On May 5, 2021, the Regina Police Service (RPS) presented report EX21-37 to Executive Committee regarding collaborations and partnerships RPS has within the community. This report was initially presented to the Board of Police Commissioners (Board) on March 30, 2021. As part of this report to the Board, it was recommended to City Council that more responsibility and stronger bylaw enforcement by the City on things such as body rub parlours, housing standards and other bylaw enforcement issues. Responsibility for a portion of these recommendations falls within the scope of Bylaw Enforcement to ensure that properties are secured and maintained to minimize the risk of “recurring neighbourhood issues such as squatting, large gathering and structure fires.”
Accessibility
None with respect to this report.
Financial Impacts
Should the Community Standards Bylaw be amended to remove the right to appeal an order to comply and proceed with boarding unsecured properties, an additional $50,000 is being requested for contracted services within the Bylaw Enforcement Branch budget for 2023. This accounts for materials and labour to perform the work and is based on the number of unsecured structures that were found to be unsecured and in violation of the Bylaw in 2021. Should the bylaw amendments proposed within the report be approved, the costs for boarding any unsecured properties for the remainder of 2022 will be offset through variance. While not cost recovery, the costs may be offset by the introduction of a Notice of Violation for unsecured buildings, should there be voluntary payment of the fine amount and Administration is not required to take the unpaid ticket to court.
Policy/Strategic Impacts
The proposed bylaw amendments are in alignment with Design Regina, The Official Community Plan. Implementation of these changes link to Sections B: Financial Policies, C: Growth Plan, D5: Land Use and Built Environment, D6: Housing, and D11: Social Development.
These changes will also strengthen alignment of the Community Well-Being Plan. The Plan highlights the need for better collaboration of services. Bylaw Enforcement has an integral role to play in the creation of safe spaces for residents through the enforcement of bylaws that ensure the safety, health, and welfare of the people in the neighbourhood, people’s use and enjoyment of their property, and the amenity of the neighbourhood. The primary services provided by the branch are related to property maintenance and minimum standards but also provide links to services, share knowledge, create a sense of community and pride in the neighbourhoods they serve, advocating with our partners to create positive change. Bylaw Enforcement Officers (BEO) work to improve the housing stock throughout the community, providing education and awareness on specifications for residential properties to property owners.
Option 1: Comprehensive Program to Regulate Vacant Boarding Buildings
The jurisdictional scan (Appendix A) revealed that few municipalities employ a comprehensive program aimed at discouraging property owners from leaving properties vacant or boarded by implementing a broad permitting, inspection, and fine schedule. Such a program would require the property owner to obtain a permit from the municipality and ensure the property meets the minimum standards set out in the bylaw. The introduction of a program like this would allow for the continuation of vacant and boarded buildings but would require the owner to obtain a permit. This option would be a significant reform of the City’s approach to regulating vacant buildings and would require an enactment of a new bylaw or substantial amendments to The Regina Community Standards Bylaw, No. 2016-2 (the Bylaw).
One of the primary benefits of the program would be an up-to-date inventory of vacant and boarded homes that would allow for proactive monitoring. However, the introduction of a program such as this could still not compel a property owner to have their building occupied, so vacant properties would remain in neighbourhoods. While the program would provide some revenue as a result of inspection and permit fees, the program would not be cost recovery; therefore, would require ongoing operating funding to support the program.
This option is not being recommended at this time due to the additional staff and ongoing costs associated with administering the program. Further, as stated above, the introduction of such a program will still allow for vacant buildings.
Option 2: Bylaw Amendments with Additional Fulltime Employees (FTE)
In addition to the implementation of the recommended bylaw amendments, service levels could be improved across the city with the addition of three BEOs and a permanent policy-based position. This option would change the focus of enforcement with Administration working towards implementation of a more holistic approach to enforcement that includes current and future initiatives.
Additional BEOs would allow the branch to better divide the workload among officers while also improving the level of service provided across the community. As there are cases that are both labour and time intensive, this would allow for the BEOs to focus on complex cases while also attending to less serious infractions. Further, should the branch be required to pursue prosecution, BEOs would then have more resources to collect and prepare evidence more effectively, likely resulting in more positive outcomes for the City.
The policy position would be responsible for research, process improvements and providing analysis of those improvements, measured over time. Policy work would be completed to ensure the enhancement of service levels as outlined in the City’s Official Community Plan. Further, the policy work being completed would provide information on the required staffing levels for any future changes to enforcement activities including the implementation of comprehensive strategies utilized in other municipalities.
