The Planning and Development Committee debated hiring an as‑needed building inspector to perform code inspections and enforce zoning rules but did not approve the contract and instead referred the item to the county finance committee for further review.

The issue matters because county staff said there are multiple properties that need inspection — including homes tied to child welfare checks — and the proposed contract would pay an outside inspector $300 per hour. Beth (zoning administrator) told the committee, “If the inspect the contract is approved tonight, it's $300 an hour. I must remind you, I reached out to this gentleman because we did an RFP. Nobody applied.”

Committee members and staff described a mix of discussion points: the county attorney noted that if the agreement would exceed $20,000 in a single year it would trigger a required RFP; staff said there are currently four houses that need inspection now, several tied to Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) concerns; and staff proposed using zoning permitting revenue to cover the cost. Beth said permitting deposits for August were $10,019.63 and total zoning permit revenue to date for the general fund was $67,983.13.

Members expressed concern about an open‑ended hourly contract. One committee member asked for a per‑inspection expectation to be put in the agreement—suggesting a cap on hours per inspection—rather than an entirely open hourly arrangement. Beth described practical complications for some inspections, including possible administrative search warrants and greater time for cases where structures appear shifted off foundations. She also said the proposed inspector lives in Oregon and would bill mileage and travel time.

On cost and budgeting, staff suggested that the committee could place a placeholder line in the zoning budget (a number discussed informally in the meeting was $10,000) and that permitting fees could be used as a revenue stream to pay for inspections. Beth estimated, based on current caseload and discussion in the meeting, that the county might need “max 5 a year” in the near term, though she did not present a firm annual total.

Outcome: The committee took no final vote on the contract and agreed to forward the item and additional cost details to the finance committee for funding decisions and for clarification of contract terms and expectations.