Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Inspections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates ordinance to require city-owned buildings to follow same inspections as private projects
Summary
Councilmember Brandon introduced an ordinance to apply the city's Unified Development Code inspection and planning procedures to city-owned buildings after the Community Place remodel missed permitting steps; council members debated staff capacity, possible state inspection delays and whether the measure needs refinement before final reading.
A councilmember introduced an ordinance on March 2 that would require city-owned buildings in Cabot to follow the same permitting, planning and inspection procedures the city requires of private property owners.
"What this ordinance does is this kind of reigns in the city own buildings," Councilmember Brandon said, adding that the change would "take the UDC and apply it to the city owned buildings." He cited the Community Place remodel as an example where permitting and inspections were missed and later corrected.
The proposal prompted a sustained debate about implementation. One council member said the change would ensure the city does not compete unfairly with local businesses and that "what's good for them is good for us." That speaker also urged the city to use licensed electricians, plumbers and HVAC contractors when appropriate.
Other council members warned the ordinance could create delays or unnecessary expense if it forces the city to rely on state inspectors. "If the inspections are done by the state, is there an additional expense?" one council member asked. Staff replied that if state inspections were required there could be impacts to the planning budget and that Section 4 of the ordinance anticipates a "good faith effort" to request and schedule state inspections; if the state is unable or unwilling to perform the inspection, the city would be required to make a documented effort to obtain the inspection.
Several council members defended their city inspectors' qualifications. A speaker noted that Cabot's inspectors had accompanied state inspectors on ride-alongs and that the local staff have presented at state and national conferences. "If the citizens of this town have to follow codes, the city should also," a council member said.
Others urged caution and more work on the language rather than rushing to a vote. One council member characterized the proposal as potentially "killing a fly with a bazooka" and recommended amending the measure and returning with clearer, narrower language. Councilmembers agreed there was no immediate need to finalize the ordinance that night and encouraged staff and the committee to revise the draft and provide clarifying edits.
Mayor and staff said they were open to amendments and additional feedback; the ordinance was moved to full council for further review. The council did not take a final adoption vote on the ordinance on March 2.
The council requested more detail from staff on how state inspectors and city inspectors would coordinate, potential costs if the state performed inspections, and the precise triggers in the ordinance that would require state involvement. Those clarifications will inform any revised draft the council considers at a later meeting.
