Code Enforcing, Fire Inspections Shift

CAPE MAY – Cape May City Council’s July 18 meeting included the adoption of two code enforcement and fire inspections ordinances.
Following the lead of a recent realignment in Middle Township, Cape May reorganized its code enforcement function, moving oversight from the city manager to the police department. 
Although they will remain civilian employees, code enforcement officers will report through the police department and be governed by a yet-to-be-developed standard operating procedure (SOP) developed by the chief of police.
Code Enforcement
Code enforcement covers areas of animal control, property maintenance and ordinances related to zoning and planning.
The city has two full-time employees in code enforcement.
Lt. James Loftus of the Middle Township Police Department spoke at the Cape May public hearing concerning that municipality’s six-month experience with a similar organizational realignment.
Loftus said the key to the reorganization was clear accountability for the code enforcement officers who receive more direct oversight and easier cooperation with police, who may ultimately be called upon in the enforcement process.
According to Loftus and Cape May City Solicitor Frank Corrado, the arrangement also provides benefits in that the police department information system is used for code enforcement activities. That leads to greater efficiencies and more comprehensive and reliable records, they added.
Corrado is also the Middle Township solicitor, and much of the Cape May ordinance language came from the township’s ordinance.
Some Concerns
Although Police Chief Anthony Marino had expressed some reservations about the proposed reorganization when it was introduced in June, he appeared to fully accept the new responsibilities during remarks at the public hearing.
Concerns came from two council members.
Roger Furlin and Beatrice Pessagno both expressed reservations citing the differences between Middle Township and Cape May. “Cape May is a tourist destination and a historic landmark (city),” Furlin said. “Code enforcement here must involve more leeway and discretion.”
Furlin’s concern was that placing code enforcement under the police department with its formal SOP would tilt the function toward the more rigid “psychology” of law enforcement.
Designation Compromised?
Pessagno also expressed concern that issues related to the historic landmark designation could be compromised by too rigid an enforcement process which was not sensitive to the subtleties required in Cape May’s unique environment.
Council supporters of the measure argued that the nature of enforcement would not change and that the move was for better oversight and integration of the enforcement function.
It was also important in that it freed the city manager from responsibility for oversight of a day-to-day operational function.
In the end, the arguments for greater efficiency and consistency of enforcement won, and the ordinance was adopted.
Fire Bureau
In a related area, council adopted an ordinance that established a Bureau of Fire Prevention under the city manager.
The ultimate purpose of the ordinance is to return fire code inspection and enforcement to local control after several years of state control.
The city gave up the inspection and enforcement function in 2004 partly over a manpower concern.
B&B Concerns
State oversight of the function has been a source of considerable concern for many city business owners especially those running bed-and-breakfast inns.
The pleas for the city to resume local control rest in large part on the argument that state inspectors are not sensitive to the issues around the historic integrity of city buildings.
Strict enforcement of the fire code, according to some, forces unacceptable compromises with landmark design guidelines and efforts to provide tourists with authentic Victorian settings.
No Safety Compromise
City officials are clear that they seek no compromise with ultimate public safety. The feeling appears to be that local control of the inspection and enforcement function will lead to a process that is more sensitive to the historic character of the community.
At the time that the city ceded the function to the state, issues other than manpower played their part.
One of those was a concern for liability. If the code was not strictly enforced due to local compromises meant to soften the blow the code may impose on historic buildings, it could open the city to liability issues.
Is Local Better?
Although the hearing on the new ordinance clearly demonstrated a belief on the part of many, including the council, that local control is better, no one spoke directly to how local control would mute the conflict between the fire code and the needs of property owners and businesses to preserve the historic character of buildings.
Oddly, Fire Chief Alex Coulter was absent from the meeting when the ordinance was introduced in June and the public hearing when it was adopted.
Ex-Chief Jerry Inderwies Jr. was present but made no comments.
The council never sought public comment from either individual.
Under City Manager
In contrast to the earlier ordinance that placed code enforcement under the police department for greater efficiency, the new fire bureau was not placed under the Fire Department.
Rather, in this case, the oversight was placed under the same city manager who argued he needed to be free of the day-to-day code enforcement function that was moved to the police department.
City Manager Neil Young said that the new responsibilities would require adding three new staff for the Fire Bureau functions. 
He also said that fees for the inspections would more than cover the expense.
He estimated that 3,000 structures annually would be subject to inspection.  That represents an expansion from what the state had done.
This proposed Fire Bureau with its local control of inspections requires notice to and acceptance by the state before it is operational.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.