Performance audit, Department of Building and Fire Safety

              OF BUI
,
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
LDlNG AND FIRE SAFETY
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
April 1988
88- 4
DOUGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J. BLESSING, CPA
DEPUTY AIII) ITOR GENERAL
April 25, 1988
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Rose Mofford, Governor
Donald A. Reville, Director
Department of Building and Fire Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Department of Building and Fire Safety. This report is in response to a June 2, 1987,
resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee.
The report addresses several areas for improvement related to both fire safety and
manufactured housing. We found that the Office of State Fire Marshal ( SFM) is not
conducting regular inspections as required by law, thus exposing the State to
potential liability. We also found that the SFM should increase its enforcement
efforts to ensure that code violations found during inspections are corrected.
Further, we found that the SFM has not established adequate management reporting
and control systems.
The Department has effectively and efficiently handled consumer complaints related
to manufactured housing. However, the Department could improve its monitoring of
local jurisdiction installation inspection programs. Finally, we found that the
Department's statutes should be amended to strengthen and clarify its authority to
regulate installations of mobile and manufactured homes. The report also contains
responses to the twelve statutory Sunset Factors regarding the Department's
operations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
Sincerely,
as R. Norton
~ u d i t o rG eneral
Staff: William Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Deborah A. Klein
Gregory J. Halemba
Lucinda A. Trimble
Linda S. M anning
Enclosure
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. SUITE 700 @ PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 @ ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Department of Building and Fire Safety in response to a June 2, 1987, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted
as a part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.)
9541 - 2351 through 41 - 2379.
The Department of Building and Fire Safety was established in 1986 through a
merger of the Office of Manufactured Housing and the Office of Fire Marshal ( now
named the Office of State Fire Marshal). According to A. R. S. $ 41- 2141. A, the
Department was established to further public safety and welfare by maintaining and
enforcing relevant standards and codes.
The Office Of State Fire Marshal's Failure To Conduct Regular lnspections Exposes
The State To Potential Liability ( see pages 15 through 21)
The Office of State Fire Marshal ( SFM) is not conducting regular inspections of
State, county and public school buildings as required by law, thus exposing the State
to potential liability. Our review of Office records indicates that although Arizona
owns approximately 2,866 buildings, only 68 inspections were made by the SFM
between September 1, 1986 and September 30, 1987. Further, during the same
period the SFM conducted only 54 inspections of county buildings, although the
counties have an estimated 1,242 structures.
The Office does not have sufficient personnel to regularly inspect all buildings under
its jurisdiction. The SFM estimates the Office will need, at a minimum, five Deputy
State Fire Marshals to conduct regular inspections.
In addition to requesting additional staff, the SFM should consider various program
alternatives to reduce its workload. One alternative is to narrow the scope of its
inspection requirements. For example, the California State Fire Marshal is not
required to inspect county buildings, and only inspects public schools in certain
areas. Other alternatives are to enter into agreements with local fire prevention
bureaus or to deputize local fire service personnel to assist the Office.
The Office Of The State Fire Marshal Should Increase Its Enforcement Efforts To
Ensure That Code Violations Are Being Corrected ( pages 23 through 29)
Even when inspections are conducted, the SFM inspection staff do not regularly
follow up on code violations detected during inspections to ensure that they are
corrected. We reviewed 76 public school files and found that these schools received
177 inspections between September 1, 1984 and October 31, 1987. Although code
violations were found in over 90 percent of the cases, reinspections were conducted
in only 5 percent of these instances. A review of State and county inspection files
produced similar results. Our review also found that, in certain instances, serious
code violations identified in inspections have received l i t t l e enforcement action by
the SFM. For example, three successive annual inspections of a Tucson high school
conducted in 1983, 1984 and 1985 found the fire alarm system to be inoperable.
The Office O f State Fire Marshal Needs Better Management
Planning and Control ( pages 31 through 35)
The Office of State Fire Marshal does not have basic information needed to properly
plan work and staff the Office. The SFM doesn't have an inventory of the buildings
i t is mandated to inspect, doesn't know how long i t takes to conduct various types of
inspections, and can't t e l l from i t s f i l e system what buildings have been inspected.
In addition, the SFM needs to strengthen i t s control of field staff. Because time
reporting is poor, management cannot be assured that staff spend time
productively. Further, the Office needs to develop written policies and a procedures
manual to guide staff in carrying out their inspection responsibilities.
The Department Has Effectively And Efficiently Handled Consumer Complaints
Related to Manufactured Housing ( pages 37 through 39)
The Department has effectively and efficiently handled consumer complaints
related to manufactured housing. The Department handles consumer complaints
related to the manufacture, sale, or installation of mobile or manufactured homes.
During fiscal year 1986- 87, the Department received 777 complaints related to the
Office of Manufactured Housing. We reviewed 50 complaints received in fiscal year
1986- 87, of which 34 had been closed. Our review found that these 34 complaints
were not closed until the licensee corrected violations.
Although the Department has an effective State program for handling consumer
complaints, a Federal review found problems with Arizona's handling of Federal
complaints. In its 1988- 89 Budget Request, the Department requested a position to
increase the enforcement efforts, with such position being funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The Department O f Building And Fire Safety Could Improve Its Monitoring O f
Local Jurisdiction Installation Inspection Programs ( pages 41 through 45)
The Department of Building and Fire Safety could improve its monitoring of local
jurisdictions with mobile and manufactured home installation inspection programs.
Although the Department is required to monitor local jurisdictions that conduct
installation inspections, i t has not performed sufficient reviews. As a result, local
jurisdictions that are performing inadequately are not detected in a timely manner
for corrective action. For example, in one recent audit the Department found a
local jurisdiction that had collected monies for permits for the installation of
manufactured homes but had not provided the needed inspections. In fact, an
estimated 1,140 homes had not been inspected, although permits had been issued.
The Department Of Building And Fire Safety's Statutes Should Be Amended To
Strengthen And Clarify Its Authority To Regulate Installations Of Mobile And
Manufactured Homes ( pages 47 through 50)
The Department of Building and Fire Safety's statutes should be amended to
strengthen and clarify its authority to regulate installations of mobile and
manufactured homes. The Department should be given authority to disconnect
utilities in all instances where the home poses a health and safety risk. Currently,
the Department has authority to disconnect utilities of homes on private property
where the homes pose a hazard, but may not disconnect utilities of homes in
manufactured home parks. The Department's authority to issue permits should also
be clarified.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
FINDING I : THE OFFICE OF STATE FlRE MARSHAL'S
FAILURE TO CONDUCT REGULAR INSPECTIONS
EXPOSES THE STATE TO POTENTIAL LIABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
S t a t e , County And P u b l i c School B u i l d i n g s Are
Not Being Inspected As Frequently As Needed . . . . . . . . . . 15
I n Order To Conduct I n s p e c t i o n s ,
M o r e s t a f f AreNeeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The State F i r e Marshal's O f f i c e
Should Consider Program A l t e r n a t i v e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
FlNDlNG II: THE OFFICE OF STATE FlRE MARSHAL
SHOULD INCREASE ITS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
TO ENSURE THAT CODE VIOLATIONS ARE BEING CORRECTED . . . . . . . 23
l n s p e c t i o n V i o l a t i o n s Not Followed Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Due t o S t a f f i n g Shortages, Management Does Not
Require S t a f f To Conduct l n s p e c t i o n Follow- ups . . . . . . . . . 26
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FINDING I l l : THE OFFICE OF STATE FlRE MARSHAL
NEEDS BETTER MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . 31
Management I n f o r m a t i o n I s Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
S t a f f s u p e r v i s i o n IsWeak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
F i r e Marshal Did Not Consider
ManagementSystemsAPriority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
FINDING I V : THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FlRE SAFETY
HAS EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY HANDLED CONSUMER
COMPLAINTS RELATED TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING. . . . .. . . . . . . 37
Department Complaint Process I s E f f e c t i v e . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Federal Program Should Be Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( con t i nued )
FINDING V: THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FlRE SAFETY
COULD IMPROVE ITS MONITORING OF LOCAL JURISDICTION
INSTALLATION INSPECTION PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
. . 41
Inspections Provide P r o t e c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Department I s Not Reviewing Local Inspections . . . . . . . . . 42
Increased P r i o r i t y For Audits Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
FINDING V I : THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FlRE
SAFETY'S STATUTES SHOULD BE AMENDED TO STRENGTHEN
AND CLARIFY ITS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE INSTALLATIONS
OF MOBILE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
A u t h o r i t y Should be Granted To
Disconnect U t i l i t i e s I n A l l Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
A u t h o r i t y To Issue Permits Should Be C l a r i f i e d . . . . . . . . 4 9
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 0
AGENCYRESPONSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1
APPEND l X
L e g i s l a t i v e Council Memorandums
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Department Of B u i l d i n g And F i r e Safety
General Fund Revenues And Expenditures,
F i s c a l Years 1985- 86 Through 1988- 89 ( Unaudited) . . . . 4
TABLE 2 - State And County F a c i l i t y lnspections
Conducted Between September 1, 1986
AndSeptember30,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
TABLE 3 - Length Of Time Between Regular School
Inspections ( September 1984 - October 1987) . . . . . . . 17
TABLE 4 - Follow- Up Of State, County
And P u b l i c School Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4
TABLE 5 - Frequency Of M o n i t o r i n g A u d i t s Of Local
J u r i s d i c t i o n s January 1, 1985 Through
October 20,1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
INTRODUCTION ANDBACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Department of Building and Fire Safety in response to a June 2, 1987, resolution of
the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted
as a part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.)
9941- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The Department of Building and Fire Safety was established in 1986 through a
merger of the Office of Manufactured Housing and the Office of Fire Marshal.
According to A. R. S. 941- 2141. A, the Department was established to further public
safety and welfare by maintaining and enforcing relevant standards and codes.
The Department is segregated into three offices, by statute. These offices and their
functions are as follows.
Office of Manufactured Housing - The Office of Manufactured Housing ( OMH) is
responsible for maintaining standards af quality and safety for manufactured homes,
factory- built buildings, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, and the installation of
manufactured and mobile homes."' In connection with these responsibilities,
0 M H performs the following functions.
1. lnspects manufactured home, factory built building, and recreational vehicle
plants.
2. lnspects manufactured and mobile home installations.
3. Reviews plans for factory built buildings and for recreational vehicles to ensure
they are built to code.
4. Receives and investigates consumer complaints.
( ' I Two areas of A r i z o n a ' s manufactured housing program are regulated by Federal
standards. States can be involved i n the enforcement of Federal manufactured home
construction and s a f e t y standards as e i t h e r a State A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agency ( SAA) or
as a Primary I n s p e c t i o n Agency ( P I A ) . Arizona has elected t o have an SAA program
whereby the s t a t e i s responsible f o r ensuring e f f e c t i v e hand1 i n g o f consumer
complaints by manufacturers and f o r overseeing r e c a l l s of d e f e c t i v e manufactured
homes. Arizona i s also a Production I n s p e c t i o n PIA, whereby OMH evaluates the
a b i l i t y of manufactured home manufacturing p l a n t s t o f o l l o w approved q u a l i t y c o n t r o l
procedures and provides ongoing oversight o f the manufacturing process.
Office of Administration - The Office of Administration performs all accounting
and personnel functions for the Department. In addition, the Office is responsible
for licensing manufacturers, dealers, installers and salespersons; issuing
certification insignias; conducting investigations; issuing permits for the installation
of manufactured and mobile homes; and conducting hearings.
Office of State Fire Marshal - The Office of State Fire Marshal's purpose is to
promote public health and safety and to reduce hazards to life, limb and property.
To f u l f i l l i t s purpose, the Office is responsible for conducting fire safety inspections
of buildings within its jurisdiction; and reviewing plans and specifications for new
construction, remodeling, alterations and additions to State, county and public
school buildings. In addition, the State Fire Marshal may conduct or participate in
investigations of fires, prescribe a uniform system of reporting fires, and provide
and coordinate training in fire fighting and fire prevention.
