So I'm going to call to order this work session for the Monroe County Board of Commissioners.
It's May 21st. All three commissioners here and present in the NatU Hill Room. Mr. Schilling, Mr. LeRoux
from our building department. I guess you should just take all three together because it seems like
they are all connected. All right, I'll start.
We have three ordinances, Dave Schelling from the legal department. We have three ordinances relating
to our building department that we're presenting, and we'll be asking you to consider it at the next
regular meeting. The first one is amendments to chapter 430, and that's our building code. That's the
code where we adopt all the state codes by reference and so forth. And so the legislature has been
tinkering around with the building enabling legislation and has come up with a new chapter 36.7 2.5
that relates to class two buildings. And it says if you're gonna issue permits for class two buildings,
which you have to do, you have to follow this procedure. So we've made changes to our ordinance
to incorporate the
changes that have statutorily been made to the class two building procedures. And we've incorporated
some definitions that are included in that chapter and just sort of rejiggered the ordinance to match
what actually happens in practice. And that's, I don't know, Bobbi, do you have anything else to add
to that? All right, class two refers to
family homes and town thank you um you're talking about the very first uh ordinance on the list correct
well i'm talking about the the one the amendments to chapter 430 so the first sentence of each document
will tell you what's being amended yeah let me go back
Monroe County building code right 430-1 okay so this matches state code as it exists now yes which might
not be how it exists within a few months yeah that's true too
Just so you all are aware, they're already talking about making changes. They're fairly cumbersome
administrative procedure. Talking with folks right now about trying to get that part of it fixed. It
requires us to monitor applications for three days for
assumption the app proper applications and letters if we don't get a reason they're already working
on it and on some additional additional well why do we have to monitor the applications
They want to make sure that permits are issued very quickly. And so they have a situation where you
have to alert them through an email that the application they've submitted is complete, and then they
have so much response time and so forth. And typically, Bobby and his department is able to actually
issue the permit before these provisions even run out.
Is there any purpose? Like, is there any penalty if it's not? So this is the question I've been trying
to get an answer to. I understand that they want the three-day time period if the permit application
is incomplete. That makes sense to me, but to tell people it's proper doesn't. Yes, there can be penalties.
funding permit fees if time frames aren't met. Gotcha. For the issuance of a permit. They said our plan
for class two structures, and we've been able to do this for decades, our plan is just to get our building
portion, building permit portion done before
Notifying them that they have an incomplete application. So what I'm working to, I totally understand.
If you make an application and it's incomplete, you shouldn't just sit there and folks not be told.
We're all on board with that. I just don't understand the reasoning for having to tell them it's complete.
complete and let us move on. Right now our front office has to monitor these things. There are letters
to send out if we don't have. And once the electronic communication or is it. The actual legislation
allows seven days to complete
And none of this impacts at all the agreement we have with the city of Bloomington. That's all woven
in here. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Their process is the same. They're just where we used to collect everything
and do all of the running around for everybody. And that requires each step to be done.
the individual departments. That's what seems like it would take longer. Yes. It does. And this is why
I don't have an answer for it. I think Monroe County was the model that the rest of the state should
have been utilizing. We worked with the city for 40 years to develop 35 years. I'm sorry.
to develop a system that was easy for the folks of Monroe County and the building department did all
of the shuttling too. Departments were kind enough to shuttle back all of the information we needed.
I think there's a misunderstanding. We have always issued multiple permits at the same time. We issued
them. Building department at the same time collect
the fees, disperse them. We did all of that. The legislation said we weren't fast enough, I guess. I
think this legislation was not aimed at us. Yeah, no kidding. I think this legislation was aimed at
counties that pulled up building permits for whatever reason, whatever. Certainly, it's not a mark on
your good record and your hard work and your staff's work.
Unfortunately, even if it wasn't, it has wrecked decades of work. Sometimes it was tough negotiating
with with different to make communications easy. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm sorry about that. And I hope it
can get fixed. So so we don't have a choice. We have to do it as the state wants us to do it now. Correct.
That's correct.
