Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Buildings Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Buildings & Inspections warns HB 361 could shift plan review to third parties, raising quality and revenue concerns
Summary
Director Dahlberg told council his department has improved plan-review metrics but said House Bill 361's push for third‑party reviewers could reduce the city's quality control and revenue; he also outlined staffing constraints, the Building Inspection Academy gains and recommendations to postpone the vacant‑building registration if cuts are required.
Director Richard Dahlberg presented the Department of Buildings and Inspections' FY performance and warned that state legislation and budget reductions could reshape how the city enforces standards.
Dahlberg told the committee that large plan reviews ("Tier 2") were meeting targets at about 96% in the first two quarters, while tiered reviews for smaller projects were about 94%. He said property‑maintenance and vacant‑building response metrics remain in the 60% range but should improve as recently expanded inspection staffing graduates from the department's academy.
Dahlberg highlighted the Building Inspection Academy results — a recent cohort started with 26 trainees and 25 are expected to graduate; he said roughly 96% have passed property‑maintenance certification, 72% have passed residential inspection exams, and 40% have passed commercial inspection exams — and said the department will continue adding staff to reduce backlogs.
On policy, Dahlberg flagged a proposed state measure referenced in the hearing as "House Bill 361" that would allow third‑party plan reviewers and inspectors. "While there's provisions in the law that say don't do anything you ethically shouldn't do, the reality is that a third party entity is going to be hired by somebody and they want to be able to be hired again by that individual," he said, warning that the city would lose direct quality control and face a fee reduction that could affect revenue.
Dahlberg also outlined PLAP (private‑lot abatement program) volume growth (about a 26% increase in private‑lot‑abatement requests year over year) and described a new software rollout that will move many processes online and improve the department's ability to check application completeness at intake.
On the 5.1% reduction scenario, Dahlberg said the department would face roughly $930,000 in cuts and that, given the personnel nature of the budget, the options include delaying the vacant‑building registration program already prepared to launch and reducing funding to the essential‑services program — both choices that would have downstream effects on neighborhood safety and enforcement reach.
Council members discussed the vacant‑building registration and its fee structure. One councilor cited a projection of about $1.4 million in revenue once the program phases in given an estimate of 2,800 buildings; Dahlberg confirmed the six‑month vacancy threshold before a building is registered. The transcript shows inconsistent numeric phrasing around the per‑building fee (the discussion cited a per‑building charge as "$2.50 every 6 months" and also used larger annual figures); the exact per‑building fee and initial revenue timing were not specified clearly in the presentation.
Council members also sought clarification about the essential‑services program (used primarily for rental properties with immediate safety issues). Dahlberg said the program is targeted to rental properties where evacuation would otherwise be required; contractors may be hired to make repairs so residents can remain, with the city invoicing property owners and using liens or payment plans if owners do not reimburse.
Dahlberg urged council to consider the combined effect of staffing, software changes and outside legislation on the department's ability to provide quality reviews and maintain revenues.
The committee moved to questions after the presentation.
