Hampshire officials outline steps for Hardy County to adopt state building code and offer interim inspection support

Hampshire County officials on Monday walked Hardy County commissioners through the legal framework and practical steps for adopting West Virginia's state building code, saying it would provide clear safety standards, improve housing quality and make the county more attractive to lenders and insurers.

Logan Mance, identified in the meeting as a Hampshire County commissioner, and Hampshire planning staff cited state law (West Virginia Code —5—11—5) and the administrative rule list (87 CSR 87—4) as the statutory pathway and minimum standard for a county building code. They said counties must adopt the code wholesale or not at all, but may choose optional appendices for items such as pools or home day cares.

Adoption would require a local ordinance that references the state code, a permit process, and an enforcement plan, the presenters said. Options for staffing inspections include: hiring a local code official and inspectors, contracting with an outside firm, or using provisional licensure to allow a county employee to act as an inspector while seeking full certification. Hampshire officials said they built a model permit ordinance, tracked hourly and vehicle costs, and found bringing inspections in house can be funded by permit fees while remaining below neighboring jurisdictions' fee levels.

Mance and Hampshire staff described a pragmatic phased approach several times during the presentation: adopt the code, create a clear local permitting application and timelines, designate enforcement personnel, and consider a short-term interlocal agreement under state law to have Hampshire provide inspection services while Hardy builds capacity. Under that interlocal option, inspection fees would initially be written to Hampshire while a permanent permitting fee structure would flow to Hardy once local administration is established, the presenters said.

Commissioners pressed on costs and duplication. One commissioner asked whether local banks and national mortgage intermediaries would accept a county inspection or if homeowners would face duplicate inspections; Hampshire staff said most banks accept locally required inspections but acknowledged some lenders may impose additional requirements. Commissioners also asked about liability if an inspection missed a defect; Hampshire counsel said they had not completed exhaustive research but noted that programs enabled by statute typically include statutory protections when counties act within their authorized scope and follow approved ordinances.

Hampshire staff also recommended adopting the floodplain appendix or coordinating the building-permit application with Hardy's standalone floodplain ordinance so engineered plans and the building code inspection process align. They offered to share Hampshire's ordinance language, lessons learned, and to discuss short-term support while Hardy establishes its own code office.

Next steps recorded during the meeting include further review by Hardy staff and a joint session with Hampshire commissioners the following day to locate line‑of‑authority questions and discuss the logistics of any interlocal agreement. The commission did not vote on an ordinance at this meeting.