Boards and Committees
The Department of Building and Fire Safety is overseen by a Board and two
Committees.
o The Board of Manufactured Housing consists of seven members appointed by the
Governor. The Board is responsible for adopting and promulgating rules and
regulations, establishing fee schedules, and establishing and maintaining
licensing standards and bonding requirements.
a The Installation Standards Committee consists of five members appointed by
the Governor. The Committee meets as needed to adopt and promulgate rules
and regulations relating to installation of manufactured homes, mobile homes
and accessory structures.
a The State Fire Safety Committee consists of seven members appointed by the
Governor. The Committee is responsible for promulgating a State fire code
establishing minimum standards for protection of life and property from fire;
prevention of fires; storage, sale and distribution of dangerous chemicals,
combustible, flammable liquids, explosives and radioactive materials;
installation, maintenance and use of fire escapes, fire protection equipment,
fire alarm systems, smoke detectors and fire extinguishing equipment; and
adequacy of fire protection and exit in case of fire.
Staffing and Budget
The Department of Building and Fire Safety employs approximately 68 full- time
equivalent employees ( FTE). The Office of Manufactured Housing employs 20 FTEs
including plant inspectors, installation inspectors, complaint staff, engineering staff
and training staff. The Office of Administration employs approximately 28 staff
including a hearing officer, exam technicians, accounting clerks, compliance
auditors, information processing specialists and clerk typists. The Office of State
Fire Marshal employs 18 FTEs including fire marshals, training and investigative
staff and a plan reviewer. The Director, supported by an Administrative Assistant,
oversee the Department as a whole.
The Department of Building and Fire Safety is funded through a General Fund
appropriation. For fiscal year 1987- 88, the Department's approved budget exceeds
$ 2.5 million for operations. The Department recovers approximately half of its
costs by collecting fees which are deposited into the State General Fund. A
summary of the Department's General Fund revenues and expenditures for fiscal
years 1985- 86 through 1988- 89 are presented in Table 1 ( page 4).
Scope of Audit
Our audit focuses on the Office of Manufactured Housing and the Office of State
Fire Marshal within the Department of Building and Fire Safety. The audit report
presents findings and recommendations in six major areas.
a The adequacy of the State Fire Marshal's fire safety inspection program.
a The adequacy of follow- up by the State Fire Marshal on violations of the fire
code.
a The effectiveness of the management of the State Fire Marshal's office
TABLE 1
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY
GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1985- 86 THROUGH 1988- 89
( UNAUD I TED)
A c t u a l A c t u a l Estimated Estimated
1985- 86 1986- 87 1987- 88 1988- 89
FTE P o s i t i o n s 6 3 67 6 8 7 2
Revenues : ( a ) $ 7 ,165,600 $ 1 ,294.40Q $ 1 ,294.40Q $ 1 ,294.40Q
Expenditures:
Personal Services $ 1 ,378,800 $ 1 ,445,200 $ 1 ,674,200 $ 1 ,763,400
Employee Related 288,700 301,400 332,100 421 ,300
Professional and
Outside Services 11,600 12,600 4,000 4,400
Travel - I n State 122,300 168,800 182,200 192,200
Travel - Out of S t a t e 11,300 8,400 9,400 9,400
Other Operating Exp. 162,600 249,600 324,000 350,600
Equ i pmen t 120,700 50,300 - 12,000 80,000
Subtotal 2,096,000 $ 2,236,300 $ 2,537,900 $ 2,821,300
F i r e T r a i n i n g School 15,700 17,600 18,000 24,000 a
Total Expenditures
( a) The revenues c o l l e c t e d by the Department are deposited i n the General Fund. Monies are
a
appropriated from the General Fund f o r Department expenditures.
Source: Budget Requests submitted by the Department of B u i l d i n g and F i r e
Safety f o r f i s c a l years 1987- 88 and 1988- 89, and the State of a
Arizona A p p r o p r i a t i o n s Report, May 1987.
a The effectiveness and efficiency of the Department's consumer complaint
program for manufactured homes.
a The need for the Office of Manufactured Housing to provide increased
monitoring of local jurisdictions with agreements to conduct installation
inspect ions.
a The need for strengthening and clarification of statutes regarding the
Department's authority to regulate the installation of manufactured homes.
This audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted governmental
auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Department's Director
and employees for their cooperation and assistance during the audit.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 541- 2354, the Legislature
should consider the following 12 factors in determining whether the Department of
Building and Fire Safety should be continued or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose in establishing the Department
The Department of Building and Fire Safety was established in 1986 through a
merger of the Office of Manufactured Housing and the Office of Fire Marshal.
According to A. R. S. 941- 2141. A, the Department was established to further
public safety and welfare by maintaining and enforcing standards and codes.
" A. The department of building and fire safety is established to further
the public interest of safety and welfare by maintaining and enforcing
standards of quality and safety for manufactured homes, mobile homes,
factory- built buildings and recreational vehicles and by reducing hazards
to l i f e and property through the maintenance and enforcement of the
state fire code. I t is also the purpose of the department to establish a
procedure to protect the consumer of such products and services."
In connection with its purpose regarding manufactured homes, mobile homes,
factory- built buildings, and recreational vehicles, the Department: 1) inspects
manufactured homes, factory- built buildings and recreational vehicle plants; 2)
inspects manufactured and mobile home installation; 3) reviews plans for
factory- built buildings and recreational vehicles to ensure they are built to
code; 4) receives and investigates consumer complaints; and 5) licenses
manufacturers, dealers, brokers, salespersons and installers.
In connection with i t s purpose regarding maintenance and enforcement of the
fire code, the State Fire Marshal is responsible for: 1) conducting fire safety
inspections of buildings within its jurisdiction; and 2) reviewing plans and
specifications for new construction, remodeling, alterations and additions to
State, county, and public school buildings and grounds. In addition, the State
Fire Marshal may conduct or participate in investigations of fires, prescribe a
uniform system of reporting fires, and provide and coordinate training in fire
fighting and fire prevention.
2. The effectiveness with which the Department has met its objective and
purpose and the efficiency with which the Department has operated
Manufactured Homes - The Department is effectively and efficiently
enforcing standards of quality and safety for manufactured and mobile homes.
The Department inspects manufactured homes during the manufacturing
process in the factory to ensure that the homes are being built to Federal
standards. This function is reviewed periodically by the National Conference of
States on Building Codes and Standards Inc. ( NCSBCS). According to an official
from NCSBCS, Arizona has performed exceptionally well in this area, and is
among the top in the country for this function.
In addition to inspecting manufactured homes during the manufacturing process,
the Department inspects the installation of the manufactured and mobile homes
to ensure that homes are installed to established standards. Through our review
of installation records, we found that the Department is generally effective in
obtaining compliance with installation standards. However, the Department
could improve its monitoring of local jurisdictions with agreements to perform
installation inspections ( See Finding V). Further, the statutes should be
amended to strengthen and clarify the Department's authority to regulate
installations of manufactured homes ( see Finding VI).
Fire Safety - The Office of State Fire Marshal is providing an efficient
review of plans. The Office is required to review plans and specifications for
new construction, remodeling, alterations and additions to State, county, and
public school buildings and grounds within 60 days of receipt. We reviewed
plans received for July and August 1987 and found that reviews were generally
conducted within the time requirements.
The Office of State Fire Marshal offers training for State firefighters. In
September 1987, the Office held its 14th annual fire school with 14 different
24- hour workshops including fire investigation and arson, introduction to the
uniform building code, and tactics and procedures for fighting fires. Further,
the Office provides seminars to local fire departments throughout the State.
The Department needs to improve its effectiveness and efficiency with regards
to fire prevention and protection. The Department has not met its mandate to
inspect State, county and public school buildings. Further, the Department's
action has been insufficient when violations are found during the inspections.
Finally, the management of the Office is inadequate ( see Findings I, II and Ill).
3. The extent to which the Department has operated within the public interest
The Department of Building and Fire Safety operates in the public interest by
maintaining and enforcing standards regarding public safety and welfare. The
Office of Manufactured Housing enforces standards of quality and safety
regarding mobile and manufactured housing, factory- built buildings, and
recreational vehicles. The Office of State Fire Marshal enforces the fire code
to reduce hazards to life and property.
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the Department are
consistent with the legislative mandate
As a result of the merging of the Office of Manufactured Housing and the
Office of Fire Marshal in 1986, the newly created Department has had to amend
the rules and regulations to combine the two agencies. According to a
Department official, the Department has been working with its Attorney
General representative for review and input into the needed revisions. Once
completed, the rules and regulations will be submitted to the Attorney
General's Office for certification.
5. The extent to which the Department has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has
informed the public as to i t s actions and their expected impact on the public
The Department has met all statutory requirements of notice and hearing
before acting on proposed rules and regulations. The Department posts notices
of hearings on rule and regulation changes as required. The Board of
Manufactured Housing, which is responsible for promulgation of rules and
regulations, holds hearings on rule and regulation changes and is comprised of
members from both the industry and the public. According to Department
officials, once the rule and regulation changes are published, the Department
distributes bulletins to interested parties, provides news releases to the media,
and has staff speak at meetings of the industry and consumer associations.
6. The extent to which the Department has been able to investigate and resolve
complaints that are within its jurisdiction
The Department has effectively and efficiently handled consumer complaints
related to the manufacture, sale, or installation of the manufactured home.
However, the Department's State Administrative Agency ( SAA) program for
complaint handling needs improvement ( see Finding IV, page 37).
Although the Office of State Fire Marshal is not involved in licensing, the SFM
does receive and investigate complaints. According to the State Fire Marshal,
complaints received by the SFM generally involve a variety of potential fire
hazards such as weeds and debris, blocked exits, and electrical problems. The
Office does not log such complaints nor maintain complaint files. As a result,
we were unable to conduct a review of complaint handling for the State Fire
Marshal's Office.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of
State government has the authority to prosecute actions under enabling
legislation
The Attorney General has authority to prosecute violations of the Department
of Building and Fire Safety statutes and rules.
8. The extent to which the Department has addressed deficiencies i n i t s enabling
statutes which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate
According to Department officials, the Department has successfully proposed
legislation addressing the following areas relating to the Office of
Manufactured Housing.
e A law enacted in 1986, which required homes from out- of- state to meet
the State's standard before being allowed in the State.
e A Recovery Fund, enacted in 1980, to reimburse consumers damaged by
dealers or brokers of manufactured homes, mobile homes or factory- built
buildings.
e Licensure of salespersons of manufactured homes, mobile homes and
factory built buildings, enacted in 1984.
The Office of State Fire Marshal has not proposed changes in its legislation.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the Department to
adequately comply with the factors listed in the Sunset Laws
Based on our audit work, we recommend that the Legislature consider the
following change to the Department of Building and Fire Safety's statutes.
e Amending the statutes to clearly indicate that a mobile or manufactured
home cannot be installed in the State without a permit for installation.
e Amending the statutes to allow the Department to order utilities
discontinued to mobile or manufactured homes in all instances where the
installations constitute a danger to life and property.
The extent to which the termination of the Department would significantly
harm the public health, safety or welfare
Termination of the Department would harm the public health, safety and
welfare. Termination of the Office of Manufactured Housing may pose both
economic and physical harm to consumers of manufactured homes. Further,
termination of the State Fire Marshal's office could harm the public safety.
Because plant inspections of manufactured homes are required by Federal
standards, this function would be continued i f the state program were
terminated. However, statewide regulation of the sale and installation of
manufactured homes would no longer exist. Further, there would be no
specific State agency responsible for handling consumer complaints regarding
the manufacture, sale or installation of manufactured homes. Thus, it would be
more difficult for consumers to seek assistance if they encountered problems.
Further, inspections of the installation of manufactured homes are important to
protect consumer health and safety. Inspections are conducted on proper
installation of utilities ( gas, water, sewage and electricity); the piers and
footings used to support the homes; and accessories such as awnings, porches,
skirting, coolers, and heating and refrigeration equipment. Failure to identify
and correct violations of installation standards could place homeowners in
unsafe housing. For example, failure to identify a leak in a gas line could cause
an explosion.
Elimination of the Office of State Fire Marshal could impact fire prevention in
the State. Currently, State, county and public school building inspections and
plan reviews are solely under state responsibility. Thus, if the Office were
terminated, no jurisdiction would be responsible for these inspections and plan
reviews. In addition, State licensed buildings such as daycare facilities and
nursing homes outside of jurisdictions with inspection programs may be unable
to obtain needed inspections. Further, the formal training offered by the
Department to local fire departments would be eliminated.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Department is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be
more appropriate
Our audit did not identify any needed changes in the level of regulation in the
Department of Building and Fire Safety.