The addition of these positions to the Bylaw Enforcement Branch would cost approximately $360,000 for salary, benefits, and other related costs such as uniforms and kilometre reimbursement.
Other Considerations:
Administration also reviewed two other possible options but at this time they are not viable and did not present them for consideration.
One option considered but not put forward was to implement a landlord/rental property licensing program which was discussed at a community meeting called “Imagining a Progressive Future for Regina: What to do about Slum Housing?” At the meeting, community members shared their concerns and experiences with rental housing and the substandard conditions that they have experienced in some properties. While it is understood that these issues are present, they do not contribute to the challenges shared in the Board of Police Commissioners report related to calls for service as a landlord registry would not address the challenges presented by abandoned, vacant or boarded up homes. Further, the introduction of such a program would be applied citywide and not just select neighbourhoods, thus reducing the effectiveness of the program that aims to focus resources on the most vulnerable areas. Participants at the meeting noted that broad-sweeping programs may not be effective, understanding that problem areas, including North Central and Heritage neighbourhoods, face different housing challenges than other areas of the community and that this may increase the “black market” housing stock, hiding issues outside of the system.
Participants at the meeting indicated a desire to have a clear reporting system, free from negative consequences by landlords, as many fear eviction or other issues would arise from bringing concerns forward. The recommended option, which includes process improvements for complaints received by the Housing Standards Enforcement Team (HSET), would work towards addressing the housing quality concerns expressed at the community meeting. In addition, the introduction of a priority system for enforcement complaints and violations would direct the focus of existing resources to priority issues that impact vulnerable populations. The report back following the implementation of the recommendations will revisit the concerns shared at the slum housing forum, and whether there has been measurable change.
HSET is in place to address some of the concerns brought forward by this group. It works towards interjurisdictional solutions to improve the condition of housing stock for renters in the community. A dedicated resource of one BEO III serves to coordinate inspections and repairs of rental housing stock while connecting residents with the appropriate resources based on individual situations. There are currently 51 active HSET cases, dating back to 2018 and 218 resolved cases since the reintroduction of the team in 2018. Concurrent to the work underway as part of this report, the Bylaw Enforcement Branch is also undertaking an internal process review of HSET to implement improvements to ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources, as well as the process for tenants to report concerns.
Another alternative option reviewed but not presented for consideration was to maintain the status quo in terms of the regulations within the Bylaw and the current branch operations. The current wording contained within the Bylaw, as well as the current processes in place for dealing with violation and complaints, have not proven to be effective in addressing neighbourhood issues. Therefore, continuing with the status quo to address the concerns expressed in the report to the Board of Police Commissioners and would not result in an improvement of the current situation.
Should the recommendation be approved by City Council, industry stakeholders will be advised of the changes to ensure they are aware of the responsibilities related to those specific types of properties. The bylaw will be updated on the City’s website to guide property owners and provide expectations for property maintenance. In addition, Bylaw Enforcement staff will communicate with property owners regarding abandoned and derelict properties and advise how to move forward with repairs or other available options.
As outlined in EX21-37, significant resources are required to manage issues created when properties are left to deteriorate. The report brought forward to the Board of Police Commissioners notes that RPS is often called upon to attend situations that may be mitigated or prevented through stronger bylaw enforcement. This causes a significant strain on resources that could be better used in other areas. Specifically, a regular review of properties where there is “an ability to correct recurring neighbourhood issues such as squatting, large gatherings and structure fires.” The report called for enhanced bylaw enforcement efforts that contribute to positive outcomes in the community while maximizing resources for all groups.
Administration has identified five priority areas that contribute to neighbourhood issues: unsecured structures, long-term boarded up structures, fire damaged structures, abandoned properties and repeat offenders. By working cooperatively with internal and external agencies and community partners to proactively manage these priority areas, the Bylaw Enforcement Branch will support the reduction of recurring neighbourhood issues such as squatting, large gatherings and structure fires. The operational changes, in collaboration with the proposed bylaw amendments, will work to strengthen the Branch’s ability to ensure that neighbourhood issues are addressed within a shorter timeframe.
