Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pasco staff asks council for guidance on reducing inspection requirements for small projects
Summary
Staff presented options to remove certain low-risk residential/commercial items from mandatory inspection requirements in Pasco’s municipal code or adopt a plan-review-only permit; councilmembers generally favored a plan-review compromise and asked staff to return with fee and procedure details.
City staff presented an informal proposal to align the city’s permit and inspection code with the International Building Code by removing some low-risk items from required inspections, and sought council guidance on whether to adopt an exemption or a reduced plan-review-only approach.
Building official (transcript: Miss Seagdahl) identified categories being considered for removal from mandatory inspections: single-story detached accessory structures below certain square-foot thresholds (for example sheds under 200 square feet for residential), small sidewalks and driveways not over a basement or right-of-way, retaining walls under 4 feet, and similar low-risk items. Staff noted advantages of reducing the regulatory burden — faster homeowner improvements, fewer staff inspection hours and more city resources available for larger commercial and residential projects.
Staff also described drawbacks: potential encroachment over easements, sight-line and public-safety issues with fences, and subsequent enforcement burdens where homeowners build without realizing code or easement limits. As a compromise, staff proposed a plan-review-only permit (permit application and plan check but no scheduled inspections) to alert property owners to easements and code limits while reducing inspection workloads. Councilmembers indicated support for the plan-review compromise, asking staff to return with proposed fees, an expedited process and clear website guidance so owners understand that construction done without a plan review is ‘‘at your own risk.’’
Councilmember questions focused on cost for a plan-review permit and enforcement posture for structures that later pose safety or easement-access problems. The city attorney noted enforcement and abatement steps are easier where a permit requirement exists because the city can quickly document permit status in court if removal is required. Staff said they will return with draft ordinance language, fee proposals and implementation steps.
No ordinance was enacted; council directed staff to develop a plan-review option while outlining enforcement, cost and customer-notice details for a future council decision.