12. The extent to which the Department has used private contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors could be
accom~ lished
The Office of State Fire Marshal ( SFM) has used private contractors as
instructors for training programs provided to firefighters. Instructors are
needed for both the annual fire school and for training programs provided
throughout the State at various times of the year. One employee from the SFM
coordinates all training provided by the Department.
FINDING I
THE OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL'S FAILURE TO CONDUCT
REGULAR INSPECTIONS EXPOSES THE STATE TO POTENTIAL LIABILITY
The Office of State Fire Marshal is not conducting regular inspections as required by
law, thus exposing the State to potential liability. The Office does not regularly
inspect State and county buildings, nor has the Office met its goal of annual
inspections of all public school facilities. In order to conduct all mandated
inspections, the State Fire Marshal will need to increase its staff. In addition to
requesting more staff, the Office should consider various program alternatives to
reduce its workload.
Regular fire safety inspections are important to minimize the frequency of fires,
associated property loss and human casualties. Studies have shown that increased
fire prevention activities, including inspections, appear to substantially reduce the
incidences of fires.
The Office of the State Fire Marshal is responsible for conducting fire inspections.
Per Arizona Revised Statutes 941- 2163. A, the Office is responsible for regularly
inspecting all State and county buildings, public schools and private schools in cities
with populations of less than 100,000. The Office is also required to inspect, as
necessary, all other occupancies located throughout the State, except family
dwellings with fewer than five residential dwelling units and occupancies located in
cities with populations of 100,000 or more. Because of the large scope of
responsibility, we limited our review of inspection coverage to State, county and
public school buildings.
State, County And Public School Buildings Are
Not Being Inspected As Frequently As Needed
The State Fire Marshal ( SFM) is not inspecting State, county and public school
buildings as frequently as needed. The SFM has not established a regular inspection
program for State and county buildings. Further, even though the SFM identified
school inspections as a priority, it is not inspecting the schools as planned.
State and county buildings are not inspected on a regular basis - The SFM has
conducted few inspections of State and county buildings. The requirement that the
SFM inspect State and county buildings on a regular basis was added in August 1986.
However, our review of SFM records indicates that since the requirement was
added, the SFM has not regularly inspected these buildings. In fact, although the
State owns approximately 2,866 buildings, (" only 68 State facility inspections
were made by the SFM between September 1, 1986 and September 30, 1987.
Further, we contacted county officials and found there are an estimated 1,242
county structures. However, the SFM conducted only 54 county structure
inspections between September 1, 1986 and September 30, 1987. Further, of the 68
State and 54 county inspections performed during this 13- month period, seven of the
State and two of the county inspections were of the same facility. ( 2 )
TABLE 2
STATE AND COUNTY FACILITY INSPECTIONS
CONDUCTED BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1,1986 AND SEPTEMBER 30,1987
Total Number Facility Multiple
Jurisdiction of Buildings Inspections Inspections
State of Arizona 2866
Counties 1242
Source: Auditor General review of the Office of State Fire Marshal's inspection
reports, survey of county officials, and information provided by
Department of Administration, Facilities Management Division.
(' I Some of these s t r u c t u r e s may not need t o be placed on a r e g u l a r i n s p e c t i o n program.
A wide range of b u i l d i n g s types are included i n these t o t a l s , from small storage
sheds and park f a c i l i t i e s to mu1 t i - s t o r y o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s and c o r r e c t i o n a l
f a c i l i t i e s .
Auditor General s t a f f were unable t o determine the actual percentage of bui 1 dings
inspected because i n d i v i d u a l i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t s were not always completed on each
s t r u c t u r e inspected during an inspection s i t e v i s i t . Some s t a t e and county
f a c i l i t i e s ( e. g., j a i l s , prisons, h o s p i t a l s ) have m u l t i p l e b u i l d i n g s located a t
s p e c i f i c s i t e s .
A l l public schools are not inspected annually - Although the SFM has placed a
priority on school inspections, the schools have not been inspected annually. SFM
policy requires public schools to be inspected annually. As of December 1986 there
were 932 public schools in Arizona. We randomly sampled 76 schools. Our review of
the 76 school inspection files revealed that one- third of the inspections were
overdue for the annual inspection by an average of over 6.5 months. In Maricopa
County, which houses nearly 45 percent of the State's public schools, the situation
was worse. Of the 30 Maricopa County schools reviewed, over one- half of the
schools were overdue for an inspection by an average of nearly seven months ( see
Table 3).
TABLE 3
LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN REGULAR SCHOOL
INSPECTIONS ( SEPTEMBER 1984 - OCTOBER 1987)
Nurnbe r of Inspections Average T ime
School F i l e s Overdue Since Last
County Rev i ewed Numbe r/ Pe rcen t Inspection
Mar i copa 30 16 53.3% 18.8 months
Pima 16 4 25.0 19.8
Other - 30 - 6 20.0 16.6
Total 18.5 months
Source: Auditor General staff review of school inspection files.
Failure to conduct inspections exposes the State to potential liability - By not
conducting inspections of State, county and public school buildings as required, the
SFM may be exposing the State to potential liability. We contacted Legislative
Council to determine whether the State would be liable for death, injury or damage
caused by fires in State, county and public school buildings which have not been
subject to regularly scheduled inspections by the SFM. According to a January 12,
1988, Legislative Council Opinion, the State would probably be liable for death,
injury or damages resulting from a fire when the state failed to conduct an
inspection. Specifically, the memorandum states that the situation ' I. . . appears to
involve a clear violation of state law by the state fire marshal and the state would
probably be liable." ' ' I
( ' 1 For a complete t e x t of the L e g i s l a t i v e Council Opinion, see Appendix.
17
In Order To Conduct Inspections,
More Staff Are Needed
In order to conduct all mandated inspections, the State Fire Marshal would need to
increase staff size. Because of limited resources, the SFM has not placed all
buildings on a regular inspection program. Although it is clear that additional staff
are needed, because the Office lacks the information necessary to determine
staffing requirements, i t is difficult to determine the Office's true needs.
Not all buildings are on regular inspection schedule - Because of limited
resources, not all buildings have been placed on a regular inspection program. The
State Fire Marshal maintains that he only has sufficient staff to place public
schools, licensed facilities, and recently, jails and prisons on a regular inspection
schedule. Other State, county, university and community college buildings are
inspected only upon request, in response to a complaint, or when time permits.
In order to adequately comply with a regular inspection program, the SFM has
indicated it will need additional staff. The Office currently has 11 deputy fire
marshals that are responsible for conducting inspections. However, as was
previously noted, these fire marshals have been unable to inspect all buildings within
the SFM's jurisdiction. The Assistant Fire Marshal has estimated that to meet
minimal inspection requirements, the Office will need at least five additional deputy
state fire marshals. The Assistant State Fire Marshal has estimated that the Office
will need to conduct 5,800 inspections in calendar year 1988. These inspections
include regular inspections of public and private schools, licensed health facilities,
daycare centers, county buildings, State buildings, fire protection systems, private
commercial buildings, underground tanks, and inspections generated by complaints.
During calendar year 1987, the deputy state fire marshals conducted 3,647 such
inspections. Thus, with current staff, SFM anticipates they will be unable to meet
inspection requirements.
Staffing estimates may need further adjustments - Although we agree the SFM
needs additional staff to meet the Office's statutory requirements, the SFM's
estimate of five staff may not represent the Office's true staffing needs. The
Department lacks the information needed to plan its staffing needs. The
Department does not have a comprehensive list of all buildings within
its jurisdiction. Further, it does not have information on the size and complexity of
each building, the amount of travel required, the building condition, and other
factors necessary for planning inspection needs ( see Finding Ill). Also, the SFM
needs to determine how often each building should be inspected. For example, a
high rise office building may require several hours for an inspection and may need to
have an annual inspection, whereas a rest area may require only a minimal time for
inspection and may only need inspection every few years. Finally, because the
Office has not conducted adequate follow- up on buildings, the SFM lacks the data
needed to estimate the hours needed to conduct follow- up on violations ( see Finding
11). Thus, although the SFM has estinated a need for five additional staff, this
figure will need to be adjusted as the SFM gathers additional information needed to
plan its staffing needs.
The State Fire Marshal's Office
Should Consider Program Alternatives
In addition to requesting funding for additional staff from the State Legislature, the
State Fire Marshal should consider various program alternatives to reduce i t s
workload. Alternatives to the current program include narrowing the scope of the
SFM's inspection mandate, entering into agreements with local fire service
personnel to conduct required inspections, and deputizing local fire service
personnel to conduct inspections within their jurisdictions.
Narrowing scope of inspection mandate - One method to reduce the SFM's
inspection program workload is to narrow the scope of buildings requiring
inspection. Currently, the SFM is required to inspect all State, county and public
school buildings. However, some states have a narrower scope of buildings within
their state fire marshal's jurisdiction. The California State Fire Marshal, for
example, is not required to inspect county buildings, and only inspects public schools
in areas outside of corporate cities and districts providing fire protection. The Utah
State Fire Marshal only enforces the fire code regulations on State owned property,
and in areas outside of corporate cities and county fire protection districts. ( 1 )
However, upon w r i t t e n request by the l o c a l f i r e c h i e f o r l o c a l governing body, the
Utah State F i r e Marshal has the a u t h o r i t y t o e n f o r c e t h e f i r e code i n corporate
c i t i e s and county f i r e p r o t e c t i o n d i s t r i c t s .
Agreements with local jurisdictions to conduct inspections - Another means of
reducing the SFMts workload is to enter into agreements with local jurisdictions to
conduct needed inspections. Currently, the SFM has agreements with several larger
cities to conduct inspections of facilities requiring State licensing, such as daycare
centers, nursing homes and supervisory care facilities. However, all inspections of
State, county and public school buildings are performed by the SFM. Some states
have entered into agreements to have local fire prevention bureaus inspect publicly
owned buildings. In Oregon, for example, the State Fire Marshal has agreements
with larger metropolitan areas requiring these cities to conduct all inspections
normally the responsibility of the State Fire Marshal. The Oregon State Fire
Marshal periodically reviews the performance ~ f the local jurisdictions, and will
renew agreements only i f the review is favorable.
There are some obstacles to obtaining local jurisdiction agreements. In our
discussions with local fire prevention officials, some indicated that because of
personnel constraints, they would be unable to assume any additional inspection
requirements. In addition, the officials indicated that there may be problems with
regard to local governments requiring superior governmental entities to meet local
and State fire code regulations.
Deputize local fire service personnel - A third method of reducing the workload
of the SFM is to appoint volunteer assistant deputies to conduct SFM duties. A. R. S.
541- 2162 permits the State Fire Marshal to appoint local fire service personnel and
employees of other State agencies as assistant deputies to assist in properly
discharging the duties of the Office, although those appointed are not entitled to
compensation for performing these duties. Currently, the SFM reportedly has issued
deputy fire marshal cards to approximately 200 fire personnel. However, according
to the SFM, many of these individuals do not have adequate training or experience in
fire code enforcement, and therefore, do not perform SFM duties. The SFM has
indicated a desire to establish a training and certification program for volunteer
assistant deputies, and use these deputies to assist in conducting SFM inspections.
Utah has developed a certification program for its deputy inspectors. To be
appointed as a deputy inspector, the individual must have previous fire service
experience, take a 30- hour training course on building and fire codes, and pass a
certification exam. To maintain their certification, the inspectors must attend a
30- hour training course every six months on selected building and fire code topics.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Office of State Fire Marshal should place all publicly owned buildings under
its jurisdiction on a regular inspection schedule.
2. The Office should inspect all public schools as required by Office policy.
3. The Office should try to implement, as much as feasible, the following program
alternatives.
a. Seek legislative changes limiting the scope of the Office of State Fire
Marshal's fire code enforcement responsibilities.
b. Enter into formal agreements with willing and qualified local jurisdictions
to inspect publicly owned buildings in their areas.
c. Institute a training and certification program for individuals interested in
being assistant deputies.
4. The Office should request funding from the State Legislature for additional
staff needed to carry out its fire code enforcement responsibilities.