Understanding that additional resources to manage issues may not be financially possible, the Branch is working to realign the strategic direction and focus on these priority issues. Solutions that are being implemented will try different approaches using the tools that are available before the introduction of a costly regulatory regime. This focused approach, with supporting bylaw amendments and the implementation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure success, will allow staff to manage cases in a more efficient manner, while also maintaining a level of service throughout the community without the requirement of a more complex program and increased costs. While further data analysis will be required, one KPI that we will focus on will be reducing the number of long-term boarded up homes through the issuance of orders and Notice of Violation tickets. While the Branch will continue to focus on reducing the time it takes to remedy violations in general, please note that due to the complex nature of investigating boarded up/fire damaged structures, the number of days the case is open is not necessarily an indication of success. As the year progresses, additional KPIs will be developed and reported back to Council. At this time, a more comprehensive review will be possible to better understand how to move the program forward, if necessary.
A total of 21 properties have been demolished since March 15, 2021. Of these, seven were demolished by the property owner, and 14 were demolished by the City. This includes all cases from across the community that were brought to the attention of the City through various channels including fire damage, HSET, property maintenance and nuisance cases. Demolitions can cost anywhere from $850 to $2,250 for a garage and $8,000 to $31,500 for a house, depending on construction materials and size. Asbestos remediation is performed for any City-initiated demolition, when it is structurally safe to access the property, can also contribute to increased cost for demolition, as well as extending the process.
Unsecured Structures
Unsecured structures are a significant contributor to neighbourhood issues that can impact fire and police resources if not dealt with immediately. While most property owners comply with the request, those that don’t create opportunities for squatting, arson, or other mischief. Allowing structures to remain unsecured, even for 24 hours, can pose an unnecessary risk to the neighbourhoods in which they are located.
An unsecured structure occurs when exterior doors, windows or other exterior openings of an unoccupied building are damaged, broken or otherwise in a state of disrepair. Under the Bylaw, a BEO can order the building owner to board up all exterior openings as an interim measure to prevent unauthorized entry into the building. Under the current language in the Bylaw and following current processes, unsecured structures are dealt with by contacting the property owner and requesting that they secure the building within 24 hours. If contact cannot be made, then the BEO will immediately post an order to comply. Under The Cities Act, the owner has 15 days to file an appeal of the order which means that the building can remain unsecured while the appeal period expires. If the owner files an appeal, the building may remain unsecured until the appeal is heard by the Regina Appeal Board. If the property owner does not comply with the order, and the appeal period has expired, the City will then perform the necessary work to secure the structure and apply the cost of doing so to the property tax account.
Based on case numbers from 2021, it is estimated that BEOs could issue up to 175 unsecured structures per year, with the City being responsible for securing approximately 72 to mitigate squatting, intentionally set fires or other neighbourhood issues. It costs approximately $55 in materials to board a single opening, and in most cases at least two openings require securing, if not more. Labour associated with daytime callouts to perform this work is a minimum of $250 per call and afterhours callouts are a minimum of $500. As costs to board individual properties will vary depending on the number of access points requiring boarding, and the time of day the crew is required to attend to secure the structure, the estimated financial impact of the City performing this work is $25,000 to 50,000.
Recommendation:
Administration is recommending that the Bylaw be amended to remove the right to appeal in order to deal with unsecured properties as quickly as possible. This option would only be applied to unsecured structures that are considered high risk for squatting, arson or other mischief or where voluntary compliance is not anticipated. The Cities Act allows a municipality to remove the right to appeal and perform the work immediately to remedy the violation. In choosing to follow this process, the municipality cannot apply the cost of remedying the violation to the property tax account.
Given the severity and risk associated with an unsecured building, Administration is also recommending that a Notice of Violation fine be introduced in the Bylaw beginning at $1,500 for the first violation, $2,500 for the second and $3,500 for the third and subsequent violation.
Fire Damaged Structures
The Bylaw Enforcement Branch has been working with the Building Standards & Inspections Branch and the Fire & Protective Services Department to improve the process for dealing with fire damaged structures and to ensure that the most effective legislation, The Cities Act or the new Construction Codes Act (CCA), is used to deal with the property. As BEOs do not have the authority to enter properties, they are not enabled to deal with structural issues and have not been able to effectively deal with fire damaged structures. By working collaboratively between the branches, building inspectors can deal with structural damage resulting from a fire event, while BEOs will manage with aesthetic issues. This will ensure that conflicting orders are not issued for the same structures and create a single point of contact for City services, including when owners are dealing with insurance, which can be a lengthy process involving multiple companies to ensure repairs are completed to minimum standard.
