Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses draft 'responsible contractors' code amendment; directs staff to refine language and return
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a draft code amendment designed to allow the county to suspend or debar contractors with repeated or willful performance violations. Commissioners raised questions about due process, impact on homeowners, partnerships/LLCs and safeguards against abuse; staff will refine the draft and return for further discussion.
Kootenai County commissioners on Aug. 14 discussed a draft amendment to the building code and land‑use code intended to address recurrent contractor performance problems. The draft would give the county authority to identify contractors with deficient performance records and, under specified thresholds, suspend or debar them from conducting work requiring county permits. The board provided direction to staff to continue refining the draft and return for additional discussion.
Staff presentation and rationale: Director Callahan said the proposal grew from repeated incidents involving a small number of contractors and noted the county lacks a licensure board that can revoke contractor credentials. The draft would allow the county to prevent repeat bad actors from obtaining county permits in order to protect homeowners and the community from substandard or dangerous work.
Commissioner concerns and safeguards: Commissioners sought protections against unfair or permanent punishment. Questions included whether the rule would apply to businesses and individual principals, how the county would prevent a contractor from abandoning an LLC and restarting under a different name, and what appeal and review mechanisms would be available. Staff and legal counsel (Pat) said the draft would include objective thresholds, progressive discipline (suspension prior to debarment), and an appeal process to the board; staff suggested implementing a burden‑of‑proof standard and possible “clear and convincing” evidence language.
Homeowner choice and unintended consequences: Commissioners raised scenarios where a homeowner with an existing county permit wants to hire a contractor identified in the draft list; staff said the details on whether a permitted project could later use a debarred contractor would be drafted for the board to review. Commissioners also discussed how to handle new contractors with no performance record and how to avoid penalizing good partners in multi‑member companies.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft ordinance to address the commissioners’ concerns (process safeguards, appeal language, progressive discipline and treatment of partnerships/new firms) and return it to the board for further direction prior to any public or planning‑commission review.
