The Mariposa County Board of Supervisors put off an ordinance that would bring the County’s building codes into line with the 2007 California Building Code. This is the second time in three weeks the board has taken the item off the agenda at the last minute. The board pulled a second item proposed by the building department for a second time as well.

The code update was scheduled to be approved two weeks ago, but was pulled from the agenda without explanation. The second item, a reorganization of the department, was originally set to be heard on the same Oct. 13 agenda, but was also removed.

The latest delay appears to be because the building director is sick, and administration found “a last minute problem” with the document. Benson expects the item to be brought back within two weeks.

Dick Hutchinson asked when the item would return, noting that the document has “quite a few errors.” Board Chairman Brad Aborn asked Hutchinson for a copy of the errors he found.

“Do I really want to do the County’s work?” Hutchinson replied.

The proposed ordinance will bring the County in line with California’s code, which was adopted Jan. 22, 2008, nearly two years ago. “In order to quickly adopt the new code, all the appendixes were adopted,” Building Director Fred Lustenberger explained in his board item. “This created several inconsistencies between the California Code and County Code.”

Without the new ordinance, the County would be inconsistent with the state, “making enforcement of both codes extremely difficult,” Lustenberger said.

The building department has been a hot bed of controversy in recent months. The Mariposa County Contractors’ Association has been calling for Lustenberger’s termination. Others have said he is just trying to enforce the code, and that the contractors don’t like it.

MCCA members say nothing could be farther from the truth. MCCA President Bill Verley said the association’s problem with Lustenberger center around his “arrogance and attitudes” and not about California building codes.

Electrical contractor Rob Hambleton agreed. “None of us are disputing the fact that we have to comply with codes,” he said. “We’re disputing the fact that we’re being treated as if we’re not smart enough to read them ourselves.”

The reorganization item remained off the table, too. The proposal was to “allow the department to enhance its ability to accomplish its mission of ensuring public safety,” Lustenberger’s board item said. “Recent community interest in the uniform and consistent processing of code violation complaints further indicates a need for the proposed reorganization.”

Verley said the creation of the new position was intended to bring back a former employee and further Lustenberger ’s “agenda.”

In a memo to the board, Lustenberger explained the need for restructuring. He said the department needs to move in that direction to “effectively accomplish the goal of public safety within the challenging economic climate in which it now operates.”