FINDING II
THE OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL
SHOULD INCREASE ITS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
TO ENSURE THAT CODE VIOLATIONS ARE BEING CORRECTED
The State Fire Marshal's Office should improve its enforcement program to ensure
that code violations are corrected. Inspections that identified violations have not
been followed up to ensure that violations were corrected. The Office's failure to
follow up has been caused by staffing shortages and management's lack of pertinent
policies and procedures. However, this failure could expose the State to liability
losses.
Inspection Violations
Not Followed Up
The State Fire Marshal inspection staff do not regularly follow up on code violations
detected during inspections to ensure that they are being corrected. Our review of
inspection files indicates that follow- up on code violations generally does not occur.
Case examples show that serious code violations have persisted with very i i t t l e
corrective action taken.
Files indicate lack of follow- up - Our review of State Fire Marshal inspection files
indicates that follow- up on code violations does not occur. We selected a random
sample of 76 public school inspection files to determine action taken. We found that
the 76 public schools received 177 regular inspections between September 1, 1984 and
October 31, 1987 ( see Table 4). Code violations were found in more than 90 percent
of the cases ( 161). However, reinspections were conducted in only 5 percent of these
instances. Further, in another 3 percent of these cases, building officials submitted
written documentation that violations were being addressed.
A review of State and county inspection files produced similar results. We reviewed
all inspections conducted on State and county buildings between September 1, 1986
and September 30, 1987 ( see Table 4). Of the 122 regular inspections conducted, 75.4
percent ( 92) had code violations. However, reinspections were conducted in only 4.4
percent of these cases. Further, written documentation of violations being corrected
was found in another 5.4 percent of these instances.
TABLE 4
FOLLOW- UP OF STATE, COUNTY AND PUBLIC SCHOOL INSPECTIONS
Number of Number With Number of Number With
Inspections Violations Reinspections Written
J u r i s d i c t i o n Pe r formed Found ( b) Conducted cc) Documentat ion c d )
pub l i c ~ c h olo s 1( a) 177 161 ( 91 . O%) 8 ( 5.0%) 6 ( 3.7%)
State 68 54 ( 79.4 ) 2 ( 3 . 7 ) 1 ( 1 . 9
County 54 38 ( 70.4 1 - 2 ( 5 . 3 ) - 4 ( 10.5 )
Overal l 2 3 ( 84.6%) -- 12 ( 4.7%) - 11 ( 4.4%)
( a) A random sample o f 76 school inspection f i l e s were reviewed.
( b ) Percent o f a l l inspections i n which code v i o l a t i o n s were found.
( c ) Reinspections as a percent of a l l inspections with code v i o l a t i o n s .
( d ) Documentation o f v i o l a t i o n s corrected as a percent of inspections w i t h code v i o l a t i o n s .
Source: Office of the State Fire Marshal inspection files.
Serious code violations not corrected -. A review of inspection files indicates that
in certain instances, serious code violations have persisted with very l i t t l e corrective
action taken. Not only does the Office f a i l to conduct follow- up inspections when i t
discovers serious violations, it has failed to enforce corrective action when regular
inspections, conducted a year or two later, find the same problems still exist. The
following case examples illustrate the types of code violations not being addressed.
The first two examples are of county facilities that did not receive follow- up actions.
Case 1
A December 11, 1986, inspection of a county office building in southern Arizona
found that electrical wiring throughout the building was " very substandard." To
compound the problem, electrical extension cords were used throughout the
building as permanent wiring, in violation of the State fire code. The inspection
also determined that there were not enough exit doors and that emergency
lighting in the corridors was inadequate. In all, ten code items were cited.
Comment
The inspection report recommended that a fire alarm system be installed
because of the condition of the building. It also requested that a copy of this
report be returned to the Office when all code violations had been corrected. No
documentation existed in the file to indicate that the county had addressed any
of the cited building deficiencies.
Case 2
A January 27, 1987, inspection of a county juvenile detention center found that
the facility did not have an approved fire alarm system. Nor did the facility
have an approved automatic sprinkler system. Furthermore, the inspection
found that emergency lighting in the staff quarters and lockup areas was not
working. Finally, the facility did not have a fire hydrant in an area that was
readily accessible to the fire department in case of an emergency.
Comment
The inspection report requested that the county provide the Office of the State
Fire Marshal with a letter of intent to correct these code violations. However,
no documentation existed in the inspection files indicating that any of these code
deficiencies had been addressed. Furthermore, a prior inspection of this facility
on April 19, 1985, identified many of the same violations in the building.
The remaining examples are of public schools that are subject to annual inspections.
However, even when facilities are being inspected regularly, serious code violations
may persist.
Case 3
Three successive annual inspections of a Tucson high school conducted in 1983,
1984 and 1985 found the fire alarm system to be inoperable. Furthermore,
during each inspection numerous exits were chained and locked, in violation of
the fire code. These inspections also found that the kiln room did not have a
proper exhaust venting system and the spray booth ( in the paint shop) was not
protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system. Improper storage of
flammable liquids was also noted in all three inspection reports. Finally, the
inspections determined that exit signs were missing in the chorus room and that
exit signs in some other classrooms were not operational and were in need of
repair.
Comment
A new fire alarm was installed in September, 1986. The State Fire Marshal
indicated that his inspection staff require building officials to remove chains and
unlock all exit doors prior to completion of the site inspection. However, he felt
that since inspectors do not return to conduct reinspections, school officials will
again chain and lock these exits. No documentation could be found in the
inspection f i l e to indicate that other code violations had been addressed.
Furthermore, the high school had not received an annual or follow- up inspection
since August 1985. This was the case even though the 1983 inspection detected
39 fire code violations, the 1984 inspection 26 code violations, and the 1985
inspection 21 code violations.
Case 4
A January 25, 1986, inspection of an elementary school in Apache Junction found
13 fire code violations, including problems with the fire alarm. An inspection
the following year ( on January 26, 1987) also found the fire alarm system to be
malfunctioning. Furthermore, the 1987 inspection identified additional code
violations regarding malfunctioning emergency and exit lighting identical or
similar to those found in the February 1986 inspection. Finally, both inspections
indicated that the fire extinguisher in Room 413 had not been recharged.
Comment
No documentation could be found in the inspection file to indicate that any code
violations listed in either inspection were addressed.
low-
Management has not required that staff reinspect buildings to ensure that code
violations have been corrected. Citing lack of sufficient personnel for the job, the
Fire Marshal has not established policies and procedures on follow- up and
enforcement. However, the National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA) very
clearly states that adequate follow- up is an essential part of any fire inspection
program. Recognizing this need, other jurisdictions have incorporated follow- up into
their inspection programs by setting deadlines and requiring detailed written plans for
correction.
Citing lack of personnel for the job, the Fire Marshal has not developed formal
guidelines establishing circumstances in which follow- up inspections are necessary.
As noted in Finding I, the SFM does not have adequate staff to conduct needed
inspections. According to the Fire Marshal, because the Office lacks sufficient staff,
the Office has taken the approach of inspecting as many buildings as possible and
placing limited emphasis on reinspections. In addition, in the few instances in which
follow- up is conducted, such decisions are left to the discretion of the inspectors.
Further, even when violations are found, no deadlines are set for correction of the
problem.
Although i t is important for the SFM to inspect buildings within the Office's
jurisdiction, i t is equally, i f not more important, to follow up on code violations
found. NFPA very clearly states that adequate follow- up is an essential part of
any fire inspection program. NFPA maintains that until code compliance is
achieved, an inspection is not considered complete. This may require multiple
visits to the property, office research time and possibly court time. According
to N FPA, i t is generally " better to conduct fewer but more thorough inspections
and follow up on all violations than to undertake too many inspections that
could be done haphazardly, incompletely, or negligently."
Other local jurisdictions and states follow up on violations found during
inspections. A t a minimum, once violations are found during an inspection, the
inspecting agency should notify the building official of the violation, set a
reasonable amount of time to bring the building to code, and ensure that the
violation is corrected. Some jurisdictions have incorporated follow- up into
their inspection programs by setting deadlines, requiring detailed written plans
for correction, and conducting reinspections to ensure that corrections were
made.
The City of Phoenix Fire Department reportedly sets correction dates for
all violations and conducts reinspections to ensure that violations were
corrected. Cases are not closed until all violations are rectified.
According to a Phoenix Fire Department official, the Department is short
of staff, and is unable to inspect all buildings on a regular basis. However,
he said the Department places a priority on the quality of inspections
conducted, which requires follow- up be completed.
8 The City of Mesa Fire Department stated i t sets deadlines for violations to
be corrected and performs reinspections to ensure that these violations
have been rectified. For major violations, such as the installation of an
approved sprinkler system, the City may allow the inspectee to develop a
one to five year plan detailing how corrections will be made. However,
progress on the development program is monitored. Cases are not closed
until all violations have been corrected.
8 The Tucson Fire Department reports that i t uses a computer to track
reinspections. The computer will generate a reinspection report 3 to 5
days in advance of the scheduled reinspection date. Cases with violations
will continue to appear until corrections have been made. Management
receives a monthly report indicating all cases with outstanding violations
and the history of these violations.
Other jurisdictions use a combination of reinspections and requiring notification
from the responsible party that violations have been corrected. For example,
The California Fire Marshal's Office requires responsible parties to sign a form,
under penalty of perjury, indicating that violations were corrected.
State Liability
The State could be held liable for losses due to inadequate follow- up
enforcement. We asked Legislative Council whether the State would be liable
for the death, injury or damage caused by fires in buildings where an inspection
was conducted by the State Fire Marshal's Office and violations were found, but
for which no or insufficient Department follow- up was conducted. According
to a Legislative Council Opinion dated January 12, 1988, when inspections
disclose a violation of the fire code, the State Fire Marshal is required to use
enforcement procedures to correct the violation."' Although the State's
liability rests on the facts and circumstances of each case, failure of the
Department to ensure that violations were corrected could " possibly involve
negligence by the department, but no violation of statute." Further, the opinion
adds, "[ als a general rule, however, this state is not immune from lawsuits
involving the types of negligence detailed. . . ."
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. When violations are identified during an inspection, the Office of State
Fire Marshal should, in conjunction with notifying the responsible party of
the code violations:
a. Establish a reasonable time frame in which code violations are to be
corrected.
b. Conduct follow up to ensure that violations were corrected.
For a complete t e x t of the L e g i s l a t i v e Council Opinion, see Appendix.
28
2. The Office of State Fire Marshal should establish policies and procedures
defining in what instances reinspections are required, and in what instances the
Office can rely on written notification from building officials to ensure that
code violations are corrected.
3. In instances where the code violation may require extensive time to correct, the
Office should require a detailed plan of action indicating how corrections will be
made. This plan should be monitored to ensure that progress is being made.
FINDING Ill
THE OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL
NEEDS BETTER MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND CONTROL
The Office of State Fire Marshal ( SFM) has not established adequate management
reporting and control systems. Management information is inadequate to properly
plan work and determine staffing needs. Supervision and control of field staff has
also been weak. Until recently, the SFM has not sufficiently recognized the
importance of management reporting and control systems and made their
development a priority.
Management Information
Is Inadequate
The SFM does not have basic information needed to properly plan work and staff the
Office. The Office needs to develop an inventory of the buildings it is mandated to
inspect,'" improve its filing system, and record and analyze how long it takes
to conduct various types of inspections.
Building Inventory - At the time of our audit, the Office did not have an inventory
of State and county buildings the Office is mandated by law to inspect ( see pages
18- 19). Lacking an inventory, the Fire Marshal cannot meet the Office's
responsibility to develop a regular inspection schedule. It is also difficult to
estimate staffing needs without knowing its inspection workload.
The Office needs to develop a master inventory file for all buildings under its
jurisdiction. The file should contain information regarding the owner, location, size
and use of the property. Other information, such as the type of construction, age of
the building, occupancy load, and fire protection systems installed, is also important
for planning inspections and establishing inspection priorities. Much of this
information can be obtained from State and county officials responsible for
facilities in their jurisdiction.
The SFM i s also required t o inspect c e r t a i n private1 y owned b u i l d i n g s i n c i t i e s w i t h
populations of l e s s than 100,000 ( see Finding I , page 15). However, we l i m i t e d our
review o f inspection coverage t o State, county and p u b l i c school b u i l d i n g s .