As a result of this process change, reports of fire events from the Fire Marshal’s office are now sent to both the Building Standards & Inspections Branch and the Bylaw Enforcement Branch for follow-up and investigation. From there, each Branch will take the necessary steps to address the deficiencies under their respective legislation. In addition to this process change, 10 open files have been consolidated and are currently being managed through the CCA. This change ensures a single point of contact for residents when dealing with remediation, reducing confusion, and providing accurate record keeping for the corporation. By taking a collaborative approach, branches that help manage fire damaged structures will do so more quickly, devoting the appropriate resources to each case.
There are no recommendations associated with this information, rather Administration will continue to work internally to manage fire damaged structures using the appropriate legislation.
Boarded Up Structures
The use of boards on building openings is a proven security measure to restrict unwanted access. However, the accepted practice in the past has permitted homes to be boarded for an extended period provided that the boards were painted the same colour as the exterior of the home. An inventory was never maintained and there was no proactive monitoring of these properties. As a result, some of these properties have become persistent nuisance properties.
The City of Saskatoon conducted an analysis in 2019 of the boarded-up structures in their community and found a number of reasons that an owner may choose to board up a property. The reasons include: the property being vacant and the owner wanting it to remain secure due to a fire, property undergoing construction, renovation, alteration or to prevent weather elements or vandals from entering. For example, broken windows or doors may be boarded while awaiting delivery of replacement. In some cases, boarding is used as a tool to maintain security on vacant buildings for longer durations.
In speaking with some Regina property owners who rent out homes, some are choosing to board up their properties if they are unable to find tenants instead of leaving them vacant and at higher risk for illegal entry, vandalism and squatting. Further, and while not an issue that can be addressed by the City, some property owners have cited the changes to the Saskatchewan Income Support Program of which one of the changes that saw tenants provided the funds for monthly rent instead of going to the landlord.
As part of the research for this report, an inventory of properties in the North Central neighbourhood was performed in July 2021 to provide a snapshot in time of the current issue. It was determined there were 129 boarded houses. The steps involved to investigate why a house has been boarded for a prolonged period requires time on the part of the BEO to investigate. As mentioned above, the focus of operations in the past has not been on dealing with properties after they have been boarded which explains why this number is high.
The current language in the Bylaw provides a 90-day timeframe to remedy situations where boarding is required. Administration is not recommending a change but will approach these properties differently, working with owners to better understand the situation that led to the boarding and how to remedy that situation. There is a fine line between boarded to prevent further nuisances and boarded for an excessively long period of time. To address the outstanding properties, the Bylaw Enforcement Branch has been working through the inventory of boarded up homes, contacting the owners to discuss the status of the property and their intended next steps to bring the property into compliance with the Bylaw. In some instances, the BEO has issued an order to comply to perform the necessary work, while in other instances they have issued an order for the property to be demolished or other suitable remedy.
Recommendation:
Administration is proposing amendments to the technical requirements for boarding up structures contained within the Bylaw to ensure that buildings remain secure from illegal entry as there have been numerous instances where property owners have used scrap lumber or other inappropriate material in an attempt to secure. In addition to the current language in the bylaw, the proposed amendments will state that a structure can only be boarded using plywood or oriented strand board (OSB) with a minimum thickness of 7/16 inches using screws with a minimum length of 2-inch screws and spaced a maximum of 10 inches apart.
Administration will also complete an inventory of boarded up homes in the Heritage neighbourhood and will update this information annually while continuing to proactively deal with properties that have been boarded for extended periods.
Abandoned Properties
While a property that has been vacant for an extended period may be considered abandoned, there is criteria that needs to be established to determine abandonment under the Bylaw should an order to remedy or demolish the property be challenged. Some of these criteria may include no utility services, boarded up windows and/or doors, results of a property search that indicates the owner is deceased with no next of kin. In all cases, there must be outstanding property taxes to demonstrate that a property has been abandoned. As the potential remedy for an abandoned property found to be contributing to neighbourhood issues can involve the most extreme remedy, specifically demolition, the BEO must thoroughly investigate all potential avenues in an attempt to make contact with the owner, determine the status of the property and the intent for the same.
