Building code questions regarding property maintenance code and body cams

[zman]

So I want to see what y'all think of this and get some quick takes.

A Preamble on the Team
I have a good building official, a little gruff in the field and stickler for rules. We had to pay a lot as it is hard to recruit in our corner of the state. I have had to be a camp counselor between him and some contractors in the field who felt he was too heavy handed in his approach. But in general, our reviews and inspections have reached a better standard in the last couple years based on what previously occurred.
I have two inspectors who do a pretty good job. Everyone is trying to gain certifications and better their career knowledge.
I have a couple IGAs with the State and neighboring towns to cover electrical inspections and other work as we have more work than we can staff (think Data Centers and massive growth in housing).
I will be putting in for inspector positions to add to the team in the coming budget cycle.
I have a permit tech that doesnt seem to want to work, complains about her job, and is unreliable when asked to do extra.
The department is flush with cash and the city is rare in the state in that it operates with a budget surplus instead of a deficit.

General Processes and Enactment of the Property Maintenance Code
We have some rogue landlords (who doesn't) and some significant issues with rental properties in town. My Building Official has asked to explore the adoption of the Property Maintenance Code to help give us teeth to enforce more of the code in this regard. I have it on a list to take to Council and have alluded to my team that adoption of the PMC will mean additional work for staff, the likely request of additional staff (may combine this with a zoning enforcement officer position request).
Has anyone adopted the PMC? Anything pitfalls I need to know about? Anything I can prep for a Council workshop in order to cover the bases and get good guidance?

Body-Worn Cameras
I got a request a while back for the inspection team to wear body cams in the field. Additionally, a camera and recording mechanism for the permit counter. Then this was actually purchased and implemented without my knowledge. (I found out when I went to the Bldg Dept and heard a recording play at the counter that recording was in progress.) Having been through an implementation of police cams in a previous stop in my career, I know that there are record retention requirements, software purchases, and redaction of information. Also, this comes with additional requests for records when something controversial happens in the field. Without a formal policy in place, I put a stop to the use of cameras and recording until we could get something in place and vetted by legal. I spoke with the police chief on this too to get his take (PD has a body cam program and policy.
My official says he wants to get away from the "he said, she said" stuff in the field, as well as general protection when doing inspections. I can see his reasoning on this, but I am trying to get some legal protections in place, as well as a process for video storage, records retention, and a policy in place for when the cameras can be on.
Has anyone had this with their building departments? Any hot takes on this one too?

Thanks Y'all.

 

[fringe]

I am retired but we in GA get good leadership from the state level. Codes are adopted annually by legislature and regularly amended by the agency in charge. We stay about three years behind the internationals except for electric.Priority goes to Life Safety NFPA 101.
Body cameras would be way too much, IMHO. Big deal.
Delinquent owners of rentals always a problem, also absentee owners. Some localities have adopted blight ordinances that hit bad owners through tax penalties, but sometimes the taxing authorities just end up owning the dumps which can be hard to find bidders for.

 

[bureaucrat#3]

We've actually been discussing body cams for Code Enforcement and Building Inspectors. Both have to put up with a ton of crap and a ton of he said/she said type stuff. I think we're going to move forward with Code Enforcement but haven't got as far as you. I'd be interested in knowing what you do.

The city put in cameras for all money collection locations which includes Building permit desk. It's more for auditing purposes than anything else. I believe we only store the recording for 30 days.

 

[mendelman]

@zman

IPMC is pretty good, but I'd highly recommend you modify it as much as possible to fit local culture (ie no 'all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others' politics), staff capacity or realistic potential capacity, appetite for process and objective understanding of 'compelling government interest'.

I recommend you do a first sweep of the model IPMC with the above lenses, then model the staff capacity you'd need enforce it adequately, then re-review the IPMC again after that calibration.

But, I'm sure you know, be ready to have to try (at least) to apply the regs equally regardless of violator and 'who they are'.

As for body cams, I don't know if I'd want to deal with that as a CE field employee and/or the administrative supervisor/director. There is seldom a CE violation that actually creates danger requiring that much institutional CYA-ing.

If you do go down the body cam path, understand that the employees may want to be compensated more for a 'presumed' dangerous job.

Good luck. FOIA requirements are difficult, and record retention is not easy.

 

[zman]

Thanks all for weighing in. The PMC issues cropped up again this week, but I have a very "dedicated" building official who will go on random jihads against property owners if he receives a call... This will likely go to Council for a workshop in the next couple months.

Body cams: I got some clarity on intent from my team and have the makings of a policy in place... but will have legal run through it. I am playing politics with this one. The previous director signed off on a ton of things without consideration for the political aspects, as well as sometimes a legal review (that is not to say illegal activity was found... but still have the city attorney look at things, come on, man!).