing inspections in CDBG eligible areas across the City, providing inspections to ROP buildings. This program is fully grant funded.

STAFFING OVERVIEW
Theme Key Examples
Complex
Processes
Due to the multiple overlapping tier cycles, the process has grown more complicated and challenging to manage
Logistical
Challenges
Because the templates are complex, the volume of paperwork needed is growing, exacerbating delays and challenges
Caseloads Due to limited staffing and logistical challenges, staff are stretched thin and supervisors are pulled in to take on inspecting work

COMMON VIOLATIONS

KEY CHALLENGES
1Includes one vacant position
2 See Appendix D for details on funding source by position Violation
(Avg. Days to Close) Description
Blight
(71 days)
Improperly stored household items, debris, inoperable vehicles, parking on unpaved surface, visible disrepair, and overgrown/dry vegetation Building (1057 days) Unpermitted construction, additions, and structures. This often requires planning approval, which is a layer of administrative review and enforcement Health & Safety
(271 days)
Related to housing code, blight, and building. Can include any form of Substandard Housing that poses a hazard to either occupants or others Tree Cutting/ Heritage
Trees (65 days)
Occurs when someone kills, either directly or indirectly, a tree of ordinance size
Substandard Housing
(184 days)
Regulates health and safety for multiple housing including substandard housing violations, fire code violations, and other threats to health and safety 2024 CASE WORKLOAD SUMMARY
3 20 8 0
117
5 0 5 2
233
10 1 16 2
264
Blight Building Health & Safety Trees Housing
Open New Closed
Role FTE1 Description Funding2
CDBG
Supervisor 1 Supervises CDBG
inspectors and programs
General Fund, Multiple
Housing, CDBG
CDBG
Inspector 4.75
Provides enhanced
inspections of eligible
program areas
Multiple Housing and CDBG

5.75 Total FTEs
Functional Area: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
15 OVERVIEW: The Special Programs are fee funded and oversee the administration of six major program areas, outlined below.

STAFFING OVERVIEW
Theme Key Examples
Scope
Creep
Special Programs are often asked to take on work outside of their direct purview, including the upcoming work on E3 and Soft Story Funding
Challenges
Despite Special Programs’ evolving scope, additional funding has not been consistently allocated to hire additional staff. This has resulted in greater emphasis on fee funded special programs and lesser emphasis on other programs
Staffing When Special Programs FTEs cannot be funded by fees, funding must be allocated from General Fund savings or other sources

PROGRAM TYPES

KEY CHALLENGES
1See Appendix D for details on funding source by position 10 Total FTEs
Program
(Average days to close) Description
Abandoned Shopping
Carts (149 days)
Regulates retailers with 26+ shopping carts to ensure that businesses are keeping track of their carts and doing pickups as necessary.

Currently, all retailers involved pay a fee and submit a plan.

Cannabis (1241 days) Inspect legal businesses annually, enforce code for illegal businesses, and respond to complaints
Massage (1579 days) Police Department regulates permits. CE inspects to ensure there are no massage ordinance violations and reviews for any life safety issues Off-Sale Alcohol
(16 days)
Requires that all businesses within the City that sell Off-Sale Alcohol are inspected each year to ensure compliance with code
Tobacco Retail
License (15 days)
Local licensing and annual inspection program for Tobacco Retailers to ensure they comply with the City’s tobacco retail ordinance Vacant Buildings and
Storefronts (565 days)
Responds to complaints and conducts monthly monitoring of neglected buildings and storefronts in the City, including downtown Other Violations
(27.25 days)
Includes blight, peddler violation, public property, solid waste, and zoning
2024 CASE WORKLOAD SUMMARY
24 32 81
8 42
210
14 142
7 32
432
492
131
4 140
21 33
430
484
64 4
Abandoned
Shopping Carts
Cannabis Massage Off Sale Alcohol Tobacco Retail
License
Vacant Buildings
and Storefronts
Other
Open New Closed
Role FTE Description Funding1
Code
Enforcement
Supervisor
2 Supervises special
programs inspectors
General Fund, Tobacco Retail
Licenses, Off-sale Alcohol, Multiple
Housing, Vehicle Abatement,
Building Code Compliance, Solid
Waste
Code
Enforcement
Inspector I//II
7 Conducts proactive and
complaint-based
inspections on properties
based on the program
General Fund, Tobacco Retail
License, Off-Sale Alcohol,
Abandoned Cart, Massage Parlor,
Building Code Compliance,
Neglected and Vacant Building
Permit
Specialist 1 Supports BCC Code
Enforcement Inspector Building Code Compliance
Functional Area: Special Programs
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
16 OVERVIEW: The Local Enforcement Agency oversees the City’s 34 solid waste facilities, including landfills and dumps. LEA interacts with Code Enforcement on a limited basis when there are dumping complaints on private residences.

STAFFING OVERVIEW
Theme Key Examples
Staff
Workloads
Caseloads remain high, as each LEA inspector must reach a certain monthly inspection goal in accordance with state policy Additional
Tasks
In addition to scheduled waste facility inspections, LEA inspectors must complete quarterly reports, adding to their workloads Divergence
from other
programs
Because LEA utilizes a different funding source, inspection cadence, and case tracking system (CalRecycle), LEA operates mostly independently, making joint ventures more challenging

LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCY GUIDELINES

KEY CHALLENGES
Local Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) are responsible for ensuring the correct operation, closure, and inspection of solid waste facilities across the state of California. They are also responsible for ensuring that solid waste is properly stored and transported across the state.

SCOPE AND INSPECTION CADENCE
4 Active
landfills
Monthly
14 Inactive
landfills
Every 90
days
15 Material
Recovery
Facilities
Monthly -
Quarterly
2 Composting
Operations
Monthly
1 In-Vessel
Digestion
Facility
Monthly
Role FTE Description Funding1
LEA
Supervisor 1 Supervises LEA inspectors
and programs
Solid Waste/LEA
LEA Inspector 3 Completes inspections of
LEA facilities
Solid Waste/LEA
4 Total FTEs
1See Appendix D for details on funding source by position Functional Area: Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
17 OVERVIEW: The Deputy Group includes administrative and management staff. Support Staff provide administrative and structural support to staff across the rest of the Division, including supporting the Appeals Hearing Board (AHB) process and managing the administration of vehicles.

Role FTE1 Description Funding3
Deputy Director 1
Oversees the Division and supports all tasks General Fund, Multiple Housing,
Fee Funded
Division Manager 2
Oversees functional areas and supervisors General Fund, Multiple Housing,
Fee Funded
Senior Analyst 2
Data analysis and program management General Fund,
Multiple Housing,
Fee Funded
Planner III 0.5 Processes all planning applications involving code violations and solid waste facilities
Fee Funded,
Planning Dept.

Code Analyst 1
Supports Deputy Director with annual budget and
daily fiscal transactions, contracts/purchase
orders, temp/peak staff, and procurements
General Fund,
Multiple Housing,
Fee Funded
STAFFING OVERVIEW MANAGEMENT 6.5 Total FTEs STAFFING OVERVIEW Theme Key Examples
Vacancies Given the small size of the Support Staff Team, vacant positions significantly add to existing staff’s workloads
Workload
distribution
Tasks and workloads are unevenly distributed across positions. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that support staff have little time to cross-train
Paperwork
delays
Requirements to print out physical copies of Appeals Hearing Board documentation create bottlenecks and inefficiencies
Other Services In addition to regular duties, Support Staff are currently responsible for overseeing large parts of the Fireworks program
Role FTE2 Description Funding3
Admin/Call
Center Senior
Supervisor
1 Manages the Support Staff Team,
provides support, and processes
Public Records Act requests
General Fund, Multiple
Housing, Fee Funded
Staff
Specialist 1 Manages vehicles and serves as AHB
Secretary
General Fund, Multiple
Housing, Fee Funded
Senior Office
Specialist 4
Provides customer service, clerical,
and administrative support, and
conducts complaint intake
General fund, Multiple
Housing, Fee Funded
Principal
Office
Specialist
1 Performs administrative/clerical
tasks that require high level of
expertise, such as training
General fund, Multiple
Housing, Fee Funded
SUPPORT STAFF 7 Total FTEs
Functional Area: Deputy Group
1Includes one vacant position
2Includes two vacant positions
3 See Appendix D for details on funding source by position Theme Key Examples
Vacancies Vacancies in the Division Manager classification have caused inefficiencies and added to staff workloads
Over emphasis
on Operations
Due to vacancies and high case volume, Management staff have little time to allocate to strategic work for the Code Enforcement Division Staffing
Current staff lack the resources and time to complete all required work; in addition to filling vacancies, adding new positions would redistribute work and allow for a greater emphasis on strategic, proactive tasks

KEY CHALLENGES

KEY CHALLENGES
Operational
Workflows

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
General Code Workflow Overview
The Guidehouse Team organized the overall General Code Enforcement process into four sub-processes. The following slides provide a summary of the process, key stakeholders, and identified pain points. 19 Receive Complaints
Citation
Compliance Order
Appeals
1 3
2 4
Complaints are received via
email, portal, phone calls
and the customer service
counter. If the complaint is
non-priority, then a warning
is sent. Priority cases are
assigned to an Inspector for
initial inspection and to
confirm violations.

