Council discusses Building Inspector role
DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher • Editor
The Metro Council, on Monday, April 21, revisited an ongoing discussion about adopting building codes and hiring a part-time building inspector – an issue that has drawn both support and concern from local residents.
According to District 3 Council member and Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Dexter Golden, he has received several phone calls expressing various opinions.
“There’s a lot [of people] that don’t want the codes, but there’s actually quite a few that do,” he noted. The central concern? Ensuring homes are being built safely and correctly – particularly when it comes to foundational elements like footers and framing.
“I see why [some residents] would want somebody to be checking,” Golden said. “But I also see the other side – why do we need it?”
Clarifying Funding and the Role of the Inspector
Much of the discussion aimed to clarify what adopting such codes would actually mean – and, importantly, what it wouldn’t. The proposed inspector would not be a full-time county employee, would not receive benefits, and would not cost taxpayers.
“This was not somebody that we were hiring full-time. This was not somebody we were looking to put in the office,” Golden emphasized. “This is strictly funded through the Planning and Zoning – through permit fees only.”
If no permits are issued, there will be no inspector activity or associated costs. The inspector will work on an as-needed, per-call basis and be paid directly from the funds collected through individual permits.
Debating Oversight and Liability
While some on the Council suggested simplifying the process, such as providing a list of approved independent inspectors for residents to choose from, others raised concerns about liability.
“If we adopt the code, we have to enforce it,” District 2 Council member Robert Bracewell explained. He pointed out legal precedents where cities were held liable for not following through after inspectors identified problems.
The conversation also explored whether residents could opt out of inspections or whether permit fees could be structured to make inspections an optional add-on.
“We’re still studying whether or not you can opt out,” said Golden, promising to bring back a more definitive answer next month.
Not About Lawns and Fines
Golden and others were quick to draw a distinction between the proposed plan and what many fear it could become.
“This is not a code enforcer,” he said firmly. “This is not someone riding around checking if you mowed your grass. ... This would only affect you if you’re building a new house.”
The Council did not reach any final decisions during the meeting but recognized the complexity of the issue and the importance of transparent, community-focused dialogue.
At its core, the discussion centers around a single shared concern: building homes that are safe and sound – while preserving local control and minimizing bureaucracy.