Filing system - The Office's manual filing system is so poorly maintained i t is
difficult to determine what buildings have been inspected. Generally, separate files
are not maintained for each State and county building inspected. While inspection
records of public schools are normally maintained in individual files, we found
instances in which inspection records of different schools were also filed together by
county and school district. Furthermore, we found several instances of misfiled
inspection reports.
National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA) literature recommends that a separate
file be maintained for each building inspected. These files should summarize
information about the property and contain copies of all inspection records,
including documentation of all inspections and code enforcement activity,
correspondence relating to the property, building plans and specifications ( if
available), and records of fire incidents at the location. Such files, properly
maintained, provide management with essential information for planning and
budgeting purposes, and expedite the inspection process.
Time requirements - The Fire Marshal also needs information on the time i t takes
to perform various types of inspections. This information, along with an inventory
of buildings, is needed to properly estimate staffing needs.
Currently, the Office does not capture in sufficient detail the time field staff take
to perform their inspections. The amount of time needed to conduct an inspection
varies depending on the size and complexity of the property, the amount of travel
required, the condition of the building, and other factors. Monthly activity
summaries and biweekly time reports completed by field deputies, however, do not
differentiate the various types of inspections ( e. g., regular, follow- up, new
construction and complaint) and record the time spent on each.
By contrast, other fire inspection bureaus record this information and find it useful
for planning purposes. For example, Mesa and Tucson fire safety inspection staff
are required to complete daily activity logs indicating the types of activities
engaged in and time spent on each activity. The City of Phoenix requests its
inspection staff to complete a daily time sheet that provides similar information.
According to the NFPA, this type of information is needed to effectively plan and
schedule inspections.
Staff Supervision
Is Weak
The Fire Marshal's supervision and control of field staff needs to be strengthened.
Because time reporting is poor, management cannot be assured that staff spend time
productively. Further, there is no documentation to indicate that inspection reports
completed by field staff are routinely reviewed by management. Finally, the Office
needs to develop written policies and a procedures manual to guide staff in carrying
out their inspection responsibilities.
Staff reporting - As noted above, field staff do not report in detail time spent on
various inspection activities. Currently, staff complete biweekly time sheets that
indicate only the total number of hours worked. The time sheets do not indicate the
number of hours spent on specific inspection, and noninspection tasks such as
complaints, arson investigations, training or paperwork. Because many field staff
work alone and unsupervised on- site, it is impossible for management to know i f
staff are working at acceptable levels of efficiency and productivity.
lnspection reviews - There is no documentation to indicate that Office
management adequately reviews inspection reports completed by field staff.
Although the Fire Marshal indicated that reports are examined, we found l i t t l e
evidence that this has occurred regularly. lnspection reports are not initialed by
supervisors, and files we reviewed showed very l i t t l e indication of discussion,
revisions, or follow- up resulting from supervisory review. Adequate review of staff
reports is needed to ensure quality and consistency in the Fire Marshal's statewide
inspection program. The Assistant State Fire Marshal has indicated that the quality
of the inspection reports completed by field staff has been an area of concern.
Procedures manual - The Office also lacks written policies and a procedures
manual which would guide staff in carrying out their inspection responsibilities. For
example, there are no written guidelines establishing' appropriate follow- up
procedures for various types of code violations. Decisions regarding follow up are
left to the discretion of individual inspectors. As a result, inspectors may be
arbitrary and inconsistent in the application of standards, in performing follow up,
and in reporting.
According to the NFPA an inspection manual should be prepared to guide field staff.
The manual should be organized by occupancy class, and should set forth the various
code requirements for each type of property. The Phoenix and Tucson Fire
Departments have developed manuals of this type to ensure consistency among their
staff in code enforcement and inspection procedures.
Fire Marshal Did Not Consider
Management Systems A Priority
In the past, the Fire Marshal has not viewed development of management systems as
a priority. He felt it was more important to assign available staff to inspections
than to spend time developing management systems. We view this decision as
short- sighted, since good management systems and procedures can increase
productivity and efficiency. Moreover, some of the systems that are lacking, such
as detailed time reporting, do not require extensive time or resources to develop.
Many of the other Fire jurisdictions we visited during our audit are busy and perhaps
understaffed, yet they took the time to develop and implement needed management
systems.
In fairness to the Fire Marshal, turnover in the Assistant Fire Marshal position may
have impacted development of management systems. The Assistant has day- to- day
responsibility for the inspection program and supervision of inspection staff. In the
past three years, however, this position has been filled by three different
individuals. Further, due to staff vacancies and shortages, the Assistants have spent
a considerable portion of their time conducting inspections rather than managing the
inspection program.
The current Assistant Fire Marshal, however, is working to improve management.
He is in the process of reorganizing and updating the Office file system, and will
also be developing an inspection manual for field staff.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of State Fire Marshal should:
1. Develop a master inventory file of all State, county, school and privately owned
properties under its jurisdiction.
2. Establish a time reporting system that tracks in sufficient detail the amount of
time field staff spend on inspection and noninspection activities. This report
should differentiate types of activities and properties inspected by staff.
3. Adequately review inspection reports for quality, and document this review
through supervisory sign- offs or other means.
4. Develop an inspection manual and establish policies and procedures on
follow- up of code violations found during inspections
5. Develop a record- keeping and filing system in accordance with NFPA guidelines.
FINDING IV
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY
HAS EFFECTIVELY AND EFFICIENTLY HANDLED
CONSUMER COMPLAINTS RELATED TO MANUFACTURED HOUSING
The Department has effectively and efficiently handled consumer complaints
related to manufactured housing. The Department has established an effective
complaint process to resolve consumer problems with the manufacture, sale or
installation of mobile or manufactured homes. Although the Department process for
handling complaints is effective, the Department needs to strengthen its oversight
of manufacturers whc handle Federal complaints.
Department Complaint
Process Is Effective
The Department protects consumers' interests through its complaint process.
Consumer complaints are handled in an effective and efficient manner. Further,
when the consumers have been harmed economically by a licensed dealer or broker,
the Department has compensated the consumers through awards from the Consumer
Recovery Fund.
The Department handles consumer complaints related to the manufacture, sale or
installation of manufactured homes. During fiscal year 1986- 87, the Department
received 777 complaints related to the Office of Manufactured Housing. The
complaints may cite numerous types of problems. For example, one complaint we
reviewed contained 15 items such as a leaking shower door, buckled weather
stripping, broken steps, split front door, ceiling fractures and bathroom leaks.
The Department has established an effective process for resolving consumer
problems with the manufacture, sale, or installation of mobile or manufactured
homes. The Department investigates complaints within its jurisdiction, and i f valid,
requires the manufacturer, dealer or installer to correct the deficiency. I f the
complaint is not resolved, the consumer may request that a citation and complaint
be issued and a hearing scheduled. The Department's hearing officer is authorized,
after a hearing is held, to place a licensee on probation, to suspend or revoke the
license, and to fine the licensee up to $ 1,000 for each violation.
Our review of consumer complaints filed with the Department show the Department
is both effective and efficient in its handling of complaints. We randomly selected
50 complaints received in fiscal year 1986- 87 for review. Our review of these
complaints found that the complaints within the Department's jurisdiction were not
closed until the licensee corrected violations. Further, the Department addressed
complaints promptly. Of the 50 complaints reviewed, 34 were closed at the time of
our review. Of the 34 that were closed, all but one had been closed within six
months of receipt. Of the 16 that were still open, all but one had valid explanations
for open status.
In addition, the Consumer Recovery Fund has been effective in returning monies to
consumers who have been damaged by licensed dealers or brokers. Dealers and
brokers of manufactured homes, mobile homes and factory- built buildings are
assessed a fee for each unit sold, which is placed into the Consumer Recovery Fund.
We reviewed all payments made from the Fund between January 1986 and May
1987. During this period, $ 32,528 was paid from the Fund. The majority of monies
were paid to consumers who had placed down payments on homes and were not
provided refunds of these monies, or for items which the dealer had agreed upon in
the purchase agreement, but did not deliver. According to Department officials, the
Department has reimbursed consumers more than $ 381,000 since the Funds'
establishment in 1980.
Federal Program
Should Be Improved
Although the Department has an effective state program for handling consumer
complaints, the State Administrative Agency ( SAA) complaint program needs
improvement. Manufactured homes are regulated by Federal Construction and
Safety standards. States can be involved by establishing State Administrative
Agencies. Arizona's Office of Manufactured Housing ( OM H) is a State
Administrative Agency responsible for overseeing manufacturers' handling of
consumer complaints and recalls of defective manufactured homes. When OMH
receives a complaint regarding the manufacture of a home, the Office, under the
Federal system, sends copies of complaints to the manufacturer for action. ( 1 )
The manufacturer is required, by Federal law, to investigate the complaint, and
determine its seriousness and whether the complaint may exist in a group of homes.
The manufacturer must correct all homes that have a serious defect or an imminent
safety hazard.
A Federal review of Arizona's SAA complaint program revealed problems with
Arizona's handling of Federal complaints. The review report, dated April 28, 1987,
found that the Department had not monitored or followed up to determine whether
the manufacturer took appropriate action. Further, the review found that the
Department had not ensured that manufacturerst logs of complaints were structured
so as to be able to identify groups or classes of homes with repeat defects. State
and Federal officials have disagreed as to the level of e f f o r t required by the Arizona
SA A. However, the Department, in its 1988- 89 budget request, requested a position
to increase the enforcement e f f o r t s w i t h such position being funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Department should make improvements i n i t s handling of SAA complaints
to monitor manufacturer action on these complaints, and to ensure that
manufacturer logs of complaints are structured to identify groups or classes of
homes with repeat defects.
( ' 1 The Department w i l l i n v e s t i g a t e complaints received w i t h i n one year of the
manufacture o r purchase o f the manufactured home. Complaints received a f t e r one
year o f the manufacture o r purchase w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o the manufacturer t o
determine whether a c t i o n i s needed.
FINDING V
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY
COULD IMPROVE ITS MONITORING OF LOCAL JURISDICTION
The Department of Building and Fire Safety could improve its monitoring of local
jurisdictions with mobile and manufactured home installation inspection programs.
Installation inspections are performed to protect consumers' health and safety. The
Department, however, has not adequately performed reviews of the local
jurisdictions with agreements to conduct installation inspections. The Department
needs to make monitoring a greater priority.
Inspections Provide
Protection
Installation inspections are important to protect consumer health and safety.
Manufactured and mobile homes are inspected for proper installation of utilities
( gas, water, sewage, and electricity); the piers and footings used to support the
homes; and accessories such as awnings, porches, skirting, coolers, and heating and
refrigeration equipment. Failure to identify and correct violations of installation
standards could place homeowners in unsafe housing. For example, an undetected
leak in a gas line could result in an explosion.
The Department of Building and Fire Safety's Office of Manufactured Housing
oversees the inspection program for the installation of manufactured and mobile
homes. Because of the large number of inspections that need to be conducted, the
State has entered into agreements with local jurisdictions to conduct the inspections
within their jurisdictions. Approximately two- thirds of the installation inspections
are performed by local jurisdictions, and one- third are performed by the
Department. '" The jurisdictions are required to follow State standards for
these inspections.
This estimate i s based on the number of permits issued by the l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s
and the Department. I n order t o i n s t a l l a manufactured o r mobile home, a permit
must be obtained. The issuance of a p e r m i t o b l i g a t e s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o perform an
i n s t a l l a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n .
The Department of Building and Fire Safety is required by A. R. S. 541- 2153.8.5 to
monitor the performance of local jurisdictions that have agreements to conduct
installation inspections. In order to satisfy the statutory requirement, the
Department has established a policy requiring annual reviews of the jurisdictions.
The reviews include an on- site visit to the jurisdiction to review record- keeping and
inspection procedures. The reviewer inspects a sample of units previously inspected
by the jurisdiction to ensure that State standards were followed. The jurisdiction is
informed of violations, and the required corrective action.
Department Is Not
Reviewing Local Inspections
The Department has not adequately monitored the local jurisdictions under
agreement. The Department has not conducted enough audits of the jurisdictions.
As a result, local jurisdictions that are performing inadequate inspections are not
detected in a timely manner for corrective action. In addition, when reviews are
conducted, follow- up by the Department is inconsistent.