A citation is issued if a
violation is listed on the
schedule of fines. Up to
three citations can be
issued before escalating the
issue to a Compliance
Order.

A Compliance Order is
issued if the violation has
already been issued three
citations or if it is not listed
on the schedule of fines.

This process also includes
the Directors Hearing
process if responsible party
(RP) chooses to appeal.

The Division may bring
cases to the Appeals
Hearing Board (AHB) when
there is no compliance to
assess fine and penalty
schedules. This is the
process for preparing,
executing, and addressing
AHB results.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

1. Receive Complaints Process Overview
20 The Receive Complaints process begins with the complaining party filing a complaint through various channels, such as an online portal, email, customer counter, or phone call. The complaint is then logged into the Code Enforcement System (CES) by Support Staff.

If the violation is not on the priority handling list, Support Staff will send a warning notice. For priority violations, the case is assigned to an Inspector, who is notified of the new case. The Inspector conducts an initial inspection to gather additional information about the potential violation.

Once the initial inspection is completed and violations are confirmed, the Inspector will reference the schedule of fines, complaint response procedures, and escalating enforcement policy to determine next steps.

Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
Support Staff
 Responds to customer complaints via phone call,
customer counter, emails, and complaint portal
 Establishes case in CES and assigns to Inspector
Inspector
 Conducts initial inspection
 Determines if violation is valid and warrants a Citation or Compliance Order
Supervisor  Reviews and closes cases that are not handled by Code Enforcement or without violations
Key Pain Points
Complaints are received in a variety of ways via online portal, main phone line, emails, and walk-ins which can be difficult to track across multiple platforms and email inboxes
Complaints are frequently received that are not the responsibility of the Code Enforcement Division, which take time to field and transfer to the correct team System does not reflect the complexity of most cases (e.g., it only allows one type of violation per case, when a lot of the cases have multiple related violations) Receive
Complaints
Citation
Compliance
Order
Appeals
1 3
2 4
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

2. Citation Process Overview
21 The Citation Process begins with the Inspector issuing a pre-citation warning. If an inspection is denied by the responsible party (RP), the Inspector submits a request for inspection to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO). The CAO brings the request before a judge who may issue a warrant for inspection. If the RP allows the inspection and a violation is found, a citation is issued. This request can be made anytime an inspection is not granted.

Subsequent inspections are conducted, and if violations continue, additional citations and re-inspection fees are issued. After the third citation, if the violation remains unresolved and involved an inoperative vehicle, it is transferred to the Vehicle Abatement Program. For all other cases where violations continue, they continue to the Compliance Order process. If compliance is achieved, the case is submitted for deadfile by the Inspector and is reviewed and closed by the Supervisor.

Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
Inspector
 Schedules and conducts inspection(s)
 Determines if violation warrants a citation or
Compliance Order
Supervisor
 Reviews and closes cases that are submitted for
deadfile after violations cease
 Provides guidance and direction on cases
CAO  Provides warrant request to judge
 Advises on legal matters
Key Pain Points
The time to comply upon receiving a pre-citation warning notice is up to the Inspector’s discretion, leading to inconsistencies in compliance timelines. The timeline can range from 72 hours to 30 days based on the violation's severity, with most blight violations resolving in 10-14 days. An escalating enforcement policy has been drafted to resolve this
If an inspection is denied and a warrant is required to enter the property, the warrant process can cause significant delays. Warrants take 2-4 weeks to complete
There can be multiple rounds of inspections and citations in this phase before moving to a Compliance Order. When a citation is ordered, standard practice is to allow 15 days for compliance between each reinspection before escalating the case
Receive
Complaints
Citation
Compliance
Order
Appeals
1 3
2 4
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

3. Compliance Order Process Overview
22 The Compliance Order process begins with the Inspector issuing an Inspection Notice. If an inspection is denied by the responsible party (RP), the Inspector submits a request for inspection to the City Attorney’s Office (CAO ). The CAO brings the request before a judge who may issue a warrant for inspection. If the violation persists following the Inspection Notice, the Inspector issues a Compliance Order.

If the RP does not appeal and the violation is no longer found, the case can be submitted for deadfile. The Supervisor will then review and close the case. If the RP appeals the Compliance Order, then the case is prepared for a Director's Hearing.

The Inspector and/or Supervisor will attend the Hearing, along with the Hearing Officer. If violations are dismissed, the inspector can reinvestigate or close the case, depending on the reason for the decision. If the case is upheld, a notice of decision will be sent to the RP with new dates for compliance. Following the next re-inspection, if the violation persists, the case will move to the Appeal Hearing Board (AHB) process.

Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
Inspector
 Schedules and conducts inspection(s)
 Determines if violation warrants a Compliance Order
 Determines with Supervisor if thrown out case should
be resubmitted or closed
 Submits case to AHB when case is upheld
Supervisor
 Reviews and closes cases that are submitted for
deadfile after violations cease, providing direction
 Attends Director’s Hearing
 Works with Inspector to determine if dismissed
violations should be reinvestigated or closed
Hearing Officer  Holds Director’s Hearing and makes decision on case CAO  Provides warrant request, advises on legal matters Key Pain Points
If an inspection is denied and a warrant is required to enter the property, the warrant process can cause significant delays. Warrants take 2-4 weeks to complete
If a case goes to the Directors Hearing, violations can be dismissed for multiple clerical reasons. Examples include issued notice incorrectly, wrong address, wrong code section, etc.

Receive
Complaints
Citation
Compliance
Order
Appeals
1 3
2 4
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

4. Appeals Process Overview
The Appeals process begins with the issuance of a Notice of Hearing for the Appeals Hearing Board (AHB). This notice is reviewed by the Inspector, Supervisor, Division Manager, Deputy Director, and the City Attorney’s Office (CAO). The notice is then posted on the property and on the Code Enforcement website. The Responsible Party (RP) is notified, and a hearing is scheduled. The Inspector prepares the AHB packet, which is reviewed by the Supervisor and formatted by Support Staff. During the hearing, the AHB reviews the case to determine if the property is in violation and if fines/penalties should be assessed for non-compliance. If the AHB does not find the property in violation, the case may be closed, or a new CO may be issued (rare). The AHB issues a resolution with findings, an order to correct including timelines for compliance, a one-time penalty, and per day fines/penalties for noncompliance if compliance is not reached by a due date.

Receive
Complaints
Citation
Compliance
Order
Appeals
1 3
2 4
Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
Support Staff
(AHB Secretary)
 Sends hearing notice and resolution to RP
 Supports AHB: creates/prints packets, generates agenda and resolution, and takes minutes
Inspector
 Drafts/posts Notice of Hearing
 Reviews Resolution with supervisor and completes re-
inspection(s) ad issues billing notices as needed
Supervisor
 Reviews Notice of Hearing and Resolution; reviews/closes cases
 Attends AHB Hearing in support of staff
Division Manager &
Deputy Director
 Reviews Notice of Hearing, agendas, and resolutions
 Attends AHB hearing in support of staff
CAO  Reviews Hearing Notice, AHB package, agenda, minutes, and resolution
AHB  Reviews and signs Resolution
Key Pain Points
The Notice of Hearing goes through multiple review cycles before being shared with the RP. Reviews are very time consuming, taking up to four hours to review one case
AHB packets are a major lift for Inspectors. They can be 100+ pages long, and they are often for cases that have been open for a long time, sometimes being passed from one Inspector to another. To ensure packets are accurate and thorough, Inspectors spend hours preparing them
Though Support Staff reformatted AHB templates, older versions of templates are still used, which requires additional formatting once the packets are handed to Support Staff. Formatting can take up to an hour and a half Support Staff prints hard copies of the 100+ page packets and packages them for multiple stakeholders
23 Workload Analysis

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Workload Analysis Overview
The objective of this analysis is to estimate the current workforce staffing gaps in the General Code Program within the Code Enforcement Division. The analysis will provide a basis for identifying risks and developing recommended workforce strategies and actions to address gaps as part of the Future State Recommendations Report.

