Baltimore Village committee weighs alternatives to current building‑permit setup, citing cost and safety tradeoffs

Baltimore Village council members spent a large portion of the service committee meeting on April 13 debating how the village should deliver building‑permit and inspection services.

The discussion opened with staff reporting outreach to a local candidate, Mr. Camp, who told council he would be open to serving as a chief building officer to handle permit intake, processing and inspections. Solicitor (Mr. Faco) and staff said they had asked Mr. Camp for a resume, certifications and proof of insurance and would circulate those materials when received.

“We need somebody who’s going to receive the permit applications, process them, communicate with residents, and then provide inspection services,” Village Administrator Matt Niehiser said, describing the administrative load beyond on‑site inspections.

Council members identified four options: continue the current contract with SafeBuilt (the status quo), hire Mr. Camp as an in‑house or contracted chief building officer, contract with a neighboring municipality through an intergovernmental agreement, or decertify the village building department and rely on market and third‑party inspection mechanisms.

Supporters of the SafeBuilt contract noted administrative streamlining and guaranteed turnaround times from the portal SafeBuilt provides; opponents argued the model increases costs for residents and small builders. One council member said the contract was effectively a wash financially because fees are passed through, while another said residents pay taxes and then are charged again for permit services.

Insurance concerns were a key thread. Staff relayed a written underwriter assessment that operating outside state‑certified minimums — or decertifying — would likely increase the village’s liability exposure and could raise premiums on policy renewal. “Decertifying the building department or operating outside state certified minimums can increase the village’s liability exposure,” the administrator read from the insurer note.

Several council members emphasized consequences for small local builders who might be deterred by permitting complexity, and urged talking to local contractors (for example, Bob Jude was mentioned) before making a final decision. Others argued that insufficient enforcement — selectively applying state minimums — could create safety and reputational risks if construction oversight weakened.

The committee did not adopt any formal action; members agreed to do individual research, interview stakeholders (including Mr. Camp and local builders) and bring materials back for council discussion at the next full meeting. Solicitor and staff committed to circulating Mr. Camp’s materials once received.

Next steps: the building‑department item will remain on the agenda for the next council meeting, where members said they expect to review Mr. Camp’s credentials and consider the insurance implications in greater detail.