Department has not performed needed reviews - Although the Department is
required to monitor local jurisdictions, i t has not performed sufficient reviews. We
reviewed all local agreement files to determine the Department's adequacy in
monitoring local jurisdictions.") Since the Department policy requiring annual
reviews was effective December 14, 1984, we reviewed the Department's actions
for the period of January 1, 1985 through October 20, 1987. Of the 62 local
jurisdictions that have retained an agreement since 1985, none of the jurisdictions
have been reviewed in accordance with Department policy. The Department had not
conducted audits for 64 percent of the local jurisdictions since the policy went into
effect. Further, an additional 31 percent of the jurisdictions had received only one
review during the period of review ( see Table 5).
( ) Our review of 1 ocal j u r i s d i c t i o n f i l e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t many agreements are outdated.
We reviewed a l l l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n agreement f i l e s . We found t h a t 11 ( 16 percent)
of the 68 f i l e s w i t h agreements contained only p a r t i a l agreements. Further, we
found t h a t most agreements r e f e r t o s t a t u t e s o r r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s which no
longer e x i s t . When the Department was created i n 1986, the s t a t u t e s of the O f f i c e
of Manufactured Housing were t r a n s f e r r e d and renumbered. However, agreements have
not been updated t o r e f e r t o the c u r r e n t s t a t u t e s . Further, several of the o l d e r
agreements r e f e r t o outdated r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , i n a d d i t i o n t o deleted s t a t u t e s .
TABLE 5
FREQUENCY OF MONITORING AUDITS OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
JANUARY 1 , 1985 THROUGH OCTOBER 20, 1987
Number of
Audi t s Local Percent of
Conducted J u r i s d i c t i o n s J u r i s d i c t i o n s
Source: Auditor General staff review of local jurisdiction files maintained by the
Department of Building and Fire Safety.
Problems with local jurisdictions go undetected - As a result of inadequate
reviews, local jurisdictions that are performing inadequate installation inspections
are not detected in a timely manner for corrective action. When the local
jurisdiction reviews are conducted, the Department frequently identifies
deficiencies with the local jurisdiction's inspection program. The Department may
then take corrective action such as requiring the jurisdiction to notify the
Department when deficiencies are corrected, requiring the jurisdiction's inspectors
to attend Department training, conducting follow- up audits to ensure that
corrections are implemented, requiring the jurisdictions to sign a full agreement, or
in severe instances, taking over the jurisdiction's program. As the Department is
not conducting regular reviews of local jurisdiction performance, deficiencies may
not be identified.
Examples of the types of problems that are uncovered in local jurisdiction reviews
are as follows.
Case 1
A local jurisdiction received a monitoring audit in November 1987. Although
the jurisdiction issues over 500 permits annually, no audit had been conducted
since the original agreement was signed in 1980. The Department audit of the
jurisdiction revealed that the jurisdiction had collected money for permits
for the installation of the manufactured homes, but had not provided the
inspections. In fact, an estimated 1,140 homes had not been inspected,
although permits had been issued. Further, the audit revealed that the
inspectors for the jurisdiction lacked the familiarity or training necessary
to properly perform the installation inspections. The Director of the
Department agreed to allow the jurisdiction to continue the inspection
program provided they sign a stipulation and agreement. The stipulation
and agreement required the jurisdiction to inspect homes previously not
inspected, send its inspectors for Department training, and to undergo
monitoring by the Department every two months to ensure problems are
rectified.
A local jurisdiction received a monitoring audit on September 12, 1984.
As part of the audit, three homes which had previously been inspected by
a local jurisdiction inspector were reviewed, and a total of 17 violations
of installation standards were identified. Further, the Department found
that the jurisdiction was not maintaining records of installation permits,
and no reinspections were being conducted when violations of standards
were identified. On November 26, 1984, the Department performed a
follow- up visit to determine i f improvements had been made. The
Department inspected two units, and found eight violations of standards.
The Department recommended that the inspector receive training. The
local jurisdiction inspector attended Department training in January,
1985. However, no audits have been conducted since 1984, despite the
jurisdiction's history of noncompliance with standards.
Follow- up performed on audits is inconsistent - In addition to not
performing monitoring audits, the Department has not consistently performed
follow- up on the audits i t has conducted. As stated previously, the
Department generally recommends one or more of the following options for
audit follow- up - training of inspectors, reauditing to ensure that deficiencies
are corrected, notification by the auditee that corrections were made, signing
an agreement with an expanded scope of responsibility, or in extreme cases,
taking over the jurisdiction's inspection responsibilities. The Department had
conducted 28 audits between January 1, 1985 and October 20, 1987. Of these
28, the Department did not conduct needed follow- up to ensure that
corrective action was taken in seven of the audits. Further, the Department
conducted only partial follow- up in three other audits.
Increased Priority
For Audits Needed
The Department needs to increase its priority for conducting monitoring
audits. According to Department officials, the monitoring audits have not
been conducted on a regular basis due to the lack of resources to conduct the
reviews. Department officials indicated that due to funding shortages, the
position intended for conducting the audits was used to conduct installation
inspections of manufactured housing. The Department considered instal lation
inspections a higher priority, since these inspections impact a homeowners
ability to move into a home and receive needed utilities. However, because
the local jurisdictions conduct nearly two- thirds of all inspections statewide,
it is important that the Department place a higher priority on these audits.
The officials indicated that the Department has received needed funding this
year to use the training and compliance officer to perform these audits.
Department officials indicated that the officer should be able to complete the
audits within the one year time frame.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department should strive to conduct regular reviews of jurisdictions under
agreement to perform installation inspections.
FINDING VI
THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY'S STATUTES
SHOULD BE AMENDED TO STRENGTHEN AND CLARIFY ITS AUTHORITY
TO REGULATE INSTALLATIONS OF MOBILE AND MANUFACTURED HOMES
The Department of Building and Fire Safety's statutes should be amended to
strengthen and clarify its authority to regulate installations of mobile and
manufactured homes. The Department should be given authority to disconnect
utilities of mobile and manufactured homes in all instances where the home poses a
serious health and safety hazard. Further, the Department's authority to issue
permits for the installation of mobile and manufactured homes should be clarified.
Authority Should Be Granted To
Disconnect Utilities In All Instances
The Department should be given authority to disconnect utilities in all instances
where the home poses a health and safety risk. Currently, the Department has
authority to disconnect utilities of homes on private property where the home poses
a hazard, but may not disconnect utilities of homes in manufactured home parks. A t
least three other states do not allow u t i l i t i e s to be connected on any home until
health and safety violations are corrected.
The Department has authority to order a u t i l i t y company to discontinue service to a
mobile or manufactured home located on private property which poses an immediate
danger to life and property. The legislature granted this authority to the
Department through House Bill 221 7, effective August 1987. Specifically, A. R. S.
41- 2153.8.7 states:
" 7. I f an inspection of the installation of any mobile home or manufactured
home not located in a mobile home park reveals that the natural gas or
electrical connections of the installation do not conform to the installation
standards promulgated pursuant to article 1 of this chapter and the
nonconformance constitutes an immediate danger to life and property, the
inhabitants of the home shall be notified immediately and in their absence a
notice citing the violations shall be posted in a conspicuous location. The
Assistant Director may order that the public service corporation, municipal
corporation or other entity or individual supplying the service to the unit
discontinue such service. If the danger is not immediate, the Assistant Director
shall allow at least twenty- four hours to correct the condition before ordering
any discontinuation of service."
Although the Department has authority to discontinue u t i l i t y service to a mobile or
manufactured home on private property, the Department does not have similar
authority over homes in parks. According to Department officials, the Department
was unable to obtain the authority over parks due to lobbying by park owners against
such authority. However, the difference in authority appears arbitrary.
Manufactured and mobile homes, may have violations that pose a danger to the
health and safety of the occupants regardless of whether they are installed in parks
or on private property. ( I ' In fact, homes in parks pose a risk not only to the
occupants, but to occupants of other homes in the park due to the close proximity of
the homes.
Other states have authority - Other states have authority to disallow utility
service in all instances in which the installation constitutes a danger to life and
property until violations of health and safety standards are corrected. Both
California and Nevada require that items related to health and safety be corrected
before service is permitted, while New Mexico allows discontinuance of service
where a dangerous condition exists.
a California California statutes state " Except for test purposes, the electrical
system of the mobile home shall not be energized unless an approval tag, signed
by a representative of the enforcement agency, is attached to the lot or site
service equipment. The mobile home fuel gas piping system shall not be
supplied with gas unless an approval tag is attached to the lot or site gas riser."
a Nevada Nevada statutes state that " unless the division determines otherwise,
the plumbing, heating, cooling, fuel burning and electrical systems of a
manufactured home, mobile home, or commercial coach may not be connected
or activated until a certificate of installation has been issued and a label of
installation affixed to the manufactured home, mobile home, or commercial
coach.''
a New Mexico New Mexico statutes state " An inspector may order or cause
the immediate discontinuance of natural gas, LP gas, electrical or other service
to a manufactured home determined by him to be dangerous to life or property
because of any defects, faulty design, incorrect installation or other deficiency
in any manufactured home or component, appliance, part or service equipment
in a manufactured home, connected to a manufactured home or provided for
service to a manufactured home."
( I ) Since r e c e i v i n g a u t h o r i t y i n August 1987 t o discontinue u t i l i t y service t o a mobile
or manufactured home on p r i v a t e property, OMH r e p o r t s i t has used the a u t h o r i t y
twice. One i n s t a n c e i n v o l v e d an extreme1 y hazardous e l e c t r i c a l problem, and the
o t h e r i n v o l v e d a v e r y s e r i o u s gas v i o l a t i o n .
No differentiation is made in any of these states as to whether the home is on
private property, or located in a park.
Authority To Issue Permits
Should Be Clarified
The Department's authority to issue permits should be clarified. The Department's
statutes do not specifically require permits for the installation of manufactured and
mobile homes. By amending the statutes to clarify the legislative intent, the
Department would have clear authority to require permits of both homeowners and
licensed installers.
The Department's authority to require permits for the installation of manufactured
and mobile homes is vague. The Department issues permits to homeowners and
licensed installers for the installation of manufactured homes. However, according
to a Legislative Council memorandum dated November 20, 1987, the statutes do not
specifically require a permit for the installation of a mobile or manufactured home.
The legislature has, however, implicitly given the Department the authority for a
permit program through other statutes. Specifically, the statutory interpretation
states: ( 1 )
" The statutes do not specifically require that a perm- it be obtained before
the installation of a mobile or manufactured home. The statutes only
specifically require a perrnit for bringing a mobile home into Arizona. A. R. S.
section 41 - 2144, paragraph 13.
Although the legislature has not required permits, the legislature has
impliedly given the board of manufactured housing ( board) within the
department the authority to implement a permit procedure. The board is
required to charge fees for permits. A. R. S. section 41- 2144, paragraph 5.
Permit fees were required before a permit was required to bring a mobile home
into this state ( see Laws 1984, chapter 284, section 41, so the legislature
envisioned that the department would require other permits. . . I'
Amending the statutes would clarify the legislative intent, and would provide clear
authority for the Department to require permits of both homeowners and licensed
installers. Although the Department implicitly has authority to issue permits, i t
does not have the authority to require homeowners who conduct their own
installations to obtain permits. According to the Legislative Council memorandum
( ' ) For the complete t e x t o f the opinion, see Appendix.
49
dated November 20, 1987, in order to implement such a permit requirement, the
Board of Manufactured Housing must adopt a rule. The Board has adopted such a
rule for licensed installers, but i t has not done so for homeowners installing their
own manufactured home. Although the Board could adopt a similar rule for
homeowners, amending the statutes to grant the Department clear authority to
require permits of both licensed installers and homeowners would clarify the
Legislature's intent.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider amending the statutes to allow the Department
to order utilities discontinued to mobile or manufactured homes in all instances
in which the installations constitute a danger to l i f e and property.
2. The Legislature should consider amending the statutes to clearly indicate that a
mobile or manufactured home cannot be installed in the State without a permit
for installation.