In 2021, a second BEO III was hired to investigate suspected abandoned houses in addition to creating the boarded-up houses inventory. Since March 15, 2021, this position has investigated 270 properties related to this issue. The City intervention to resolve the issue has only been used in 76 of these cases, which indicates that compliance is generally achieved when staff works with owners to understand the requirements laid out in the Bylaw.
Further analysis of historical case files within the current enforcement software will be done to try and proactively identify potentially abandoned houses citywide that will require further investigation by a BEO. The establishment of the priority system, mentioned later in the report, will also incorporate changes to data collection that enable the branch to isolate properties that have been deemed abandoned to allow for easier monitoring and sharing with other internal departments.
Recommendation:
There is no recommendation or bylaw amendment required as it relates to abandoned properties. As part of the review of boarded up homes, Administration will determine if properties meet the threshold for abandonment. Future recommendations may result from this work.
Repeat Offenders
Repeat offenders are those who have multiple violations at a single property, multiple violations at more than one property, or a combination of the two. Unlike in other municipalities reviewed in the jurisdictional scan, current provincial legislation does not allow for penalizing an owner for having multiple violations in and of itself. While there are escalating voluntary fines that are associated with continual offenses, the issuance of a Notice of Violation is typically reserved for extreme cases where compliance is not achieved. This is due to payment of the fine being voluntary and requiring intervention of the courts to try and compel payment of the ticket. Given the severity of these issues, Administration believes that the use of Notice of Violation ticketing is an effective and integral component of dealing with repeat violations of the Bylaw.
The City can also prosecute for violations; however, this process is not currently being used to the full extent as the emphasis has been placed on remedying violations. Prosecution is a lengthy process that is both time consuming and resource heavy and typically only pursued once all other avenues have been explored and often after a long period of time has passed. It should be noted that during the prosecution that remediation of the bylaw violation is ceased to provide for a fair trial.
Changes are being made within the current enforcement software to enable tracking and monitoring of repeat offenders. Focused effort will be placed on repeat offenders through violation tickets and prosecution. As prosecution and enforcement of unpaid tickets through the court system can be time consuming, it is appropriate to reserve these tools for the most egregious violators. The time and resources required to deal with these offenders will be monitored to determine if other resources will be required within the City Solicitor’s office.
Recommendation:
There is no recommendation or bylaw amendment required as it relates to dealing with repeat offenders. Administration will analyze previous case files to compile a list of repeat properties and offenders to enable proactive monitoring and enforcement should violations be found. Notice of Violations will then be issued for repeat violations of the Bylaw.
Priority System for Enforcement Cases
Currently service requests received by the Bylaw Enforcement Branch, regardless of the severity or location of the concern, are dealt with on a first in/first out basis. Further, while BEOs deal with violations in the field proactively, there is no priority system in place which means that suspected violations that pose a risk to public safety are treated the same as aesthetic violations. Following the current practice of the City of Saskatoon’s Fire & Emergency Department who enforces the comparable regulations found in the Bylaw, Administration is working to implement a Priority Enforcement System.
Under this system, priority levels are assigned based on severity, impact to the community or risk to public safety. Infractions of a more serious nature, such as unsecured buildings or open excavations will be prioritized while concerns with a lower impact to public safety will be given a lower priority level, such as overgrown grass and vegetation.
Priority Level | Enforcement Activity |
Priority 1 | Complaints that present a direct risk exposing the public to an unacceptable risk of injury. |
Priority 2 | Complaints that present a limited risk of injury to persons or related to a building exposed to an unacceptable risk to cause damage. |
Priority 3 | Complaints that present a negligible risk of injury to persons or causing damage to a building but otherwise create a nuisance. |
As the primary concern of residents differs throughout Regina, which sees some neighbourhoods with more priority three concerns compared to others with more priority one concerns, a zone enforcement system is also being implemented to minimize impacts to current service levels. A zone enforcement system will ensure that lower priority concerns in specific neighbourhoods are still addressed while providing a focus on priority one concerns that contribute to neighbourhood issues as expressed in the Board of Police Commissioners report.
In 2021, the Bylaw Enforcement Branch investigated 8031 cases, covering 10 different bylaws, and conducted over 16,818 inspections as part of these files. A detailed breakdown of these cases can be found in Appendix B. The table below shows the top five violations of the Bylaw citywide in 2021. Please note that this table does not include other bylaw violations that the branch may receive complaints about such as The Clean Property Bylaw, No. 9881, The Noise Abatement Bylaw, No. 6980 and The Regina Traffic Bylaw, 1997, No. 9900.