Assumptions:
• Work products (actions) included in analysis are from calendar year 2024 • Only General Code Inspectors’ actions are included in analysis (not Supervisors). Inspectors I and II were analyzed as a whole, not considering differences in classifications, differing skillsets, or complexity of workload across roles • The Division does not currently track time against the identified work products (actions). Therefore, Supervisors were required to estimate based on their subject matter expertise. These estimates factored in varying levels of expertise, time in the role, etc. Work measurements based on SME estimates may be subject to a larger margin of error • One Personnel Year (PY) is defined by one FTE’s available hours (1,688) multiplied by a productivity rate of 75% - resulting in 1,266 hours. Available hours: 2,080 calendar hours - 392 hours for holiday (128) - vacation (120) - sick (80) - personal (32) - furlough (32) = 1,688 • Authorized staffing levels include active + vacancies (total number of funded positions) • The Workload Demand Multiplier assumes the workload required to close a case remains roughly consistent over time • The Workload Demand Multiplier does not consider the complexity of cases • The work products (actions) and time estimates are based on current business processes • Workload capacity and demand estimates are intended to be approximations developed for the purpose of identifying order of magnitude staffing gaps across organizational entities – and not intended to be a fully comprehensive or exact accounting of all workload requirements, or capacity within an organizational entity 25 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Workload Completed and Demand Estimation
The workload analysis was completed to understand how many staff members are required to close all cases in the General Code Program’s 2024 caseload.

Identified Work Products
Calculated Workload
Volume Completed
Calculated Estimated
Workload Volume
Demand
Estimated Staffing Gap
1 3
2 4
• Collected General Code Programs
actions report for 2024
• Validated actions list with General
Code Supervisors
• Supervisors provided estimated
time to complete each action
• Averaged supervisor estimates
and validated with supervisors
• Multiplied estimated time to
complete by number of each
action completed to get workload
volume completed
• Calculated personnel years (PYs)
1 required for workload volume
completed
• Calculated workload demand
multiplier ratio
2 • Multiplied ratio by number of
completed actions in 2024 to
get estimated workload volume
demand
• Calculated demand PYs
required to complete estimated
demand
• Calculated staffing gap by taking
the difference of workload
demand and authorized staffing
StepsTasks
26 1
Personnel Years, or Full-time equivalents (FTEs). For this analysis, 1 PY is equal to 1,266 hours. 2 Formula: Total Cases Requiring Work in 2024/ Closed Cases in 2024 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

1. Identified Work Products
61 Actions*
14 Action Categories
The workload volume
completed and workload
volume demand were
calculated at the individual
action level.

Actions (work products)
were then summarized at
the action category level.

1. Administrative

2. Customer Service-Letters

3. Customer Service-Phone Call

4. Customer Service-Other

5. Investigation-Research

6. Investigation-Status Inspection

7. Investigation-Initial Inspection

8. Investigation-Compliance Inspection

9. Investigation-Reinspection

10. Enforcement-Notices

11. Enforcement-Citation

12. Enforcement-Compliance Order

13. Enforcement-AHB

14. Compliance-Ready for Closure
*The full actions list can be found in Appendix F 27
The Guidehouse team leveraged the Division’s thorough actions tracking system to identify General Code Inspector’s action types and number of actions completed in 2024.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

2. Calculated Workload Volume Completed
The workload volume completed for the Division’s 2024 calendar year came out to 19.83 PYs, which is above the Division’s authorized PYs (15). This means the General Code Program team is producing more work than what the authorized staffing level would typically support.

Workload Volume
Completed in PYs

19.83 Estimated amount of time
to complete each action
Total # of each action
completed in 2024
1,266
28 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

2. Calculated Workload Volume Completed (cont.)
29 *Other action categories include Customer Service-Letters, Investigation-Status Inspection, Investigation-Reinspection, Enforcement-Citation, Enforcement-AHB, Compliance-Ready for Closure

In 2024, three action categories accounted for nearly 80% of Inspectors’ workload volume.

5.82 3.09 2.90

1.58 0.49 0.41 0.28 0.28 0.19
39%
59%
79%
89%
92% 95% 97% 99% 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00
Research Administrative Initial Inspection CS - Phone Call Compliance Inspection
Other* CS - Other Compliance Order Enforcement-Notices
Personnel Years
Action Categories
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

3. Calculated Estimated Workload Volume Demand
Total Cases Requiring Work in 2024Number of Open Cases in 2024 Number of New Cases in 2024 7,6934,289 3,404
Workload Demand MultiplierTotal Cases Requiring Work in 2024 Closed Cases in 2024

49.44 7,693 3,088
The General Code Program’s 2024 Estimated Workload Volume Demand is 49.44 PYs, or FTEs. This means the Division would require nearly 50 staff to close all open/new cases in calendar year 2024.

Estimated Workload Volume
Demand (in PYs) in 2024Workload Demand Multiplier 2024 Workload Volume Completed (in PYs)1

2.49 19.83
1(Total Hours Needed for Completed Actions/1266)
2 See Appendix F for formulas behind each value in the example

2.49 30
Action Action Category Volume Completed
in 2024
Volume Demand
in 2024
Volume Not
Completed in 2024
Average Hours Required
to Complete One Unit
Total Hours
Needed for
Volume Demand
Total Hours for
Completed Actions
Personnel Year (PY)
Demand PY Completed
File Attachment Administrative 5306 13218.61 7912.61 0.42 5507.75 2210.83 4.45 1.75 Example2
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED

4. Estimated Staffing Gap Analysis
Through the staffing gap analysis, the Guidehouse Team has determined that General Code is short ~34.5 FTEs to complete the 2024 volume workload demand.
1Required staffing level based on estimated workload demand 2Number of funded positions. This does not account for overtime worked. Only 33.5 hours of overtime was worked by General Code Inspectors in 2024, so Guidehouse did not factor in overtime hours. 3Formula: Total Work Demand – Authorized Staffing 31
This analysis will
serve as a key input
for the Assessment
(Recommendations)
Report
Authorized Staffing (PYs)2
15 Staffing Gap (PYs)3

34.44 Total Workload Volume
Demand (PYs)1

49.44 Peer City Overview

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
33 Peer Cities at-a-Glance
Metric San Jose San Diego Los Angeles Santa Cruz Fresno Seattle Austin Dallas Baltimore Philadelphia State California California California California California Washington Texas Texas Maryland Pennsylvania Land Area
(Square miles) 177.80 325.90 469.00 12.70 114.70 83.90 319.9 339.7 80.90 134.18 Population 1,013,240 1,386,932 3,898,747 62,956 542,107 737,015 961,855 1,304,379 585,708 1,603,797 Annual Budget $6.1B $5.8B $12.8B $230M $1.99B $8.5B $5.9B $4.9B $4.2B $6.3B Code Enforcement
Budget $13.38M $12.3M $63.8M $6.2M $27.9M $121.4M $107.7M $44.6M $70.6M $43.2M Per Capita Spend
(Annual Budget) $6,049 $4,196 $3,283 $3,653 $3,687 $11,533 $6,134 $3,810 $7,171 $3,928 Median Household
Income $136,299 $105,780 $79,701 $111,427 $71,689 $120,608 $91,501 $70,121 $59,579 $60,302 Monthly Bill
Expense/Household $3,695 $3,324 $3,113 $3,670 $2,313 $3,049 $2,612 $2,370 $2,287 $2,060 Housing Units 342,037 548,934 1,496,453 24,014 184,226 368,308 444,426 572,194 259,385 726,797 Interesting Highlight
Large scope and
advanced customer
dashboarding
Publishes priority case
tiers on website
Redesigned website in
Dec. 2024;
Dashboards focused
on outcomes rather
than timelines
Prioritizes cases 1-4
based on
importance
School Area Team –
proactive
enforcement
Offers video
inspections
Repeat Offender
program est. In
2013
Received CC Dept.

