1789 East Lake Road
Skaneateles, NY 13152
Subject: Comments on Codes Division. Draft Review, Town of Spafford. NY
Reference: Draft document of 11 March 2004
The Program Review was useful with findings that suggest needed improvements Some of the suggestions I find to be appropriate for a more bureaucratic level of government than we enjoy in our small rural community.
Summary comments:
1) I find that problems associated with incomplete and inconsistent records, coupled with an inadequate filing system to be the most significant findings of this review. Our local law should also be updated to reflect changes in NYS mandates. These issues should be resolved consistent with recommendations of the Review.
2) The “implication” in the third paragraph of 'Observations’ is tenuously drawn. (Section B. Building Permits and Related Records) There is no reason for confusion between the Code Enforcement Officer and the “contractor” or "third party” Building Inspector. They are two different individuals with two different jobs. It may be that some forms are made up by the contractor but many towns use “boiler plate” forms that are not uniquely crafted by the individual or office responsible for implementing them. Perhaps more specific examples of misleading words or confusing signature blocks could clarify this issue.
3) Comments regarding Plan Reviews and the forms used should perhaps be evaluated by some outside agency. It is tempting to agree that improved forms might improve the process, but as a user of the system I did not observe problems. The deficiencies in record keeping must be resolved.
4) I suggest that the sentence reading “The town has apparently done little to address these issues be deleted. (Section G. Complaints) It is less than accurate and is inflammatory. The fact is that the Town officials, including the Board, have expended effort attempting to explain the difference between the legislative and the judicial branches of government to a few individuals who choose to ignore the difference. Personnel in the Office of Code Enforcement and the Town Clerk make it convenient and easy to file complaints. It may be that not all problems have been resolved, but to say "The town has done little” is not a true representation of fact.
Specific comments follow:
Page 1, paragraph 4: A minor typographical error, the hamlet of Bonodillo is in fact the hamlet of Borodino (as in --the Russian town of Napoleonic/Russian campaign of 1812 fame).
Section A, Local Regulations, Findings:
I presume these findings are factually correct, that our town attorney should be asked to review the findings and that
the local law should be brought up date by incorporating changes in state regulations as enumerated. Section B, Building Permits and Related Records:
Our Town Hall is neither as fancy nor as expensively outfitted as some that I suppose the Reviewer has visited. But it is an improvement over the situation a relatively fe~ years ago when we had no Town Hall, but used the Town Clerk’s kitchen for all official business. I see no findings relating to this observation or the more derogatory mention of our Town Hall in Section I.
The “implication” in the third paragraph of ~Observations’ is tenuously drawn. There is little if any confusion between the Code Enforcement Officer and the "contractor” or “third party” Building Inspector. I find no evidence that the Code Enforcement Officer has ever inspected a structure or that the Building Inspector has represented himself as being an employee of the Town.
A few years ago we had a “trained” civil service Code Enforcement Officer. The trauma of the situation led us to abolish the position and seek assistance from a professional Building Inspector. There may come a time when the level of construction activity in the Town may justify renewing the civil service position with more incentive for full time dedicated service. In the mean time the services of a professional inspector are appreciated by that part of the public that deals with actual building.
The criticism of the forms is perhaps more valid, but in absence of a state mandated form the personal preference of the inspector should be considered. A review of the forms we use by other professionals in the field should be considered. It may well be that the forms used do not lead to the efficiency or reduced confusion observed in other communities. As an owner/builder of two fairly major projects in the past few years under two different Building Inspectors, I did not observe deficiencies in the plan review process — but of course my view was from the outside.
The incomplete and missing reviews and the inconsistent filing points to problems that must be addressed.
C. Construction Inspections:
The inconsistent filing points to a problem that must be addressed.
D. Certificates of Occupancy and Related Records:
We apparently need a change in the Local Law.
E. Fire Safety Inspections:
The incomplete and missing reviews and the inconsistent filing points to a problem that must be addressed. Apparently the inventory of public assembly areas should be reviewed. A minor modification to the Local Law is apparently in order.
F. Other Fire Safety Inspections:
The incomplete and missing reviews and the inconsistent tiling points to a problem that must be addressed. A minor modification to the Local Law is apparently in order.
G. Complaints:
I request that the sentence reading “The town has apparently done little to address these issues" be deleted. It is inaccurate and inflammatory. The fact is that the Town Board has expended much effort attempting to explain the difference between the legislative and the judicial branches of government to a few individuals who prefer to ignore the difference. Forms have been generated to facilitate the filing of complaints and the Building Inspector has gone far beyond the requirements of professional ethics to accommodate the requests of the same few individuals to inspect and reinspect the properties of a few other individuals. In particular, the Building Inspectors attempt to ameliorate problems associated with complaints should be recognized. He has taken grief from these same few individuals for a period of years because he attempts an evenhanded approach to both sides of the complaint issues.
At some point I feel the harassment of local officials, particularly those in the Codes office, should be recognized as a part of the overall situation — although the reviewer may feel that this review is not the forum to do so.
Perhaps the local law should be amended to state that complaints shall be responded to in an expeditious manner.
I. Records and Record Keeping:
I find that problems associated with incomplete and inconsistent records coupled with an inadequate filing system to be the most significant findings of this review.