In recent years, the use of third-party agencies to supplement or manage building code inspections, plan review, and administrative functions has become increasingly common, particularly in smaller municipalities. These agencies, registered by states to provide comprehensive building code services, employ building officials, inspectors, and plans examiners. While this approach can address staffing shortfalls and budget constraints, it also presents several significant downsides that must be carefully considered. This article is not about third-party inspection companies that provide special inspections.
Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the strain on municipal inspection services led to increased reliance on third-party agencies. However, this shift also highlighted the disparities in service quality and the challenges of maintaining consistent enforcement across different jurisdictions (Real Estate NJ).
By understanding and addressing these challenges, municipalities can better navigate the complexities of using third-party agencies and ensure safer, more consistent building code enforcement for their communities. The key is finding a balance that leverages the strengths of third-party agencies while maintaining robust oversight and accountability to ensure high-quality service delivery and compliance with all applicable codes and standards.
In summary, while third-party agencies play a critical role in modern building code enforcement, their use must be carefully managed to avoid compromising safety, quality, and fairness. Municipalities must remain vigilant and proactive in overseeing third-party services to protect the interests of their communities and uphold the highest standards of building code enforcement.
Profit-Driven Nature and Quality of Service
One of the primary concerns with third-party agencies is their profit-driven nature. Unlike municipal employees who may have a vested interest in the quality and thoroughness of their work, third-party agencies often aim to minimize costs and maximize profits. This can lead to a reduction in the quality of inspections, plan reviews, and overall administration. For example, inspectors from third-party agencies may be over-scheduled, which reduces the time they can spend on each inspection, potentially missing critical violations (The Building Code Forum) (BVNA).Case in Point: Building Inspection Underwriters, Inc.
A prime example of the profit-driven pitfalls is the case of Building Inspection Underwriters, Inc. (BIU). The company’s former president, Russell B. McLaughlin, was sentenced to prison for bribing Anthony Saccomanno, the former director of the Cherry Hill Department of Code Enforcement and Inspections. McLaughlin admitted to giving cash bribes to Saccomanno in exchange for assistance in obtaining municipal contracts. This scandal illustrates how the drive for profit can lead to unethical behavior and compromise the integrity of the inspection process (Real Estate NJ).Political Pressures and Contract Retention
Third-party agencies must maintain their contracts with municipalities, making them vulnerable to political pressures. This dynamic can lead to agencies compromising on code enforcement to avoid conflicts with politically connected contractors or municipal officials. Such situations create an uneven playing field, undermining the integrity of building code enforcement and potentially leading to unsafe construction practices (The Building Code Forum).Small Town Politics and the Impact on Code Enforcement
In small municipalities, political pressure can be particularly intense. Elected officials or municipal managers might direct third-party agencies to overlook certain violations or approve projects without proper scrutiny to appease influential local contractors or developers. This political interference not only jeopardizes the quality of construction but also demoralizes inspectors and code officials who strive to uphold high standards (The Building Code Forum).Inconsistency and Lack of Local Knowledge
Inspectors from third-party agencies often work across multiple jurisdictions, each with its own code amendments and administrative procedures. This can lead to inconsistencies in code enforcement and a lack of familiarity with local regulations, resulting in missed violations and inadequate inspections. Municipal employees, on the other hand, typically have a deeper understanding of local codes and a stronger commitment to their community (Real Estate NJ).The Challenge of Multi-Jurisdictional Work
Third-party inspectors might struggle to stay updated on the specific code amendments and requirements of each jurisdiction they serve. This can lead to a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may not be suitable for the unique needs of each municipality. Inconsistent enforcement can create confusion and frustration among contractors and property owners, leading to delays and increased costs (Real Estate NJ).Hiring Practices and Inexperienced Inspectors
Another significant issue with third-party agencies is their hiring practices. Due to the need to fulfill contractual obligations and cover a wide range of jurisdictions, these agencies often hire inspectors with little to no experience. These "need a body" hires can result in inspectors who are not adequately trained or knowledgeable about building codes. As a result, they may miss important violations or incorrectly identify non-violations as issues, creating inconsistencies and problems for contractors and property owners (BVNA).Real-World Implications
Inexperienced inspectors can significantly impact the quality of inspections and the overall construction process. For example, a novice inspector might fail to identify critical structural issues, leading to potential safety hazards. Conversely, they might overzealously flag non-issues, causing unnecessary delays and added costs for contractors who must address these non-existent problems. This lack of consistency can erode trust in the inspection process and lead to a perception of incompetence within the community (The Building Code Forum).Administrative Challenges
When third-party agencies handle the entire administration of building codes, including permit intake, issuance, and certificate of occupancy, they may not always update local ordinances or administrative amendments as code cycles change. This lack of continuity can lead to outdated practices and a decline in customer service quality. In some cases, municipalities have gained reputations for lax enforcement due to overwhelmed third-party staff (The Building Code Forum) (Real Estate NJ).Comprehensive Administration and Its Pitfalls
In some municipalities, third-party agencies are responsible for all aspects of building code administration. This can be problematic if the agency does not have a full-time presence in the municipality. For example, an overwhelmed third-party employee who acts as the building official, performs all inspections, and handles all plan reviews may not have the capacity to adequately enforce codes or provide timely service. This can result in a municipality gaining a reputation for poor enforcement and becoming a haven for substandard construction practices (The Building Code Forum).Case Studies and Real-World Examples
A notable example of the challenges faced by third-party agencies is highlighted in New Jersey, where Governor Phil Murphy conditionally vetoed a bill allowing third-party inspections, citing concerns over bias and the inability of local agencies to manage private-sector agents effectively. Murphy's decision was influenced by the potential for creating a two-track system favoring those who could afford private inspections, thereby marginalizing smaller applicants (Real Estate NJ) (Real Estate NJ).Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the strain on municipal inspection services led to increased reliance on third-party agencies. However, this shift also highlighted the disparities in service quality and the challenges of maintaining consistent enforcement across different jurisdictions (Real Estate NJ).
Conclusion
While third-party agencies can provide necessary support to understaffed and underfunded municipalities, their profit-driven motives, susceptibility to political pressures, and lack of local knowledge pose significant downsides. Municipalities must weigh these factors carefully and consider hybrid models where third-party agencies supplement but do not entirely replace municipal services. Ensuring strong oversight and clear contractual obligations can help mitigate some of these issues and maintain the integrity of building code enforcement.By understanding and addressing these challenges, municipalities can better navigate the complexities of using third-party agencies and ensure safer, more consistent building code enforcement for their communities. The key is finding a balance that leverages the strengths of third-party agencies while maintaining robust oversight and accountability to ensure high-quality service delivery and compliance with all applicable codes and standards.
In summary, while third-party agencies play a critical role in modern building code enforcement, their use must be carefully managed to avoid compromising safety, quality, and fairness. Municipalities must remain vigilant and proactive in overseeing third-party services to protect the interests of their communities and uphold the highest standards of building code enforcement.