ROSEMOFFORD
GOVERNOR
' PIMA COUNTY: 427 W GRANT ROAD
TUCSON. ARIZONA 85705
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY
701 EAST JEFFERSON, SUITE 200
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85034
DON A. REVILLE
DIRECTOR
MOHAVE COUNTY:
757 HANCOCK ROAD
RIVIERA. ARIZONA 86442
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING OFFICE OF STATE FIRE MARSHAL
A p r i l 15, 1988
TO: Mr. Doug1 as R. Norton, Auai t o r General
FROM: Don A. R e v i l l e , D i r e c t o r
Department o f B u i l d i n g and F i r e Safety
SUBJECT: Performance Audi t Response
The Department has received the d r a f t performance a u d i t which includes s i x
f i ndi ngs .
Before commenting on the report, I would l i k e t o commend the a u d i t team on
the professional manner i n which it conducted the a u d i t .
The findings i d e n t i f y s i x areas i n which improvements are recommended, and t o
t h a t end the Department has undertaken corrections t h a t do not r e q u i r e
s t a t u t o r y changes. Suggestea l e g i s l a t i v e changes w i l l be sought during the
next session and incorporated i n the sunset l e g i s l a t i o n .
The Department supports most o f the recommendations offered, and i n general
does not d i s p u t e t h e f i n d i n g s . Our response w i l l address each of the
findings separately and i n the order presented.
I n conclusion, we wish t o again express our appreciation t o the a u d i t team,
and f o r the c o n s t r u c t i v e comments regarding the Department's programs.
DAR: j d
FINDING I
I n t h i s f i r s t f i n d i n g the Auditor General's r e p o r t indicates t h a t the State
F i r e Marshal does not inspect state and county b u i l d i n g s on a regular basis,
and t h a t not a l l p u b l i c schools are inspected annually. This f i n d i n g also
points out t h a t inspections are important t o reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y o f f i r e s
which could lead t o human casual t i e s and property loss. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n the
opinion o f the L e g i s l a t i v e Council, the lack o f inspections may r e s u l t i n
State l i a b i l i t y should a f i r e occur i n an uninspected b u i l d i n g .
The Department recognizes the g r a v i t y o f the c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n , and has
addressed the 1 ack o f r e g u l a r l y scheduled inspections by requesting f i v e ( 5)
aadi t i o n a l deputy f i r e marshal s i n the current budget request. ( Please r e f e r
t o E x h i b i t A.) As pointed out i n t h i s f i n d i n g , the scope o f the mandate f a r
exceeds the size of the s t a f f available t o comply, and the positions requested
are a minimum number based on the current estimate o f the workload. We appre-c
i a t e t h e A u a i t o r General ' s recognition o f the inadequacy i n s t a f f i n g and h i s
recommendation f o r a d d i t i o n a l personnel. We also concur t h a t the request f o r
f i v e ( 5 ) inspectors i s basea on reasonable estimates; as aadi t i o n a l i n f o r -
mation becomes available the number o f deputies required f o r inspections may
change.
I n support of the a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f requested, the F i r e Marshal i s implementing
a program t o t r a i n and c e r t i f y volunteers who could a s s i s t i n p u b l i c b u i l d i n g
inspections. Unfortunately, few i n d i v i d u a l s are w i l l i n g and able t o act as
volunteer inspectors, and the Department's a u t h o r i t y t o take enforcement
action basea on a v o l u n t e e r ' s inspection i s debatable. The Department i s also
c r o s s - t r a i n i n g Office o f Manufactured Housing inspectors t o perform f i r e
inspections i n low hazard occupancies. These duties are i n addition t o the
inspectors ' c u r r e n t work1 oaa.
I n summation, the Department a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l s t a f f requested,
along with the development of a volunteer corps and use of cross- trained
personnel, w i l l p e r m i t t h e F i r e Marshal t o place a1 1 pub1 i c b u i l d i n g s and
schools on a regular inspection program.
FINDING I 1
I n t h i s f i n d i n g , t h e A u d i t o r General ' s r e p o r t c o r r e c t l y notes t h a t the F i r e
Marshal has not always conducted follow- up inspections. Whenever any imminent
safety hazard was discovered, however, c o r r e c t i o n was immediate and follow- up
inspections were conducted. The F i r e Marshal has placed a major emphasis on
conducting i n i t i a l inspections, i d e n t i f y i n g v i o l ations and informing the
responsible party. S t a f f shortages, brought out i n Finding I, have severely
hampered the F i r e Marshal i n conducting reinspections, and have required him
t o r e l y i n p a r t on the inspected party t o make corrections. Based on a review
o f inspection pol i c i e s and t h i s f i n d i n g , the procedures have been a1 tered t o
i n c l ude follow- up inspections i n accordance with the severity o f the v i o l ation
c i t e d . U n t i l a d d i t i o n a l deputies are granted, t h i s w i l l mean a reduction i n
the number o f i n i t i a l inspections performed. We w i l l continue t o work with
the various p o l i t i c a l subdivisions w i t h i n the state, and allow f o r planned
c o r r e c t i o n wherever possible.
The Department agrees t h a t more formal procedures are necessary regarding
inspections, reinspections and action plans when a period o f time i s neeaed t o
correcE v i o l a t i o n s . The Department i s developing these new procedures, which
w i l l c l o s e l y f o l l o w the areas i d e n t i f i e d i n the r e p o r t .
FINDING I11
The Auditor General points out t h a t the State F i r e Marshal should improve i t s
management and r e p o r t i n g procedures, including the development of an inventory
of b u i l d i n g s r e q u i r i n g inspection.
We do not disagree w i t h t h i s f i n d i n g . The recently appointed Assistant F i r e
Marshal i s compiling a current inventory o f buildings which must be inspected
and reorganizing t h e f i l ing system. This p r o j e c t , which has a1 ready resul tea
i n an inventory increase of over 1500 occupancies, w i l l be completea by June
30, 1988. A master inventory w i l l then be compil ed. A procedures manual w i l l
also be completea and implemented by the f a l l of 1988.
The foregoing a c t i v i t i e s w i l l soon be f a c i l i t a t e d by the entry o f inspection
r e p o r t information i n t o the computer, i n order t o generate reports concerning
time u t i l i z a t i o n and types o f inspections conducted.
These e f f o r t s w i l l culminate i n an information system t h a t w i l l provide
i n s i g h t i n t o f i e 1 a a c t i v i t i e s , thus he1 ping management t o determine workloads
and s t a f f i n g requirements, and w i l l address and s a t i s f y the issues and con-cerns
s e t o u t i n t h i s f i n d i n g .
FINDING I V
The Department appreciates the Auditor General's recognition and p o s i t i v e com-ments
regarding the S t a t e ' s consumer complaint program. The Department works
very hard t o a s s i s t consumers i n o b t a i n i n g c o r r e c t i o n o f defects i n t h e i r
mobile/ manufactured homes, and t o provide an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e hearing process
when a d i s p u t e a r i s e s .
Recognizing the same problems t h a t are c i t e d i n t h e A u d i t o r General's r e p o r t ,
a federal r e p o r t had rated the Arizona S t a t e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Agency Complaint
program ( intended t o determine i f a series of homes produced has defects)
as only " adequate." We are aware t h a t our performance i s a t the minimum
l e v e l , and agree t h a t a higher l e v e l o f oversight would be desirable and bene-f
i c i a l t o consumers. Currently the Department i s able t o meet the s p i r i t o f
the law, b u t unable t o achieve the requested l e v e l o f enforcement. The
Department i s seeking, w i t h i n i t s current budget request, an FTE p o s i t i o n
t o provide the necessary oversight as suggested by the a u d i t . The expenses
o f t h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l be reimbursed by the federal government.
FINDING V
The Auditor General's report and departmental reviews both confirm the need
for the regular monitoring of jurisdictions under agreement. In September of
1987, the Department re- established i t s oversight inspection program, which
had been discontinued in previous years due to budget constraints. In the
current fiscal year, budget reductions were absorbed in other areas, and the
Department has scheduled all jurisdictions to be reviewed within a twelve
month period, including reinspections when necessary.
In support of this program, the Department conducts, every four months, a
week- long training session, which is particularly helpful to inspectors
unfami 1 i ar w i t h manufactured housi ng . The Department a1 so i nvi tes 1 ocal
governments to send their inspectors to seminars, which i t offers throughout
the state, on proper home installation.
A1 1 Intergovernmental Agreements are being updated as oversight inspections
are being performed.
The Department feels the necessary corrective actions have been implemented,
and will continue to place greater emphasis on this portion of the inspection
program.
FINDING V I
The Department i s i n complete agreement w i t h the recommendations i n t h i s
f i n d i n g .
The Department sought a u t h o r i t y t o aiscontinue u t i l i t y service i n a l l instan-ces
when improper i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a home threatened l i f e or property. At t h a t
time 1 imitea a u t h o r i t y was granted, allowing for action on p r i v a t e property
only. The Department has used t h i s l i m i t e d a u t h o r i t y j u d i c i o u s l y , and w i l l
attempt t o increase t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o encompass a l l homes.
The second recommendation i s supported by the Department since it w i l l
c l a r i f y s t a t u t o r y 1 anguage. The Assistant Attorney General has assured the
Department t h a t it has the a u t h o r i t y t o issue i n s t a l l a t i o n permits, but since
the c u r r e n t a u t h o r i t y i s i n d i s p u t e t h e Department w i l l develop language t o
el imi nate t h i s c l oua.
Both o f these issues w i l l be aaaressea i n the statutes being developed by
the Department f o r presentation t o the Oversight Committee.
January 12, 1988
TO: Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
FROM: Arizona Legislative Council
RE: Request for Research and Statutory Interpretation ( 0- 87- 11)
This memo is sent in response to a request made on your behalf by William
Thomson in a memo dated December 16, 1987.
FACT SITUATION:
The s t a t e fire marshal within the department of building and fire safety
( department) is required to establish a regularly scheduled fire safety inspection program
for all state and county owned or operated public buildings and all public and private
school buildings except private schools in cities with a population of 100,000 o r more
persons. Arizona Revised Statutes (( A. R. S.) section 41- 2163, subsection A, paragraph 4.)
In addition, t h e s t a t e fire marshal is required to inspect, as necessary, a l l other
occupancies located throughout the state, except family dwellings having fewer than five
residential units, and except occupancies located in cities with a population of 100,000 or
more persons. ( A. R. S. section 41- 2163, subsection A, paragraph 5.)
The Auditor General's review of t h e s t a t e fire marshal's office operations shows
t h a t t h e office is not inspecting state and county buildings on a regular basis. Instead,
these buildings a r e generally inspected on a request basis ( except for prisons which were
recently placed on a regular inspection scheduIe). Further, the office has placed public
schools as a priority for inspection and has an internal goal to inspect public schools on an
annual basis. However, many public schools a r e not being inspected annually. Finally, all
other occupancies located outside of cities with a population of 100,000 or more a r e
inspected on a request basis.
According to A. R. S. section 41- 2163, subsection A, paragraph 2, the s t a t e fire
marshal is required to enforce the fire code. The rules indicate that the 1982 uniform fire
code is in e f f e c t for Arizona, with modifications. For example, although the uniform fire
code indicates t h a t orders o r notices for violations of the code shail set forth a time limit
for compliance dependent upon the hazard and danger created by the violation, the s t a t e
fire marshal has deleted this portion of the code.
The Auditor General's review shows that once violations a r e determined from an
inspection, the office does not conduct adequate follow- up t o ensure the violations are
corrected. Once an inspection is completed, the inspector generally leaves a list of
violations with the responsible party for the building, and asks that a signed copy be
returned when the items are corrected. The inspector does not provide a time limitation
in which the corrections must be made. In addition to not requiring time f r a m e s f o r
correction, t h e o f f i c e does not require a detailed plan of how the violations will be
corrected, which is a common practice in the field when corrections will be time
consuming. Further, the office does not routinely follow up to see that signed correction
forms are returned. In some cases the inspector may return to an inspected building to
determine whether corrections were made, however, reinspections are made infrequently
and generally only in instances where a serious fire hazard exists.
QUEST10 NS PRESENTED:
1. Would t h e s t a t e be liable for death, injury or damage caused by fires in state,
county and public school buildings which have not been subject t o regularly scheduled
inspections by t h e s t a t e fire marshal?
2. Would the state be liable for death, injury or damage caused by fires in other
occupancies located throughout t h e s t a t e which are in its jurisdiction, but which have not
been subject to inspections by t h e s t a t e fire marshal?
3. If an inspection is conducted and violations are found, should the department
provide time frames for correction of the violations?
