Just how much more does the Atherton City Council need to know about the town’s embattled building department?
The target of both a personnel investigation and an increasingly in-depth audit, Atherton’s building department has been under a cloud of suspicion since its head, Building Official Mike Hood, retired suddenly at the end of June.
So far, an internal audit led by Finance Director John Johns has turned up nearly $145,000 in uncollected building fees, most stemming from excavation permits granted in May 2005.
Last month, the council told Mr. Johns to come back with a plan for the third phase of an audit scrutinizing the building department’s procedures and practices, as well as its books. This month, however, some of the council members had a change of heart, balking at both the $32,000 price tag and the usefulness of getting more details on the department’s sloppy practices.
At the August 16 council meeting, Mr. Johns proposed to examine between 40 and 60 building permit files that appear problematic, and to use an outside building professional to verify such things as building height and setback requirements. Mr. Johns told the council that auditors would go through files over the past five years and thoroughly examine the ones that appear to have been improperly handled.
“I’m concerned with why we’re spending $32,000 and going through files for five years when we know what needs to be done,” said Councilman Jim Janz.
Mr. Johns said there are still a number of questions to be answered on how effective the building department was in adhering to Atherton’s codes, and if the rules were applied consistently to all applicants. Findings from a third phase of the audit would help identify priorities for new procedures and computer systems that need to be put into place in the building department, he said. Some changes to department practices have already been made, he said.
Councilman Alan Carlson argued that the previous two phases of the audit did a good job in identifying problems ranging from poor record-keeping and an inadequate computer system to procedures that weren’t in place or weren’t followed.
“I doubt we did have consistency in the past. I’m willing to say that we did not,” said Mr. Carlson. “Let’s move forward.”
That argument met stiff resistance from Councilwoman Kathy McKeithen, who was the first to urge the council to look into complaints about the building department.
“We’re not going to clear the air and restore credibility in the building department until we address all of these issues,” Ms. McKeithen said. “This will look like another cover-up. Let’s not go on the cheap now.”
She said she expected the audit to continue to reveal the creativity some applicants employed in circumventing or deceiving town officials about their construction projects. The town can’t prevent abuses that it doesn’t anticipate, she said.
“I suggest that we darn well spend the $32,000 — it’s darn worth the credibility, if nothing else,” she said.
Mr. Carlson and Mr. Janz questioned how much information could be gleaned from files kept by a department that didn’t even keep records of inspection reports — the reports were given back to the contractors, Mr. Johns said.
Eventually, after an extensive grilling of Mr. Johns and putting questions to interim building department head Gary Binger, the council voted unanimously to go ahead with phase three of the audit. However, the council directed Mr. Johns to try to curb costs and asked him to use his discretion to cut back or halt the audit if it failed to turn up useful information.
Mr. John said he expected to complete the audit by early October and have a report ready for the council’s regular council meeting on October 18.