Of the year in 2024
Can request CE
representatives at
meetings; proactive
enforcement
program
L&I has a tiered
response time
GH Contact? N/A Maybe Maybe Maybe Yes Maybe Yes Maybe Yes Yes The Guidehouse Team has drafted a list of potential peer cities, with a focus on key factors in blue and if Guidehouse has existing relationships to expedite getting connected to their teams.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
34 Peer City Comparable Programs
Programs San Jose San Diego Los Angeles Santa Cruz Fresno Seattle Austin Dallas Baltimore Philadelphia General Code ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Multiple Housing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Vacant buildings
and storefronts ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Abandoned
Shopping Carts ✓
Building Code
Compliance
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Cannabis ✓ ✓
Local Enforcement
Agency
✓ ✓
Fireworks ✓ ✓ ✓
Mobile Vendors ✓ ✓ ✓
Illegal Dumping
Enforcement
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
ADU Amnesty ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
In scope, San José’s Code Enforcement stands apart from its peers. Based on an initial review, the following programs were not the purview of peer Code Enforcement programs: Tobacco Retail License, Off-Sale Alcohol, Massage, E3, and Soft Story.

Next Steps

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Guidehouse’s approach to conducting an operational assessment of the Code Enforcement Division.

Next Steps
Task 3:

Operational Analysis
Task 4:

Assessment Report
• Design future state and vet
supporting recommendations with
key stakeholders
• Evaluate recommendations based
on level of effort and impact to
understand the short-, medium-, and
long-term recommendations
• Develop a high-level
implementation roadmap that
includes sequence and prioritization
of the recommendations
• Select top three cities from initial
desktop research for interviews and
detailed benchmarking
• Interview external stakeholders
and up to 15 key city stakeholders
• Conduct customer research on
customer experience to identify
pain points and common
impediments to compliance
Key Activities
Task 2:

Discovery & Current State Analysis
• Conduct document review to
understand services, strategic
initiatives, partnerships with other
Divisions, and organizational
structure and staffing levels
• Interview internal stakeholders to
build the foundation of our
understanding of processes,
opportunities, and pain points
• Review operational functions and
workflow processes to identify pain
points or challenges
• Complete staffing level analysis
based on current and projected
workloads
Task 1:

Work Plan & Status Report
• Develop Work Plan and Status
Report to include overview of the
work plan, timeline, and objectives of
the operational assessment.

Future State Recommendations
(April 4th)
Operational Report
(March 14th)
Deliverables
Current State Findings Report
(February 14th )
Work Plan & Status Report
(January 24th)
Project Phase Complete
36 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendices
Additional information located below:

Appendix A: Documentation & Data Review
Appendix B: Stakeholder Conversations
Appendix C: Violation & Program Details
Appendix D: Staffing Alignment to Programs
Appendix E: Process Maps
Appendix F: Workload & Staffing Analysis Support
Appendix G: Peer City Research Sources
38-39
40-41
42-51
52-60
61-65
66-73
74-76
37 Appendix A:

Documentation
& Data Review

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
39 Appendix A: Documentation & Data Review
# Requested Information/Data Intended Analysis Outcomes 1 City of San Jose Strategic Plan Understand any related initiatives 2 Code Enforcement Division Strategic Plan Understand the current structure and strategic goals of the Code Enforcement Division 3 City of San Jose Organizational Chart Understand the structure of the City and any key non-Division stakeholders 4 Code Enforcement Division Organizational Chart Understand the internal staffing structure, leadership roles, and Division-specific positions of the Division
5 Employee staffing plans and reports to include headcount by role, employment types (full-time, part-time, temporary, contract), employee capacity (hours per week per FTE), and any planned changes (e.g., hirings and retirements) Understanding of current staffing levels
6 Job descriptions for all Code Enforcement Division staff Understanding of the roles and responsibilities 7 Historical staffing requests to the City Council Understand the history of position requests made to City Council for code enforcement 8 List of any federal or state mandated positions within the Code Enforcement Division Understanding of which positions are legally required 9 Workload data (e.g., task volume per section or role) for current and projected workloads (e.g., forecasted demand increase/decrease and upcoming projects/additions) Understanding of current and projected workloads
10 Employee performance data, key metrics (e.g., output per employee, etc.), and targets Understanding of current performance and expectations 11 Process workflows and/or standard operating procures (SOPs) for key functions related to current programs and the enforcement process
Understanding of key functions/operations within the Code Enforcement Division 12 Customer Experience Survey Results Understanding of the overall customer experience for the Division, as well as experience broken down by topic area
13 Audit Findings Understanding of the results of previous assessments and audits 14 Case prioritization information Understanding of how long customers have to respond to code violations Appendix B:

Stakeholder
Conversations

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
41 # Interviewees Topic Date
1 Alex Powell Information Gathering Interview 1/27
2 Raymond Ho Information Gathering Interview 1/27
3 Paul Harden Information Gathering Interview 1/28
4 Rachel Roberts Information Gathering Interview 1/28
5 Kenneth De Kay and Kelly Diez Information Gathering Interview 1/28 6 Rita Tabaldo Information Gathering Interview 1/28
7 Vance Chang Information Gathering Interview 1/30
8 Laura Sanders Information Gathering Interview 1/30
9 Chris Burton Information Gathering Interview 1/30
10 Paul Harden Information Gathering Interview 1/30
11 Rick Arnaiz, Jose Castaneda, Roger Beaudoin Information Gathering Interview 1/30 12 Joe Celio and Amber Zenk Information Gathering Interview 1/31 13 Angel Rios and Rosalynn Hughey Information Gathering Interview 1/31 14 Donald Timoteo and Joseph Hatfield Information Gathering Interview 1/31 15 Maria Diaz-Perez Information Gathering Interview 2/4 16 Donald Timoteo, Joseph Hatfield, Manny Duarte, and Karla Caceres General Code Process Mapping Conversations 2/4 17 Maria Diaz Perez and Regina Lizaola Support Staff Process Mapping Conversations 2/4 18 Rick Arnaiz, Gary Muraoka, Gustavo Rocha, Roger Beaudoin Multiple Housing Process Mapping Conversations 2/5 19 Joe Celio, Amber Zenk, Wayne Cirone, James Young, Angelica Garcia Special Programs Process Mapping Conversations 2/5 20 Amber Zenk, Joseph Hatfield, and Donald Timoteo General Code Staff Workload Conversation 2/6 Appendix B: Stakeholder Conversations
Appendix C:

Violation & Program
Details

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Violations - General Code (1 of 2)
43 The following information is an overview of the five most common violations in the General Code, including their location within the Municode and any relevant partners.

Violation Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came
to CE?
Justification for absorption
into CE Partnerships
Blight Complaint based
Junk, debris, graffiti, vehicle parking
on lawn/unpaved surface, or other
visible disrepair including overgrown
or diseased plant matter
Municode
Community
Preservation
Ordinance (Chapter

17.72)
Pre-2008 This has always been in CE PRNS
Building Complaint based
Unpermitted construction, additions,
and structures
Municode Building
Codes (Title 24)
Pre-2008 This has always been in CE
Building Division and
Planning Division
Solid Waste Complaint based
All putrescible and non-putrescible
solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes
Municode Solid
Waste (Chapter. 9.1) Pre-2008 This has always been in CE N/A Substandard
Housing Complaint based
Anything related to the Housing Code,
including regulating sub-standard
housing and controlling for
environmental hazards
Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2) Pre-2008 This has always been in CE
Housing Division (only
during condemnations)
Zoning Complaint based
Single-family home or other general
code dwelling used for unpermitted
use, including an unpermitted exterior
change or late-night use
Municode Zoning
Code (Title 20) Pre-2008 This has always been in CE Planning Division CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Violations - General Code (2 of 2)
44 Violation Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came
to CE?
Justification for
absorption into CE Partnerships
Development
Permit Complaint based
Any additions or changes to private property
which can require a planning permit.

Municode Zoning
Code (Title 20)
Pre-2008
This has always been
in CE Planning Division
Nuisance Complaint based
Any act or omission which obstructs or causes
substantial inconvenience to the public.

Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2)
Pre-2008
This has always been
in CE Police Department
Sight
Obstruction Complaint based
Occurs when a tree, shrub, hedge,
landscaping, mound of earth, or boulder
obscures or impairs the view of intersecting or
entering traffic from a street.

Municode Street
Trees, Hedges, and
Shrubs (Chapter

13.28)
Pre-2008
This has always been
in CE
Department of
Transportation
Signs Complaint based Any kind of sign that would require a permit.