4. What is the state's liability if a time limit is not set f o r correction of violations
and a fire occurs?
5. If an inspection is conducted and violations are found, can the department
require a plan of action from the entity inspected detailing how the violations will be
corrected?
6 . Would t h e s t a t e be liable for death, injury or damage caused by fires in buildings
where an inspection was conducted by the state fire marshal and violations were found,
but for which no, or insufficient, department follow- up was conducted?
ANSWERS:
See discussion.
DISCUSSION:
For purposes of this discussion, questions numbered 3 and 5 relating to department
duties will be considered f i r s t , and questions numbered 1, 2, 4 and 6 relating to state
liability will be considered together in the second part of the discussion.
1. An examination of A. R. S. t i t l e 41, chapter 16 relating to the department of
building and f i r e s a f e t y indicates t h a t authority for the following procedures i s given to
the department and the state fire marshal regarding the use of time limits and plans for
correction of identified fire code violations and fire hazards:
( a) The state fire marshal, under the authority and direction of the director of the
department, is required to " enforce compliance with t h e f i r e code promulgated by the
state fire safety committee". (, 4. R. S. section 4 1- 2163, subsection A, paragraph 2.)
Assuming t h a t a n inspection by the state fire marshal discloses a hazard or defect that
violates the fire code, this section requires enforcement, although statutory enforcement
procedures by the f i r e marshal are limited to issuing cease and desist orders. ( See
discussion under subdivision ( b) below.)
( b) The state fire marshal may issue a cease and desist order if he has " reasonable
cause to believe that any person has committed or is committing a violation of any
provision" of law relating to his duties, or any rule or order issued by him, if the violation
" does not constitute an immediate and apparent hazard to life or property". ( A. R. S.
section 41- 2196, subsection A.) If the violation is not an immediate threat, the assistant
director of the office of administration of t h e department ( assistant director) is
authorized to grant to the person alleged to be in violation a reasonable period of time of
not fewer than five days to comply with the order. ( A. R. S. section 41- 2196, subsection 5.)
If the hazard constitutes an immediate threat, the state fire marshal may either issue a
cease and desist order requiring immediate compliance or may file an action in superior
court to enjoin the person without issuing a cease and desist order. ( A. R. S. section
41- 2196, subsection D.) While none of these provisions specifically authorize the s t a t e
fire marshal o r assistant director to provide a plan of action for the entity to follow to
correct a violation of law, it is clear that the assistant director may require a period of
time within which a violation which is not an immediate threat is to be corrected.
( c) Under A. R. S. section 41- 2171, the assistant director is given the authority to
provide procedures to ensure compliance with laws and rules relating to the state fire
marshal. This broad authority would include both time limitations f o r corrections of
violations of law and plans of action detailing how a violation should be corrected.
Contact with an official of the department indicates, however, t h a t such authority has
not been exercised t o d a t e by the assistant director.
( d) A review of the s t a t e fire code, which i s promulgated by rule of the s t a t e fire
safety committee, indicates t h a t t h e committee has given the s t a t e fire marshal
numerous powers to abate and correct violations of the code and law, including the
authority t o correct " any conditions which would reasonably tend to cause fire or
contribute to its spread, or any violation of the purpose or provisions of this code o r o f
any other law or standard affecting fire safety". ( A. A. C. R8- 2- 41, subsection A,
paragraph 9.)
Therefore in response to questions numbered 3 and 5 of your memo, the department
and s t a t e fire marshal are clearly authorized to provide both time limitations and plans of
action to require correction of violations of law and rule relating to fire hazards and other
matters under the jurisdiction of the state fire marshal. None of these procedures,
however, appear to be mandatory.
2. Your questions numbered 1, 2, 4 and 6 all r e l a t e t o whether t h i s state is liable,
and to what e x t e n t , f o r inaction or inadequate action by the department or s t a t e fire
marshal regarding fire hazard inspections or failure to require correction of violations of
law or of the state fire code.
Article IV, part 2, section 18, Constitution of Arizona, provides that " the
legislature shall direct by law in what manner and in what court suits may be brought
against the state1'. A. R. S. t i t l e 12, chapter 7, a r t i c l e 2 prescribes the terms and
conditions allowing an action against t h i s state for negligence by public e n t i t i e s o r public
empioyees.
A. R. S. section 12- 820.02, paragraph 6, provides qualified immunity from liability
for a public entity or employee that does not intend to cause injury and who is not grossly
negligent if the entity or employee f a i l s t o discover violations of any provision of law
requiring inspections of property other than property owned by the entity. This section,
however, appears to apply only to failure to discover violations if an inspection is
conducted, and only if the inspection is of property that is not publicly owned. Your
questions relate to noncompliance with the law requiring inspections and follow- up by the
department and dire marshal t o correct any violations of law.
A. R. S. section 12- 820.05, subsection A provides t h a t t h e rules of governmental
immunity from lawsuits are established by case law, common law, s t a t u t e o r t h e
constitution and are applicable regarding public entities and officers if such immunity is
not provided for under A. R. S. t i t l e 12, chapter 7, article 2.
As a general principle, state immunity from actions for negligence against its
entities and employees was abrogated in 1963 in the case of Stone v. Arizona-~ ighway
Commission, 93 Ariz. 384, 381 P. 2d 107 ( 1963). Therefore, absent a specific grant of
immunity by statute, the state is liable for negligent actions of its entities and employees.
It is important to note t h a t the question of liability presented by each fact
situation presented in your questions numbered 1, 2, 4 and 6 ultimately rests on the facts
and circumstances of each case. Question number I appears to involve a clear violation
of state law by the state fire marshal and t h e s t a t e would probably be liable. The o t h e r
three questions possibly involve negligence by the department, but no violation of statute.
Again, liability depends on f a c t s and circumstances.
As a general rule, however, this state is not immune from lawsuits involving the
types of negligence detailed in questions numbered 1, 2, 4 and 6.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although not mandated by law, the department and the state fire marshal have the
authority to require t i m e f r a m e s and plans of action to correct violations of law and rule
relating to fire hazards and the state fire code. Also, this s t a t e is not immune from
liability f o r death, injury o r damage caused by inaction or inadequate action of the
department and the state fire marshal relating to inspection for and correction of fire
hazards and other statutory and s t a t e fire code requirements.
cc: William Thornson, Director
Perf ormance Audit Division
M E M O
November 20, 1 987
TO: Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
FROM: ArizonaLegislative Council
RE : Request for Research and Statutory Interpretation ( 0- 87- 10)
This memo is sent in response to a request made on your behalf by William
Thomson in a memo dated November 2, 1987.
FACT SITUATION:
The department of building and fire safety ( department) conducts inspections of
the installation of manufactured homes pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. RS.)
section 41- 2153, subsection 0, paragraph 4. The department requires that a permit be
obtained before installation of a manufactured home by both licensed installers and
consumers installing their own home. If violations are found during the installation
inspection, the department notifies the installer, whether it is a consumer or a licensed
installer, that the nonconf o m ances must be corrected. Specifically, the l e t t e r sent to
the installer states:
Noted nonconformances must be brought into compliance with the standards
and codes by within ten ( 10) working days of the date of this
letter.
If the Office has not been notified of a reinspection date within twenty ( 20)
working days of the date of this l e t t e r , a reinspection will be conducted. If
the violations have not been corrected, the Office will take appropriate
action against the listed party, including possible disconnection of utilities.
Laws 1987, chapter 126 amended A. R. S. section 4 1- 2153, subsection B to allow the
assistant director or the department to disconnect the natural gas or electrical
connections of homes on private property if the nonconformance constitutes an immediate
danger t o l i f e and property.
QUESTIONS PRESEYTED:
1. May the department require installers to obtain a permit before installing a
m anuf act ured hom e?
2. May the department require consumers who plan to complete their own
installations to obtain a permlt?
3. May the department conduct inspections of homes installed by a consumer if a
permit has not Seen obtained?
4. If an inspection has been completed, may the department require a consumer
who performed his o r her own installation to c o r r e c t the nonconformances?
ANSWERS:
I. Yes.
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
DISCUSSION :
1. An administrative agency has no common law or inherent powers. Kendall v.
Malcolm, 98 Ariz. 329, 404 P. 2d 414 ( 1965). It only has the powers provided i t by statute.
An agency cannot give itself powers not granted to i t by legislation. Corella v. Superior
Court, 144 Ariz. 418, 698 P. 2d 213 ( App. 1985).
The s t a t u t e s do not specifically require that a permit be obtained before the
installation of a mobile or manufactured home. T h e s t a t u t e s only specifically require a
perm it for bringing a mobile home i n t o Arizona. A. R. S. section 4 1- 2144, paragraph 13.
Although the legislature has not required installation permits, t h e legislature has
im pl iedly given the board of manufactured housing ( board) within the department the
authority to implement a permit procedure. The board is required to charge fees for
permits. A. R. S. section 41- 2144, paragraph 5. P e r m i t f e e s were required before a permit
was required to bring a mobile home i n t o this s t a t e ( see Laws 1984, chapter 284, section
4), s o t h e legislature envisioned that the department would require other perm its. The
legislature also understood t h a t one of the other permits could be for the installation of a
mobile o r manuf actured home. A local enforcement agency cannot inspect or charge fees
f o r the installation of a mobile o r manufactured home unless the local enforcement
agency participates in the department's permit and insignia issuance program for the
installation of mobile and manufactured hom es. A. R. S. section 4 1- 21 55. The department
could not conduct such a program if i t could not recplire installation permits.
The board is authorized to adopt rules to implement the department's powers.
A. R. S. section 41- 2144, paragraph 13. The board has prohibited a licensed mobile or
manufactured home installer from installing a unit unless an installation permit has been
obtained. A. A. C. R4- 34- 304. This rule is a valid exercise of the boards authority under
A. R. S. secuon 4 1- 2144, paragraph 13, so an installer must obtain a permit before
installing a manufactured home.
2. As indicated in the answer t o question 1, installation permits a r e allowed but
not required by the statutes. The board must adopt a rule to implement an installabon
permit requirement. The board has not adopted such a rule f o r consumers installing their
own mobile or manufactured home. A. A. C. R4- 34- 304 applies only to licensed installers.
The board has set f e e s f o r permits, but this provision does not s t a t e who must obtain a
permit. A. A. C. R4- 34- 606. Because the bmrd has n o t adopted an installation permit rule
for consurn ers, the department cannot require consumers who plan to com plete their own
installations to obtain permits.
3. The board must adopt rules concerning t h e inspection of the installation of
mobile and manufactured homes throughout t h i s state. A. R. S. section 4 1- 2144, paragraph
6. The assistant director of the department's office of manufactured housing is required
to inspect the installation of any unit, and the a s s i s t a n t d i r e c t o r of t h e department's
office of administration is authorized to make an installation inspection. A. R. S. sections
41- 2153 and 41- 2193.
A. R. S. section 41- 2142, paragraph 16 defines " installation" as:
( a) Connecting new or used mobile homes or manufactured hom es to
on- site utility terminals o r repairing these utility connections.
( b) Placing new or used mobile homes o r manufactured homes on
foundation systems o r repairing these foundation systems.
( c) Providing ground anchoring for new or used mobile homes o r
manufactured homes o r repairing t h e ground anchoring.
Unlike the definition of " installer", an installation i s n o t limited to activities
performed by a " person who engages in the business of performing installations". A. R. S.
section 41- 2142, paragraph 17. If a person who is not in the business of installing mobile
o r manufactured homes performs any of the activities described in A. R5. section
41- 2142, paragraph 16, the person i s performing an installation. The department is not
only authorized but compelled to inspect this installation.
4. The installation standards committee is required to establish rules regarding the
installation of mobile and manufactured homes. A. R. S. section 41- 2145. The department
is required to inspect installations to ensure t h a t these standards have been met. A. R. S.
section 41- 2153. If a person is in violation of an installment standard, t h e director of the
department may seek an injunction or other c o u r t o r d e r t o compel the person to c o r r e c t
the installation. A. R. S. section 41- 2193.
In certain special situations the department has additional powers. If t h e
department finds t h a t an installation is improper while the work is still being performed,
t h e department may order that the work be stopped. A. R. 5. section 41- 2193, subsection
H. If an installation violation concerns improper natural gas or electrical connections for
a home no