Cities and counties split on third‑party plan review; officials seek minimum standards and liability protections

Municipal building officials, county representatives and private inspection firms gave contrasting accounts of third‑party review. City officials from Fort Worth and El Paso described long‑running programs with registration, certification, insurance, audits and quality‑control sampling; Fort Worth said it has run a program for more than two decades and performs regular QA audits of third‑party work. ‘‘We have had 27 years to figure out what works,’’ Fort Worth’s senior staff said.

Counties and the Conference of Urban Counties warned that any statewide expansion must preserve county roles and sovereign immunity and require minimum qualifications, conflict‑of‑interest rules and an audit and suspension process. Adam Haines (Conference of Urban Counties) urged that counties retain final sign‑off on platting and that third‑party review include indemnity and insurance so lawsuits do not draw counties into liability.

Private providers and builders argued a regulated statewide registration and licensing framework (similar to Florida’s model) would provide predictable capacity and help meet permitting needs. Florida examples were cited repeatedly: licensed private reviewers are registered, audited and able to perform plan review and inspections with municipal oversight.

The committee heard technical recommendations: minimum certification standards (ICC or state license), insurance and bonding, county/city audit rights and a staged disciplinary matrix for poor performers. No legislative action was taken; staff were asked to incorporate the technical input into draft options.