Municode Signs
(Chapter 23)
Pre-2008
This has always been
in CE Planning Division
Tree Cutting/Tree
Maintenance Complaint based
Occurs when someone kills, either directly or
indirectly, a tree of ordinance size.

Municode Tree
Removal Controls
(Chapter 13.32)
Pre-2008
This has always been
in CE
Department of
Transportation and
Planning Division
The following information is an overview of the Other* violations in General Code, including their location within the Municode and any relevant partners. *Public Property, Smoking, and Water Waste are included in count for Other violations; however, the team did not find any correlated ordinances in Municode CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Violations - Multiple Housing (1 of 2)
45 Violation Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came to
CE?
Justification for
absorption into CE Partnerships
Blight
Proactive and
complaint
based
Junk, debris, graffiti, vehicle parking on
lawn/unpaved surface, or other visible
disrepair including overgrown or diseased
plant matter
Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE Beautify San Jose
Building
Proactive and
complaint
based
Unpermitted construction, additions, and
structures. This requires planning
approval, which is another level of
administrative review
Municode Building
Codes (Title 24) Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE
N/A
Health and
Safety
Proactive and
complaint
based
Related to housing code, blight, and
building. Can include any form of
Substandard Housing that poses a
hazard to either occupants or others
Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2) Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE
Police Department and Fire
Department
Housing
Proactive and
complaint
based
Regulates health and safety for rental
housing and multiple housing, an
including substandard housing, fire
violations, and other threats to health
and safety
Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2) Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE
Department of
Transportation, Police
Department, and Fire
Department
The following information is an expanded explanation of the most common case violations in Multiple Housing, including common partnerships and location within the Municode.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Violations - Multiple Housing (2 of 2)
46 Violation Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came to
CE?
Justification for
absorption into CE Partnerships
Development
Permit Complaint based
Any additions or changes to private property
which can require a planning permit.

Municode Zoning
Code (Title 20)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE Planning Division
Nuisance Complaint based
Any act or omission which obstructs or causes
substantial inconvenience to the public.

Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2) Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE Police Department
Sight Obstruction
Proactive and
complaint based
Occurs when a tree, shrub, hedge,
landscaping, mound of earth, or boulder
obscures or impairs the view of intersecting or
entering traffic from a street.

Municode Street
Trees, Hedges, and
Shrubs (Chapter

13.28)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE N/A
Signs Complaint based Any kind of sign that would require a permit.

Municode Signs
(Chapter 23)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE Planning Division
Solid Waste
Proactive and
complaint based
All putrescible and non-putrescible solid,
semisolid, and liquid wastes
Municode Solid
Waste (Chapter.

9.1)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE N/A
Tree Cutting/Tree
Maintenance/Heri
tage Trees
Proactive and
complaint based
Occurs when someone kills, either directly or
indirectly, a tree of ordinance size.

Municode Tree
Removal Controls
(Chapter 13.32)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE N/A
Zoning
Proactive and
complaint based
Single-family home or other general code
dwelling used for unpermitted use, including an
unpermitted exterior change or late-night use
Municode Zoning
Code (Title 20)
Pre-2008
This has always been in
CE Planning Division
The following information is an expanded explanation of all Other* violations in Multiple Housing, including common partnerships and location within the Municode. *Smoking is included in count for Other violations; however, the team did not find any correlated ordinances in Municode
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Violations - CDBG
47 Violation Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came to
CE?
Justification for
absorption into CE Partnerships
Blight Proactive and
complaint based
Junk, debris, graffiti, vehicle parking on
lawn/unpaved surface, or other visible
disrepair including overgrown or
diseased plant matter
Municode Substandard
Housing (Chapter 17.2)
Pre-2008
This has always
been in CE Beautify San Jose
Building Proactive and
complaint based
Unpermitted construction, additions,
and structures. This requires planning
approval, which is another level of
administrative review
Municode Building
Codes (Title 24) Pre-2008
This has always
been in CE N/A
Health & Safety Proactive and
complaint based
Related to housing code, blight, and
building. Can include any form of
Substandard Housing that poses a
hazard to either occupants or others
Municode Substandard
Housing (Chapter 17.2) Pre-2008
This has always
been in CE
Police Department and Fire
Department
Tree
Cutting/Heritage
Trees Complaint based
Occurs when someone kills, either
directly or indirectly, a tree of
ordinance size.

Municode Tree Removal
Controls (Chapter

13.32)
Pre-2008
This has always
been in CE
Department of
Transportation and
Planning Division
Housing
Proactive and
complaint based
Regulates health and safety for rental
housing and multiple housing, an
including substandard housing, fire
violations, and other threats to health
and safety
Municode Substandard
Housing (Chapter 17.2)
Pre-2008
This has always
been in CE Housing Division
The following information is an expanded explanation of case types in CDBG. There are comparatively fewer case types in CDBG because CDBG operates primarily to address housing concerns in eligible areas.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Programs - Special Programs (1 of 2)
48 Program Area Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came
to CE?
Justification for absorption into
CE Partnerships
Abandoned
Shopping Carts
Proactive and
complaint based
Regulates retailers with 26+ shopping carts to ensure
that businesses are keeping track of their carts and
doing pickups as necessary. Currently, all retailers
involved pay a fee and submit a plan.

Municode Abandoned
Shopping Cart Plan
(Chapter 9.60.330) 2001
Did not exist in the City prior to the
program’s introduction in 2001 N/A
Cannabis
Proactive and
complaint based
Inspect legal businesses annually and enforce code for
illegal businesses
Municode Zoning Code
(Title 20) N/A N/A
Police
Department
Vacant buildings
and storefronts
Proactive and
complaint based
Monthly monitoring of neglected vacant buildings and
storefronts in the City, including the downtown area
Municode Vacant or
Abandoned Building
(Chapter 17.38.200)
Pre-2008 This has always been in CE
N/A
Tobacco Retail
License (TRL)
Proactive and
complaint based
Local licensing and annual inspection program for
Tobacco Retailers to ensure they comply with tobacco
control laws and city standards
Municode Tobacco
Retail License (Chapter

6.87) 2011
State-wide policy introduced in
California was the impetus for this
program. They used the sale of these
licenses as a way to fund the TRL
program
Police
Department (in a
limited capacity)
Off-Sale Alcohol
(OSA)
Proactive and
complaint based
Requires that all businesses within the City that sell Off- Sale Alcohol are inspected each year to ensure
compliance with code
Municode Off-Sale
Alcohol Beverage
Establishments
(Chapter

6.86) Pre-2008 This has always been in CE
Police
Department
Massage
Proactive and
complaint based
Permits are regulated through the Police Department.

CE reviews to ensure there are no zoning violations in
the building
Municode Massage
(Chapter 6.44)
2018
Introduced as a way to assist the Police
Department, which handles most
massage related crimes. PD was
originally responsible for massage
related enforcement, but enlisted Code
Enforcement’s assistance in issuing
permits and enforcing zoning violations
Police
Department
There are six active Special Programs in the Code Enforcement Division, outlined below.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Violations - Special Programs (2 of 2)
49 Violation Basis Description Governing Policy
When it came
to CE? Justification for absorption into CE Partnerships Blight
Proactive and
complaint based
Junk, debris, graffiti, vehicle parking
on lawn/unpaved surface, or other
visible disrepair including overgrown
or diseased plant matter
Municode
Substandard
Housing (Chapter

17.2)
Pre-2008 This has always been in CE Beautify San Jose
Peddler
Violation (Mobile
Vendor)
Proactive and
complaint based
Regulates mobile outdoor vending.

This program is overseen by General
Code supervisors, with inspectors
from all functional areas volunteering
based on interest.

Municode Peddler
Permit Ordinance
(Chapter 6.54)
2018. Began
issuing
citations in FY
24-25
Code Enforcement was deemed good
fit due to experience with enforcing
compliance
County, Office of
Cultural Affairs,
PD
Solid Waste
Proactive and
complaint based
All putrescible and non-putrescible
solid, semisolid, and liquid wastes
Municode Solid
Waste (Chapter. 9.1)
Pre-2008 This has always been in CE N/A
Zoning
Proactive and
complaint based
Single-family home or other general
code dwelling used for unpermitted
use, including an unpermitted exterior
change or late-night use
Municode Zoning
Code (Title 20) Pre-2008 This has always been in CE Planning Division The additional violations* that may occur within Special Programs are outlined below. *Public Property is included in count for Other violations; however, the team did not find any correlated ordinances in Municode
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Program- Local Enforcement Agency (LEA)
50 Program Area Basis Governing Policy When it came to CE? Justification for absorption into CE Partnerships Local Enforcement
Agency
Proactive and
complaint based CalRecycle (Title 27, CCR)
1992
Has to be housed in CE (or a related
department) to avoid conflicts of interest N/A
Included below is an overview of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), a mandated program that oversees the City’s 34 solid waste facilities. LEA primarily interacts with the rest of the Code Enforcement Division during solid waste violations on private violations.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix C: Other Services
51 Program Area Violation Description Funding Source When and why it was added to CE Partnerships ADU Amnesty
This program was created to allow people to receive legal permits for their small living units on residential properties.