2021 Top Five Community Standards Bylaw Violations
Violation | Case Total | Service Request | Proactive | Inspection Complete |
Overgrown Grass | 2,067 | 1,234 | 833 | 4,364 |
Untidy Property | 1,996 | 1,172 | 824 | 5,029 |
Property Maintenance | 398 | 284 | 114 | 1,113 |
Graffiti | 258 | 49 | 209 | 565 |
Vehicles in Front Yard | 250 | 167 | 83 | 470 |
Total | 4,969 | 2,906 | 2,063 | 11,541 |
The table below shows the distribution of the top five cases/complaints by ward for 2021 which shows the priority concerns citywide are different. The introduction of the priority system for assessing bylaw complaints will endeavour to meet the needs of residents without providing different service levels across the city.
2021 Top Five Community Standards Bylaw Violations by Ward
Violation | Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4 | Ward 5 | Ward 5 | Ward 7 | Ward 8 | Ward 9 | Ward 10 | Total |
Overgrown Grass | 123 | 456 | 380 | 263 | 114 | 241 | 126 | 206 | 45 | 113 | 2,067 |
Untidy Property | 107 | 96 | 824 | 62 | 66 | 405 | 122 | 184 | 46 | 84 | 1,996 |
Property Maintenance | 26 | 32 | 106 | 16 | 21 | 86 | 36 | 33 | 16 | 26 | 398 |
Graffiti | 1 | 0 | 164 | 2 | 7 | 68 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 258 |
Vehicles in Front Yard | 68 | 36 | 23 | 28 | 18 | 13 | 11 | 28 | 16 | 9 | 250 |
Total | 325 | 620 | 1,497 | 371 | 226 | 813 | 299 | 457 | 124 | 237 | 4,969 |
The implementation of a priority system, in addition to the establishment of enforcement zones as discussed below, will optimize the effectiveness of the existing resources while determining the effectiveness of these bylaw amendments and addressing the breadth of resident concerns citywide.
Recommendation:
There is no recommendation or bylaw amendment required as it relates to the implementation of a priority system. As part of the follow-up report, Administration will report back on the efficacy of the priority system.
Division of Resources to Respond to Infractions
Every service request received by the Bylaw Enforcement Branch is investigated by a BEO. This process begins with the BEO looking into the history of the address and/or owner to determine if this is a repeat offender, on the caution list, etc. The initial review of the service request may require a phone call with the complainant to obtain more information or to discuss the concerns of the resident. The BEO will then drive to the location to conduct an inspection to determine if there is a violation. Regardless of whether a violation is found, all inspections are documented with photographs and written notes within the enforcement software. If a violation is found, the BEO will proceed to the next step in the enforcement process which can range from a verbal waring and a request for compliance up to and including the city remedying the violation and applying the costs to the property tax account. The BEO will re-inspect the property to determine if compliance has been achieved. If it has not, then they will proceed with further enforcement action. The steps in the enforcement process and the options that a BEO decides to utilize are determined on a case-by-case basis and depend on several factors that include but are not limited to whether or not this is a first violation or a repeat offender, severity of the violation and/or risk to public safety.
The Bylaw Enforcement Branch at the City operates with a generalized model rather than a specialized model used by the City of Saskatoon Community Standards Department which is responsible for enforcement of some of their bylaws such as The Sidewalk Clearing Bylaw, No. 8463, Bylaw No. 9772, The Drainage Bylaw, 2021, The Traffic Bylaw (select sections), and Zoning Bylaw, No. 8770. There are benefits and drawbacks to both types of structures with the primary benefit of the generalized model being the breadth of knowledge that is acquired and the efficiencies that can be realized by reassigning resources when the capacity of another area is maximized. This is not an option in a specialized model due to the reliance on subject matter expertise. The model used in Saskatoon’s Community Standards Department, comprised of 11 fulltime inspectors, focuses individual areas of expertise, having specific officers handling certain case-types across the entire city, rather than focusing on areas or wards. One downside of this model is that should more than one violation exist at a particular property, multiple enforcement officers may be required to address their area of expertise.