One other interesting feature of the new state legislation is that individuals seeking building permits
can use a private provider to do the inspections and plan review. And if they do that and the private
provider provides a certificate and an affidavit to the building department, the building department
has to issue the permit. They can't, they can't,
second guess it or anything they have to issue it it does uh fortunately release the county of any liability
uh in in that situation if a private provider is used isn't the private provider provision sorry I was
taxing uh is that isn't that provision only if
certain initial deadlines are not met by the building department or is that under any circumstance if
the deadlines aren't met they can say hey i'm going to go to a private provider or they can do that
initially they have to they have to indicate that on the building permit application okay but they pay
for that not us oddly enough we're still charged to maintain public permit records and
was to issue a certificate of occupancy on a building. Wow. Crazy. And just so y'all are aware, our
plan is to be more efficient, faster, more knowledgeable, and to be best value for for. I think we do
that already. Yeah, I was gonna say I think your value prospect is already much better than what's in
the private market. So I wouldn't
appreciate the sentiment though really it's it's good that you're thinking that way but i think this
legislation was directed at some other counties gotten caught in the crossfire um the other the other
two pieces of one one of the other ordinances amends chapter 433 and that's our licensing and registration
chapter for
electrical contractors and plumbing contractors. And so the changes to this are basically just to bring
the terms and the language that's used currently into the ordinance and to clear up a few questions
that have come up in this process. I don't know, Bobby, if you want to hit those.
The state, and I appreciate it in some degrees, because I'm a homeowner as well, basically allows homeowners
to do a lot of work on their homes, homes that they own. Our ordinance has allowed that for decades.
What is happening now is certain folks will own a house for two weeks,
and claim home ownership of that house and not use licensed contractors and plumbers or electricians
and plumbers and then they don't own the house anymore. Changes there are to say no, this is for home
that is your primary residence, right? Not market again.
bringing language up to the that's used today and just kind of clarify the testing and quality. Monroe
County licenses electricians, but the state licenses plumbers. That's why there's no testing procedures laid out.
On that first ordinance, section two, it says specifically after December 31st, 2020, that because of
the state legislation and when it starts. So it is your page three. On the 430, did you say? It's on
the one that says 430 and 433. Oh, that? It's the first one.
That's the permit fee ordinance. This is an ordinance that changes the way building permit fees are
established. It states that
the fees have to be reasonably related to the cost of providing the service. That's always been the
case under the home rule law, but they've added it again to this section on building permit fees. They
only allow you after January 1 of 2027, you can only change your building department fees once every
five years. And only then there's a
some calculus that you have to do. It's tied to the consumer price index or something like that. So
it can only go up so much unless you have a public hearing in front of the county council and demonstrate
that you need to charge more. So there's a safety valve there that allows us to do that. These fees
that we're talking about today were last changed in 2012.
So they need to be updated and Bobby has gone through and and done new calculations about how much time
it takes to do each type of permit and so forth and has has made the adjustments and we've made some
of the adjustments to to deal with.
the new legislation on class two buildings about how we have to sometimes return fees. If we collect
a building permit and then they decide, hey, we're going to use a private provider, we have to return
the fee with the exception of $100, which is our convenience fee. So this is the building permit ordinance.
We have it set up for advertisement. Once it's adopted, it'll have to be advertised in the newspaper,
and then it takes effect six months later. So we won't be collecting these fees until towards the end
of the year. And one option that Bobby has suggested is just making it effective on January 1, just
to be clean.
So that's that's something if the commissioners desire that we can we can change that when we present
the final version to you. That makes sense. In that section two there's also provision for a non-reverting
fund. Yes that's part of the new law and it says all building fees have to go into a non-revert
Uh-huh. So it's interesting because the legislature put the same limit on fee increases for permits
through planning as they did for building. So they're in the same situation. We are in the same situation.
But they don't have this provision. Yes, that's correct. They do not have to create a dedicated fund.
So the non-reverting fund is dedicated to
In other words, it needs to be used to pay for salaries and fuel and supplies or whatever is in the
building department's budget. Am I reading that correctly? That would be my assumption. Okay.
So the council, is the council aware of this? I don't know. I would say make sure that at budget time
you explain all of this to them. Yes.
this is new. And it's not the same for planning. Okay. Yeah. Ask when does the need to be established?
Starting January one. Okay. So yeah, so during the budget process, we need to make sure that plan on
studying this more. Honestly, this is new. Yeah.
more enjoy just being a building inspector than dealing with the legislative interpreter. I think that
I'm going to have to get some education and I'm going to have to do everything you can and you've done
everything you can and I appreciate seeing you.
My colleagues have other questions about the three. You covered all of it. This is a heavy notes day.