When this program is fully built out, it will be the responsibility of CDBG, Multiple Housing, and General Code supervisors.

No dedicated funding;
absorbed by GF
State Law required that the City adopt
this service in 2019
PDC and Building
Division; Building
Permit Center
Elevated Exterior
Elements (E3)
Related to the balcony law and applying to buildings with three of more units, wood-framed exterior elevated elements, and classified as apartments. These buildings must receive periodic inspections in accordance with California law SB721.

No dedicated funding;
absorbed by GF, BCC Cost
Recover Fees, and MH
funding
A recent ordinance has required that
the City prepare to enact this program
by January 1, 2026 N/A
Fireworks
Regulates the sale and use of all fireworks in the City of San Jose.

Generally, Firework violations are handled by Support Staff with a General Code supervisor processing citations.

No dedicated funding;
absorbed by General Fund
(GF)
Introduced into CE as a method of
assisting the Fire Department with
firework violations Fire Department
Illegal Dumping
Enforcement Currently handled by Vehicle Abatement Inspector.

No dedicated funding;
absorbed by GF N/A N/A
Mobile Vendors
Regulates mobile outdoor vending. This program is overseen by General Code supervisors, with inspectors from all functional areas volunteering based on interest.

Small grant from Office of
Economic Development;
rest is absorbed by GF
Introduced into CE as a joint venture
between various City and County
departments
Police Department,
the County, Office of
Cultural Affairs, PRNS
Soft Story
Applies to buildings with a wood frame, three+ residential units, crawlspaces without earthquake retrofit, and built before 1990.

Requires periodic inspections.

No dedicated funding;
absorbed by GF, BCC Cost
Recover Fees, and MH
funding
A recent ordinance has required that
the City prepare to enact this program
by mid 2026 N/A
Included below is an overview of all Other Services that the Code Enforcement Division has been tasked with overseeing, alongside additional information about funding sources and relevant staff in other functional areas.

Appendix D:

Staffing Alignment
to Programs

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
53 Appendix D: Funding Information - General Code
# Name Group Position FTE
General
Fund
Massag
e Parlor
(MASG)
Solid
Waste
Vehicle
Abate-
mentTotal
1 Donald Timoteo General Code Group 1 Code Enforcement Supvr 1 50% 50% - - 100% 2 Oscar Martinez-Prudencio General Code Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 3 Karla Caceres General Code Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 4 VACANT (18374) Special Programs Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 5 Joseph “JC” Hatfield General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Supvr 1 67% - - 33% 100% 6 Servando Perez General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 7 Edgar “David” Parker General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 8 Edwin Miranda General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 0% - - 100% 100% 9 Shaun Bruckner General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% - - - 100% 10 Greg Martinez General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% - - - 100% 11 VACANT (6364) General Code Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 12 Nicholas Rovetto Special Programs Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 13 Brittney Renaud Special Programs Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 0% - 100% - 100% 14 Brandon Riddle Special Programs Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 15 Raymond Luna Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% - - - 100% 16 John “Manny” Duarte Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 100% 17 Wayne Cirone2 Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - - - 0% 1This count does not include the two temporary part-time employees, Eusebio Espitia and Gloria Sciara. 2Wayne is on temporary assignment to the VBS program.

Bold indicates supervisor
17 Total FTEs1
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
54 Appendix D: Funding Information - Multiple Housing (1 of 2) # Name Group Position FTE
Multiple
Housing (MH)Total
1 Rick Arnaiz Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Supvr 1 100% 100% 2 Gary Muraoka Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% 100% 3 Marcelino Guevara Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% 100% 4 Hector Ortiz Jr Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% 100% 5 Jonathan Nakafuji Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% 100% 6 Diamond Short Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% 100% 7 Sergio Orozco Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% 100% 8 Enrique Orduna Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% 100% 9 VACANT (12287) Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% 100% 9 of 20.25 FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
55 Appendix D: Funding Information - Multiple Housing (2 of 2) # Name Group Position FTE
Multiple
Housing (MH)
CDBG Total
10 Jose Castaneda Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Supvr 1 100% - 100% 11 Suttipong Faiwongjun Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 12 Phil Poole Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 13 Eric Serrano Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 14 Jelani Hogg Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 15 Gustavo Rocha Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 16 Elizabeth Ortiz Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 17 Mark Lau Multiple Housing Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp I 1 100% - 100% 18 VACANT (23858) Multiple Housing Group 1 Community Activity Worker 1 100% - 100% 19 Maria Miller Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 20 Matthew Fierar Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp II 1 100% - 100% 21 VACANT (4679) Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp II 0.25 25% 75% 100%

11.25 of 20.25 FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
56 Appendix D: Funding Information - CBDG
# Name Group Position FTE
General Fund
Multiple
Housing (MH)
CDBG Total
1 Roger Beaudoin Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Supvr 1 4% 43% 53% 100% 2 Steven Solorio Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - - 100% 100% 3 My Vuong Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp I 1 - - 100% 100% 4 Oscar Lerma Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp I 1 - - 100% 100% 5 Jose Segura Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp I 1 - - 100% 100% 6 VACANT (4679) Multiple Housing Group 2/CDBG Code Enforcement Insp II 0.75 - 25% 75% 100%

5.75 Total FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
57 Appendix D: Funding Information - Special Programs
# Name Group Position FTE
General Fund
Tobacco
Retail License
(TRL)
Off-Sale
Alcohol (OSA)
Abandoned
Cart
Massage
Parlor (MASG)
Solid Waste
(SW)
Multiple
Housing (MH)
Vehicle
Abatement
Bldg Code
Compl (BCC)
Neglected
and Vacant
Building (NVB)Total
1 Joe Celio Special Programs Group 1 Code Enforcement Supvr 1 23% - - - - 17% 22% 13% 25% - 100% 2 Marlon Aviles Special Programs Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - - - - - - - - 100% - 100% 3 Jacqueline Escala Special Programs Group 1 Permit Specialist 1 - - - - - - - - 100% - 100% 4 Amber Zenk Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Supvr 1 54% 31% 15% - - - - - - - 100% 5 Loren Due Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - 100% - - - - - - - - 100% 6 James Young Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - - 100% - - - - - - - 100% 7 Angel Esparza-Gonzalez Special Programs Group 2 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 35% - - - - - - - - 65% 100% 8 Kevin Hirabayashi General Code Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - - - - 100% - - - - - 100% 9 Angelica Garcia-Johnson General Code Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - - - 100% - - - - - - 100% 10 Tracy Keifer General Code Group 1 Code Enforcement Insp II 1 - - - - 100% - - - - - 100% 10 Total FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
58 Appendix D: Funding Information - Local Enforcement Agency # Name Group Position FTE
Solid Waste Total
1 Paul Harden LEA Solid Waste Superv Environ Serv Spec 1 100% 100% 2 Emily Hsieh LEA Solid Waste Environment Inspector I 1 100% 100% 3 Ernesto Jacobo LEA Solid Waste Environment Inspector II 1 100% 100% 4 Prashant Shah LEA Solid Waste Environment Inspector II 1 100% 100% 4 Total FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
59 Appendix D: Funding Information - Deputy Group (1of 2) # Name Group Position FTE
General Fund
TRL
OSA
Abandoned
Cart
MASG
SW
MH
CDBG
Vehicle
Abatement
Bldg Code
Compl
Vac Dngr Bldg
Housing
Total
1 Rachel Roberts Deputy/Management Group Deputy Director 1 27% 2% 2% 2% 4% 9% 35% 9% 4% 4% 1% 0% 100% 2 Rita Tabaldo Field Operations Division
Manager Division Manager 1 5% - - - - - 78% 17% - - - - 100% 3 VACANT (12747) Special Operations Division
Manager Division Manager 1 50% 4% 4% 3% 4% 16% 3% 0% 7% 7% 2% - 100% 4 Alexandre Hughes Deputy/Management Group Planner II 0.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 50% 5 Raymond Ho Deputy/Management Group Senior Analyst 1 25% 13% 12% - - - 50% - - - - - 100% 6 Kelly Diez Deputy/Management Group Analyst II 1 24% - - - - 28% 23% 25% - - - - 100% 7 Mel Marius Flores Deputy/Management Group Senior Specialist 1 - 4% 4% 1% - - 70% - 1% - - 20% 100%