The generalized model, used by the City’s Bylaw Enforcement Branch, along with HSET where appropriate, focuses on the whole property to solve issues. The City of Saskatoon Fire & Emergency Department, comprised of 11 permanent fire inspectors and two casual fire bylaw inspectors, is responsible for enforcing the equivalent of the Community Standards Bylaw as well as the Fire & Protective Service Bylaw, Swimming Pool Bylaw, and conducting fire investigations as required. They operate primarily under a generalized model with highly trained fire inspectors who enforce multiple bylaws related to fire safety and property maintenance.
Analysis of case files from 2018 to 2021 has shown three distinct geographic zones in the city with clear differences in the number and type of cases being investigated. The introduction of a zone enforcement model will see the establishment of a north, central and south zone with each zone being led by a BEO III and a team of BEO I and II below them. Changes have been made within the existing enforcement software to allow for assignment of cases based on forestry sector which will allow for easier geographic reporting based on sector, ward or zone.
It is important to note that not all jurisdictions provide this level of service. The City of Saskatoon has adopted a policy where anonymous concerns will not be accepted, nor do they provide updates to complainants on the status of any cases. Adopting a similar approach could potentially improve efficiency in Regina.
Recommendation:
There is no recommendation or bylaw amendment required as it relates to the implementation of a zone enforcement system. As part of the follow-up report, Administration will report back on the efficacy of the zone enforcement system.
Additional Proposed Bylaw Amendments
In addition to the bylaw amendments captured in this section, Administration is also recommending the following amendments:
· Schedule A - Minimum Standards:
o Require the provision of hot, running water that is available through functioning taps
o Specify how mould remediation is handled
o Require proper ventilation for occupants of residential dwellings
o In the instance that a property has multiple dwellings, locking doors should be available on each suite.
These amendments are being proposed to improve the effectiveness of orders issued by Bylaw Enforcement as part of HSET.
· Schedule B – Voluntary Payment Amounts, Notice of Violation:
o Proposed amendments to this schedule include the addition of unsecured structures and increasing the existing fine amount for failing to comply with an order. The proposed increase in the voluntary payment is intended to reflect the severity of the violation.
Contravention | 1st Notice of Violation | 2nd Notice of Violation | 3rd (and subsequent) Notice of Violation |
Unsecured Structure | NEW - $1500 | NEW - $2500 | NEW - $3500 |
Failure to comply with an order | OLD – $500 NEW – $1500 | OLD – $1000 NEW – $2000 | OLD – $1500 NEW – $2500 |
· Schedule C – Fines on Conviction:
o Amendments are being proposed to this schedule to align with amendments of the proposed amendments to Schedule B.
Contravention | Fine on 1st Conviction | Fine on 2nd Conviction | Fine on 3rd Conviction | Fine on 4th and Subsequent Convictions |
Unsecured Structure | NEW - $2000 | NEW - $3000 | NEW - $4000 | Established by the Court |
Failure to comply with an order | OLD – $1000 NEW – $1500 | OLD – $1500 NEW – $2000 | OLD – $2000 NEW – $2500 | Established by the Court |
To support the focus on the five priority areas identified that contribute to neighbourhood issues, in addition to the operating changes describe above, Administration is recommending that the amendments to the Bylaw be approved to further support this work. These changes will include strengthening and clarifying definitions around abandoned and unsecured properties, specifications on requirement for boarding a property and enhancing the fines for violations of the Bylaw.
Due to the system changes required to implement this priority system and the bylaw amendments, we are requesting that these come into effect August 1, 2022. Administration will then report back to City Council on the effectiveness of the recommendations and operating changes one year following the full implementation. The follow up report will also advise if there is a need for a more comprehensive strategy related to boarded up and vacant buildings.
On May 5, 2021, the RPS presented report EX21-37 to Executive Committee outlining possible opportunities to increase collaboration with the police. The report was initially presented to the Board of Police Commissioners on March 30, 2021. The report recommended more responsibility and stronger bylaw enforcement by the City on things such as body rub parlours, housing standards and other bylaw enforcement to minimize the impact to emergency services. Responsibility for a portion of these recommendations falls on within the scope of Bylaw Enforcement to help ensure that properties are secured and maintained to minimize the risk of “recurring neighbourhood issues such as squatting, large gathering and structure fires.”
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Andrea McNeil-Wilson, Manager, Bylaw Enforcement 4/11/2022 Byron Werry, City Solicitor 4/11/2022
Prepared by: {ResUserUser1: Alicia Baniulis, Policy Analyst}