Thanks. I just said this is a heavy notes day. I'm sitting here taking notes because it's interesting
to see how things are changing and how things are working. So yeah. So June 4th. Okay. So that's our
next meeting.
I think January 1st makes sense for the expectation. There was one other thing on the permits that Bobby
had worked on. There's an opportunity sometimes it's necessary to have a private contractor review class one.
Those usually go to the state but there's there's times when they're looked at through a private person
and so the fee for that is there's going to be a fee established that is going to be sufficient to cover
what it is likely to cost a private contractor. Go ahead Angie. Yes because I've been involved in this
conversation with Bobby so I just need some clarification because my understanding is that
this need for the contract is specifically because of our anticipated missing commercial inspector building
inspector and because they're trying to find a relief valve because they're only going to have I think
one or one and plus Bobby that could do that. So this is actually going to be a relief valve that's
going to be in place.
And so my understanding is that these plan reviews that had been done by building, our building department
will go to this, to a contracted entity. And this fee is to, is a fee that is gonna be assessed to all
properties. Last one.
and covering the cost, so either we do it in house or if we send it outside of our house, it covers
that cost. If it doesn't cover the cost outside of our house, we will eat that difference. That make
sense? Yes, that's my understanding as well. I just continue to have conversations about this all the
time. I wanna make sure this is right.
I had a number in here that I thought was going to $300 for that plan review. I spoke yesterday with
a private provider that I trust very much, and they've said that that will not cover their plan review
fees. So I got the number of hours correct. The average number of hours is three. I held up four fingers
and said three for a commercial plan review.
Obviously there are smaller projects that take less time, and there are apartment buildings that take
substantially more time than that. But the average is three, and they're at about $150. Ours is about
$100 an hour, and there's... But if we still do it at the 300, that is fair for everybody.
Because that is what would be the cost for you to do it, right? That would be the average cost for us.
We're going to eat that other. So well, is there a way around that? I mean, Mr Schilling, is there a
way that we could establish sort of? I've seen us do that before in other venues where we've said we're
going to pass this cost along to
you if it exceeds this, this is what you're paying for. Is there any way to do that in the building
code where we can just pass that number along? Yeah, and we had language that we thought about where
it would be established if a private provider was used.
that their fee would be added to the fee charged by the building department and that would have to be
paid by the applicant at the time. And that was one approach we talked about. The other approach we
talked about was just having like on-call reviewers like we do with highway and stormwater, have a contract
for an on-call at such and such a price.
would invoice us and then we the problem is is that this is happening because we are short-staffed and
we're sure that's because finish that sentence we're short-staffed because we anticipate somebody leaving
uh-huh and we haven't filled the other position so there's two but there will be two vacant positions
and has the council talked about filling the vacancy or not talked about filling the vacancy
You can give a permission to fill one. Did you ask about the other? I did not, because maybe it's good,
maybe it's bad. When I'm asked to do something, like not fill a position, even if I think we need it,
I do that thing, because I'm assuming that there is a reason that I've been asked to do that thing.
But we can't.
We can't function as a department without at least one commercial building inspector. The fact that
we're losing this one is what's causing this problem. So what the council needs to learn and maybe share
this with the council is that if we don't get this filled that it will come at a cost to the county
because if
We set a $100 per hour, three hour rate average, and every time we use somebody outside, it costs $150,
$200 more. The county's absorbing that. Taxpayers are absorbing that, like corporate welfare. It's corporate
welfare. Taxpayers are paying for it. So if the council understands that, then maybe they will go ahead
and if they haven't been told about it yet, that may be a way to present it to them. I don't think the
council's the problem. The council's not the problem.
at this point in time. The problem is we have somebody who's going to be leaving that we weren't planning
on leaving. And so that has resulted in this rather dire situation, if you will. The other problem that
has been brought to my attention is that the job description needs to be changed because we have somebody
who has done it.
and they said they're not going to do it. They don't want to do the commercial because it never ending
and they get paid the same regardless of that never ending nightmare versus a potential, a nightmare
that ends. So the job description needs to be changed because it sounds to me like from talking with
Mr. LaRue,
that the commercial inspector needs to be classified at a higher classification than the residential.
Well, I asked that before, but there's a lot more that has to be done. There are a couple things, and
I'm going to admit to you that the job descriptions that we're using now, I put them together within
the first six months of
this position and I think some ways are really successful and this way they're not. For example, I have
tried basically the third empty position, the third is the position that I left and we have worked for
two and a half years to try to fill it and I cannot get a qualified applicant. Because of the pay?