6.5 of 13.5 FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
60 Appendix D: Funding Information - Deputy Group (2 of 2) # Name Group Position FTE
General Fund
TRL
OSA
Abandoned
Cart
MASG
SW
MH
Vehicle
Abatement
Bldg Code
Compl
Vac Dngr Bldg
Total
8 Maria Diaz-Perez Deputy/Management Group Senr Supvr,
Administration 1 32% 3% 3% 2% 2% 8% 43% 3% 3% 1% 100%
9 Regina Lizaola Deputy/Management Group Staff Specialist 1 36% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 37% 4% 4% 1% 100% 10 Leslie Alvernaz Deputy/Management Group Senior Office Specialist 1 36% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 37% 4% 4% 1% 100% 11 Deisy Rodriguez Deputy/Management Group Senior Office Specialist 1 36% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 37% 4% 4% 1% 100% 12 Angelica Deniz Deputy/Management Group Senior Office Specialist 1 36% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 37% 4% 4% 1% 100% 13 VACANT (17206) Deputy/Management Group Senior Office Specialist 1 36% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 37% 4% 4% 1% 100% 14 VACANT (6334) Deputy/Management Group Principal Office Specialist 1 36% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 37% 4% 4% 1% 100%
7 of 13.5 FTEs
Bold indicates supervisor
Appendix E:

Process Maps

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix E: Receive Complaints Process Map
62 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix E: Citation Process Map
63 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix E: Compliance Order Process Map
64 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix E: Appeals Process Map
65 Appendix F:

Workload & Staffing
Analysis Support

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix F: Workload & Staffing Analysis Definitions
Analysis Step Term Definition
All PY Personnel Years, or Full-time equivalents (FTEs). For this analysis, 1 PY is equal to 1,266 hours (Available Hours*75% productivity). Available hours: 2,080 (annual calendar hours) minus vacation (120), sick (80), personal (32), furlough (32), holiday (128) equals 1,688. 1,688*.75=1,266 Step 1-3. Workload Volume Action Actions are the tasks tracked by the Code Enforcement Division in CES. For this analysis, actions are considered work products
Step 1-3. Workload Volume Action Category Actions roll up into 14 categories: Administrative, Customer Service-Letters, Customer Service-Phone Call, Customer Service-Other, Investigation-Research, Investigation-Status Inspection, Investigation- Compliance Inspection, Investigation-Reinspection, Enforcement-Notices, Enforcement-Citation, Enforcement-Compliance Order, Enforcement-AHB, Compliance-Ready for Closure Step 1-3. Workload Volume Program The Code Enforcement program for which the Guidehouse Team is analyzing the work product. For this analysis, Guidehouse is focused solely on the General Code Program Step 1-3. Workload Volume Period Unit The period of time the work product is being measured. For this analysis, the Guidehouse Team is measuring the volume of each action for the period unit of 1 year (Calendar Year 2024) Step 1-3. Workload Volume Volume Completed The volume of actions completed in period unit. Volume completed for each action is pulled directly from the 2024 actions report and includes actions for General Code Program Inspectors Step 1-3. Workload Volume Volume Demand The estimated number of actions that would be completed to close all open, new, and closed cases in 2024
Step 1-3. Workload Volume Average Hours Required to Complete One Unit
How long it takes on average to complete one action. For example, how long it takes to add a comment to a case in CES
Step 4. Staffing Gap Analysis Total Estimated Work Demand (PY) Estimated 2024 workload volume demand measured in PYs Step 4. Staffing Gap Analysis Total Reported Work Completed (PY) 2024 workload volume completed, measured in PYs Step 4. Staffing Gap Analysis Authorized Staffing (PY) Number of funded positions (includes filled and vacant) 67 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix F: Workload & Staffing Analysis Calculations
Analysis Step Calculation Formula
Step 1-3. Workload Volume Volume Demand in 2024 Volume Completed * Workload Demand Multiplier Step 1-3. Workload Volume Volume Not Completed in Year Volume Demand - Volume Completed Step 1-3. Workload Volume Total Hours Needed for Volume Demand Volume Demand * Average Hours Required to Complete One Unit Step 1-3. Workload Volume Total Hours for Completed Actions Volume Completed * Average Hours Required to Complete One Unit Step 1-3. Workload Volume PY Demand Total Hours Needed for Volume Demand/1266 Step 1-3. Workload Volume PY Completed Total Hours Needed for Completed Actions/1266 Step 4. Staffing Gap Analysis Demand Delta PYs Current PYs - Demand PYs Step 4. Staffing Gap Analysis Completed Delta PYs Completed PYs - Demand PYs Step 4. Staffing Gap Analysis Staffing Gap Demand Total Work Demand (PY) - Authorized Staffing (PY) 68 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix F: Actions/Work Product List (1 of 4)
Action Category Action Description
Administrative
Address Change CES generated message when address is changed Comments-Continued Continued comment entry after Comments-General has reached max character limit Comments-General General comments for Inspector notes. Has been used for general actions, including email correspondence.

File Attachment Indicates a document (notices, warnings, citations, etc.) has been attached to a case file Inspection Scheduling Attempt Inspector action to show they have attempted to schedule an appointment, but the CP or RP did not respond or answer Letter-City Letterhead City letterhead template
Memo-Reinspection Fee Gen Memo for reinspection fee for General Code. To submit to support staff to start the process of reinspection fee Message Action to message a recipient internally
Reassigned Action to use when Supervisor reassigns case to another CEI Compliance-
Ready for Closure
1System Message CES generated message. Notifies supervisors when cases are ready to review for closure Submit for DF Submit for Deadfile. When Inspector is ready to close the case and submit for supervisor review Customer
Service-Letters
A-Courtesy RP Letter Notice to RP to inform them of noted violations Letter-Auto Repair Notice to RP of auto repair regulations. Provided 72 hours to comply Letter-Bin Storage Notice to RP of bin regulations - cannot leave them on the street Letter-Early Set Out Notice to RP if cans have been set out too early Letter-Graffiti Notice to RP of alleged graffiti violation on their property. Provides anti-graffiti hotline Letter-Illegal Dumping Notice to RP that there is alleged violation of illegal dumping. Either correspondence in dump refuse or license plate identification Letter-Inop Notice to RP that there is alleged inoperable vehicle. 69 CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Action Category Action Description
Customer Service-
Letters (cont.)
Letter-Lawn Parking Notice to RP of alleged lawn parking violation on their property.

Letter-Routine CP Complaint received, and RP is notified of alleged violation. Notice explains due to staffing capacity, there is only a response to immediate threat to safety and/or property. Notice for CP to reach back if violation hasn't been corrected in 14 days LETTER-RP Routine Sent at the same time as routine CP to the various stakeholders.

Letter-RP Warning Notice to RP warning identified alleged violations. If violation is not corrected by site inspection, they are subject to citation Letter-Yard Waste Notice to resident regarding early yard waste set out, etc.

Customer Service-
Other
Inspection Scheduled Notice that an inspection has been scheduled Meeting Request to meet and summarize meeting details
Customer Service-
Phone Call
Phone Call Input when a phone call has been made by Inspector or CP/RP, PM, etc.

