# Privatization of Building Department?



## mtlogcabin (Jun 8, 2010)

Anybody have experience with Safe Built?

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/05/18/news/doc4bf366c694fe6551476193.txt

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-05-04/story/jacksonville-may-hire-private-company-building-inspections


----------



## vegas paul (Jun 8, 2010)

Whoo-boy... let the flames begin!  I don't think you will have any trouble finding FORMER municipal employees with thoughts about privatization, and Safe Built taking over a jurisdiction!


----------



## fatboy (Jun 8, 2010)

A former fellow employee of my office went to work for them 7-8 years ago. they have quite a few jurisdictions in CO, also some of the mountain towns. (big hotels) Back then it was Colorado Inspection Agency. Once they went out of state, I think maybe it was GA, they changed the name to SafeBuilt.  Seem to be pretty decent to work for, not sure how much cheaper they can do it.


----------



## globe trekker (Jun 8, 2010)

mtlogcabin,

You might send a PM to ' pyrguy '.    I believe that he is a former SafeBuilt employee.

.


----------



## FredK (Jun 8, 2010)

Well the big scream is it cost too much money to keep city employees now.  I'll bet none of the cities that are looking at that option are looking an enterprise fund for the building dept.  I'd also hope they really know what they want in a building dept to provide services.


----------



## packsaddle (Jun 8, 2010)

I work for a third party company.

We don't want your jobs.

We just want to play in the sandbox with you.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 8, 2010)

> We don't want your jobs.We just want to play in the sandbox with you.


Yeah but you want to use our toys


----------



## fatboy (Jun 8, 2010)

It's funny, I p1ssed a developer off a couple weeks ago, who then went to the City Manager and said that the Building Inspection Office should be privatized. My reply to that, then and before was......GO FOR IT! Who do you think a private company is going to hire once the juridiction goes private? Most of the existing staff of course...........sheesh.


----------



## jim baird (Jun 8, 2010)

............................


----------



## JBI (Jun 8, 2010)

A properly sized department with a well thought out fee schedule should be virtually no cost to the jurisdiction from the General Fund. Fees and penalties should cover pretty much all costs. If they don't, you need to re-evaluate your fee schedule... and maybe get more aggressive about penalties for violations.

Most municipal Judges don't like to levy 'fines' on locals, but if you have provisions for 'civil penalties' in your local law you can explain to the Judge that a civil penalty to compensate the town/village/city for the incurred expenses will shift the burden of paying for enforcement to the violator instead of the honest taxpayer. Usually get to write your own dollar amount with them that way.

Private 'contract' enforcement is never cheaper than Municipal employees, although they CAN be more ambitious...

at first...

to make a good impression...

to get a long range contract...


----------



## mdiasteve (Jun 9, 2010)

Hey guys CRCASTEVE here from the old icc bb  Just got layed off in november from municipal service now working in the private sector Yet to be determined if I like it still doing ride alongs..


----------



## peach (Jun 9, 2010)

Having moved a building department from general fund to enterprise fund, I came to realize the building department is still a cash cow to the jurisdiction... lots of back charges for accounting, etc... kind of had to draw the line when they wanted me to pay debt retirement on the new city hall.... when I was already paying private rent on our space..

Privatation is always cheaper... the benefits for most municipalities are much more expensive/better than what the private company is going to offer.  Less politics are generally a good thing, however.....


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Jun 10, 2010)

As a Fire Marshal for a jurisdiction I worked with the original owners of Safebuilt (Colorado Inspection Agency).  Many of the employees were good people doing a good job.  For many of the small jurisdictions of Northern Colorado it was the only way to do business.  There were a few traveling Building Officials who were listed as part time employees, but coverage and application of the codes was sketchy.  Colorado Inspection Agency was sold and it became more of a business then when it was started.  They took on some cities and they became political.  I learned not to expect them to hold the line on any code issues.  A few of their good people tried on the south side of Denver and lost... including their jobs.  It is a for profit company and for profit companies don't make a profit when they take on the big developers.


----------



## Mule (Jun 10, 2010)

mdiasteve said:
			
		

> Hey guys CRCASTEVE here from the old icc bb  Just got layed off in november from municipal service now working in the private sector Yet to be determined if I like it still doing ride alongs..


mdiasteve, welcome to the forum.


----------



## mdiasteve (Jun 10, 2010)

Thanks mule. It is good to be back in the code mix just can wait to get my area and make some commision. glad to hang up my tool belt again...


----------



## peach (Jun 11, 2010)

Best of luck, steve... start schmoozing!


----------



## Inspector Gift (Jun 14, 2010)

IMHO, privatization of building safety departments is NOT a good idea.    ...Peach's comments on politics are correct.  Less politics is better!   "However..."

Not too many years back, I went from working as a jurisdiction employee to working for as a building official for a private company who contracted to provide plans review and inspection services for several jurisdictions.   I went because the pay was better.  (The benefits were not.)  After a short while, it became apparent that there were fundamental conflicts, that principally were in contradiction with government -- namely that private (3rd party) company I was working for placed profit above everything else.   PROFIT was the #1 purpose and drive of the company owners, and took precedent over code enforcement.  The owners took numerous oversees trips and had benefitted nicely during the 2 years I worked for them.   I was eventually replaced by a person with less experience, did not know the codes well, nor did he enforce them consistently (at his own admission), had few certifications,  and earned $400 less per week.  (A very smart business decision!!  But not a better service to the public.)

Bottom line, it is all about money, and the only persons making more than a living wage were the owners -- and the contractors who build less than code minimum.


----------



## Bootleg (Jun 15, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Having moved a building department from general fund to enterprise fund, I came to realize the building department is still a cash cow to the jurisdiction... lots of back charges for accounting, etc... kind of had to draw the line when they wanted me to pay debt retirement on the new city hall.... when I was already paying private rent on our space..Privatation is always cheaper... the benefits for most municipalities are much more expensive/better than what the private company is going to offer.  Less politics are generally a good thing, however.....


How would there be less dirty politics?

It's still the government!


----------



## north star (Jun 15, 2010)

**     *     **

*mdiasteve [ formerly known as crcasteve ],*

*Welcome to our "new" & much improved home!    Hope you will come back and*

*contribute often.*







*Inspector Gift,*

*Is there anything in this world that is not about money?   Your point is*

*well taken though and ' spot on ' !*



**     *     **


----------