I'm assuming that's part of it. The knowledge level, I mean, and part of it is... This is the first
time you've heard, though, that this is somebody who's actually differentiated between the two types
of inspectors. And so, you know, to know all of the things that you need to know to be a commercial
building inspector, you can just be a commercial contractor. Yeah. And a highly successful one.
Right. And it's a different thing. But I'm getting my the application and I'm not trying to
but at qualification as I installed screen doors for Lowe's for six months. Our jobs are so much more
than that. Well, I leave it in your capable hands to work with Ms. Purdy and Mr. Schilling and figure
out the best way to manage this short term and long
Obviously, this is a long-term answer to meet state code and state statute, but short-term, what do
we need from council if they don't, you know, they need to be alerted to what's going on, possible impact.
We can get that information. I'll take responsibilities for the things that I suggest, right? Part of
my concern with just
this is the fee that the private entity charged you is that it doesn't seem to our community. It doesn't
seem like that is everybody, and then if I have to decide, no, we're gonna do this one for 300 and you're
gonna go there for 900, that creates additional areas of conflict that, you know,
that I would have good reasons for making that decision. And just a clarification, Mr. Schilling, if
when we talked about the private individuals inspection work, is that also true on these projects or
is it only true last year?
we talked about earlier, only related to class two. That's what I thought. These commercial plan reviews.
Yeah, they really are. I mean, and there's so much on the line. It's so important to get it right. OK.
Well, I'll leave it. I mean, you all understand the issue. You all understand. Whatever you need from
us to support you, let us know, and we'll do everything we can. I realize.
But I do want to share, I, as a relief valve, plan reviews are something that I can work with. I don't
have any interest in working with an on-site inspector that I have no, you know, no real, and we're
able to accomplish the things we can in our department because of the reputation that we have. Not willing
to let an unknown face
uh... damage what we have worked for decades to to build and maintain not everybody likes us i'm not
i'm not trying to say that sometimes people are unhappy with the things that we say but i think they
respect us you have an excellent reputation and you and your staff have built that and uh... we can't
let the state legislature destroy so keep up the good work and thank you for
Working on this, I know it takes a lot to pull all this together. So thank you to all of you for working
on this. And we can hear this on the fourth or if we have more time later. Thank you. I think it's got
to get done in June if we want it by January 1st. That's true. It's got to be done by the end of June.
Yes, for sure. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thanks for taking the time to answer all
my questions. Sorry. It's interesting. Like the legislature thinks these things up.
You know, it's not like, oh, just put it in your code and you're fine and it'll all work out. It doesn't.
All right. Mr. Cockrell. Yes, and hopefully I can be fairly, fairly brief on this. In December of 2024,
the commissioners, we went through the process to approve an easement for Southern Monroe Water around
the property.
In that easement in 2024, it included the ability for utilities to utilize these easements to utilize
the structure. Well, they're going through their project now. Duke, the utility that would have been
authorized, and I think is authorized under our former one, however, they refuse to do any of the work
unless they have an easement of their own. The easement is for the same area, same restrictions, same
everything, so there's really no value to it.
So I don't think we have to go through the formal process, because if we were given away, it's not worth
$1,000, right? So what I would request is so that they can keep their project moving, that you guys
authorize the president and commissioners to sign the same easement stating basically Duke instead of
allowing it to be used through the Southern Monroe Water Utility. I guess that's the request.
And that's not what, if we do that, it's not going to impact Southern Monroe's. No, they're both not
exclusively. Got it. Okay. Great. That was the word. Uh, question. Something we could go ahead and approve today.
I think you could approve today. I actually, I guess I would prefer you go ahead and vote on it today.
I really think it's already been approved in 2024, but we're changing it enough that I think it would
be nice to have a vote. Would we need to ratify it as well in June or not? No, I think this has already
been approved. Yep. Okay. So go ahead and make a motion that we approve
the revision, facilities easement at, I call it Smithsville. I would say the Smithsville diamond property.
There you go, Smithsville diamond property. We have a motion and a second. Does anybody have a public
comment for this? You can raise your hand.
All those in favor of modifying the easement to diamond facilities at the Smithville property signify
by saying aye. Motion.
With that, we are adjourned. Thanks everyone.