Enforcement-AHB
AHB- NOH POS To summarize outcome of hearing and document that hearing was held AHB- Resolution POS To share the AHB Hearing Resolution Letter- AHB Warning Notice to the RP that case is being brought to the AHB Enforcement-
Citation
Administrative Citation Generated when support staff uploads the citation, similar to file attachment action. Used concurrently with Citation action Citation Citation issued for violation(s) identified
Comments-Citation Appeal For cases when a citation when property owner is contesting citation Enforcement-
Compliance Order
Compliance Order-GA To amend the compliance date on issued Compliance Order Compliance Order-General Compliance order issued
Director's Hearing Hearing officer (HO). Action entered when Director's hearing occurs 70 Appendix F: Actions/Work Product List (2 of 4)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Action Category Action Description
Enforcement-
Compliance Order
Director's Hearing Packet When hearing packet is uploaded. Includes date of hearing, location, and mail out date in notes Director's Hearing Request To track when a property owner files a request for hearing Director's Notice of Dec To notify decision made from Director's Hearing Enforcement-
Notices
BLD Permit Finalized Input when Building permit is finalized BLD Permit Issued Building permit issued
BLD Plan Revisions Req To notify property owner to fix building plans BLD Plans Accepted To notify building plans have been accepted by Code Enforcement Division and are ready to submit to Building Division BLD Plans Reviewed Buildings plans approved and ready to be submitted to the Building Division BLD Plans Submitted Building plans submitted by property owner IN Mailed "Inspection Notice Mailed". Entry to notify that inspection notice has been mailed out Letter VA-NTR ORD Vacant Building - Notice to Register Ordinance Letter-Expired Permit PCL Building permits that have been expired. Notifies of expired permit and needs to renew Letter-Expired Permit Warning To notify RP that their permit will soon expire Letter-Insp Notice GA Inspection notice amended
Letter-Insp Notice GEN General Inspection Notice template Letter-Inspection Warrant Notice that Division can and will pursue an inspection warrant Letter-Precite Sent to RP for pre-cite
OWN OWNs are scanned and submitted via "File Attachment." This action is not currently used. 71 Appendix F: Actions/Work Product List (3 of 4)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
72 Action Category Action Description
Investigation-Compliance
Inspection
Inspection-Compliance To notify of inspection after violations were identified and possible warning notice issued. Pre-cite, inspection notice, or OWN Investigation-Initial
Inspection
Inspection For General Code, typically used for initial inspection Inspection Complaint Driven Code Enforcement Inspector conducting complaint-driven inspections Inspection-Exterior For inspections where Inspector did not enter into premises and did not perform full inspection relative to complaint. LBC, KOD, NA, etc..

Letter-ATC "Attempt to contact"
Letter-Attempt, CP Attempt to contact Complaining Party Letter-Attempt, RP Attempt to Contact Responsible Party letter. Leave a business card and send a letter if RP is not available on property Picture Attaching a picture to casefile
Investigation-
Reinspection
Inspection-Reinspection Triggers reinspection fee. To enter reinspection fee, use "Memo-Reinspection Fee" Reinspection 2 For FAST program: Second inspection to observe if corrections have been made for violations identified after FAST inspection was conducted
Investigation-Research Research Research for ownership, building records, permits, etc.

Investigation-Status
Inspection
Inspection Status When Inspector is monitoring a property and inspection may not be scheduled Appendix F: Actions/Work Product List (4 of 4)
CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
73 Information Source
Leading practices in HR analytics, staffing assessments, and workforce demand forecasting https://www.shrm.org Methodologies for workforce planning, staffing gap analysis, and FTE calculations https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/human-capital-framework/reference- materials/talent-management/workforce-planning-guide.pdf Workforce analysis techniques used in public sector human resource management https://www.ipma-hr.org/ Guidance on workload estimation, FTE-based forecasting, and efficiency considerations in government agencies
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-195g
Guidance and data on productivity rates Productivity Home Page : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Appendix F: Workload Analysis Sources
Appendix G: Peer
City Research
Sources

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix G: Peer City Research Sources (1 of 2)
75 Information Source
Land Area, Population, Median
Household Income https://data.census.gov/profile/
Monthly Bill Expense Per Household https://www.doxo.com/w/insights/report-the-most-expensive-and-most-affordable-largest-u-s-cities-2024/ San José Budget www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/115762/638659772555570000 San Diego Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/building-land-use-enforcement/priority-cases www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/iba-budget-guide-eng.pdf https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/ce5/home/investigate.html https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/ced_cow_presentation_-_may_2018.pdf Los Angeles Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://dbs.lacity.gov/
https://cao.lacity.gov/budget24-25/ProposedBudget/
Santa Cruz Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showpublisheddocument/100559/638560511765030000 https://www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-community-development/code-compliance Fresno Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://www.fresno.gov/cityattorney/codeenforcement/school-area-team/ https://www.fresno.gov/cityattorney/codeenforcement/
https://www.fresno.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/FY-2025-ADOPTED-BUDGET.pdf CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
Appendix G: Peer City Research Sources (2 of 2)
76 Information Source
Seattle Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://www.seattle.gov/sdci/about-us/who-we-are/code-compliance https://openbudget.seattle.gov/#!/year/default
Austin Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://www.austintexas.gov/news/austin-city-council-approves-fiscal-year-2024-2025-budget https://www.austintexas.gov/department/dsd-code-compliance Dallas Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://dallascityhall.com/departments/codecompliance/Pages/district-offices.aspx https://dallascityhall.com/departments/budget/financialtransparency/AnnualBudget/FY%202024- 25%20Adopted%20Annual%20Operating%20and%20Capital%20Budget.pdf https://dallascrm.my.site.com/public/s/
Baltimore Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://dhcd.baltimorecity.gov/ce/code-enforcement
FY2025-PRELIM BUDGET-FINAL 1.pdf
Philadelphia Budget and Code
Enforcement Information
https://www.phila.gov/departments/department-of-licenses-and-inspections/inspections/code-enforcement/ rental-enforcement-in-philly.pdf
https://www.phila.gov/media/20240829150436/budget-in-brief-FY2025-approved.pdf CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
77 Organizational Structure
Deputy Director
(1 FTE)
Special Programs
Group 1
(7 FTEs)
Special Programs
Group 2
(7 FTEs)
General Code
Group 1
(6 FTEs)
General Code
Group 2
(7 FTEs)
Field Operations
(1 FTE)
Multiple Housing
Group 1
(9 FTEs)
Multiple Housing
Group 1
(9 FTEs)
Multiple Housing
Group 2/CDBG
(9 FTEs)
Management
Group
(7 FTEs)
• General Fund
• Solid Waste
• Multiple
Housing
• Vehicle
Abatement
• Building Code
Compliance
Sr. Analyst
(1 FTE)
LEA: Solid Waste
(4 FTEs)
Deputy Group Multiple Housing (MH)
General Code
• General Fund
• Massage
• General Fund
• Vehicle
Abatement
• Solid Waste
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
• General Fund
• Off-sale
Alcohol
• Tobacco Retail
License
• Neglected/
Vacant Building
Code Analyst II
(1 FTE)
Staff Specialist
(1 FTE)
Special
Operations
(1 FTE)
Key
• Multiple
Housing
• Multiple
Housing
• General Fund
Multiple
• Multiple
Housing
• CDBG
• Management
Group funding
is comprised of
10 sources. See
Appendix D for
details.*
Special Programs Local Enforcement
Agency (LEA)
Planner II
(.5 FTE)
The Code Enforcement Division is composed of 70.5 positions, divided into six functional areas. The chart below is a high-level overview of each functional area, the number of FTEs, and its core functions. Included in the headcount below are nine vacant positions.

CLIENT PROPRIETARY \ PROTECTED
78 Functional Area Overview
General Code
› General Fund and Fee Funded
› Oversees code inspections and oversight on
all Single/Two Family, Commercial, Industrial,
and Vacant Private Property
Multiple Housing
› Fee funded
› Provides proactive inspections on a three-,
five-, or six-year basis and responds to
customer complaints on apartments, SROs,
Hotels/Motels, Frats/Sororities, and other
multi-unit dwellings
› Oversees 6,752 Buildings and102,862 Units
Community Development
Block Grant
› Grant Funded
› Enhanced Multiple Housing Program in CDBG
areas, providing inspections for ROP buildings
located in Project Hope areas across the city,
including Cadillac Winchester, Foxdale,
Guadalupe Washington, Hoffman Via Monte,
McKinley Bonita, Mclaughlin Area Tenants,
Poco Way, Roundtable, and Welch Park
Special Programs
› Fee funded
› Oversees Vacant Buildings and Storefronts,
Tobacco Retail License, Off-Sale Alcohol,
Abandoned Shopping Carts, Building Code
Compliance, and Massage
Local Enforcement Agency
› Fee Funded
› Serves as the State enforcement arm for
regulation of 34 local landfills and solid waste
facilities including landfills, materials recycling
facilities, zero waste facilities, and green waste
facilities
Deputy Group
› General Fund and Fee Funded
› Support staff assist with administrative and
support tasks, including support with the
Appeals Hearing Board process, issuing
vehicles to inspectors, and providing logistical
to inspectors and supervisors
› Management staff provide strategic and
operational direction for the Division
The Code Enforcement Division has the following six functional areas.