BGNN staff report

BARBERTON  City council is scheduled to vote Tuesday on whether the city should contract with Summit County to serve as a certified building commissioner for the city’s building department.

Mayor William Judge said he believes it may be more advantageous for the city to contract with a private company instead. His concerns with contracting with the county include loss of revenue, an increase of turnaround time for items such as permits, and potentially eliminating the city building department down the road, he said.

For a municipality to have its own building department, it must be registered with the state of Ohio and have a certified building commissioner, Judge said.

Certified building officials (CBOs) are hard to come by, he said. The process to become certified is rigorous. CBO duties include signing off on documents, conducting plan reviews and inspections. The city had a building commissioner for years and had an agreement for several years to provide CBO services to neighboring city of Norton. Since the position became open, Barberton has been advertising for quite some time to fill the seat and the county has been serving as building commissioner. Recently, the city of Norton began contracting with the county for building commissioner services. The county offers this service to other nearby communities such as Akron and Cuyahoga Falls.

Barberton City Council has heard two readings for contracting with the county for building commissioner services. A third reading is set for Tuesday, May 26 and council will have an opportunity to vote.

Judge said late last week he is concerned about whether council has sufficient information to make an informed decision about the situation. He believes this is a serious issue and he hopes council members are weighing the pros and cons. No one has asked him to share information he has gathered and he plans to share information with council before they vote Tuesday.

Judge said he is opposed to the city contracting with the county for building commissioner services for several reasons.

“One, from a financial perspective we will lose money; two, we will lose control over what permits cost … three, we lose control over oversight,” he said.

For example, the county potentially could increase the cost of permits – such as a roofing permit – and the city would have no say. If someone is doing a project or expansion of their house on a weekend, for example, the city loses the oversight of those projects, he said.

If the city goes with the county, the building department will not have to lay anyone off initially, but permits and plan reviews pay for most of the building department and the department will no longer receive revenue from those, Judge said.

If the city goes with the county, the city would still collect zoning fees, contract and registration fees, and rental registration fees, he said.

An option could be using money from rental registrations to pay building department employees, but landlords may prefer that money go toward improving the neighborhood rather than paying for operations of the department.

“You’re essentially taking two buckets of money and you’re doing away with one of them,” he said. “There will be less that we’ll be able to do in the neighborhoods.”

Judge mentioned that other municipalities that go with the county institute a $50 or so zoning compliance form for any work done on homes or businesses. He said he would like to propose that council do so to generate money for the city but unfortunately that means home and business owners pay more money.

“I think it’s important that people realize we lose oversight, control, and some finances there,” Judge said.

Without a building commissioner, the city has an option of going with county or contracting with a private business, which may be costlier than the county but the city can also control the cost because they pay for services as needed, Judge said.

He said he believes choosing a private company is the wiser decision because the price is still within budget, it means the city can maintain its control, and it’s appealing to developers and home and business owners that a municipality is a “one-stop-shop” with having its own building department. If council chooses a private company he believes the building department can maintain their positions.

He said there are half a dozen positions currently within the building department including clerks, property maintenance inspector and residential building inspectors. If the county takes over he said down the road the city positions could potentially be eliminated.

Judge said he would like to recommend to council that if they vote to use the county for building services that they include an exit clause in the contract. He also advises that the city list with the state as having a city building department contracting with the county so Barberton could potentially re-establish the building department in the future if they choose.

Judge said thinking toward the future, without the city having its own building department, an example Judge is concerned about is the loss of revenue from permits and inspections with future developments such as the 170 homes coming online with the Trucen Farm project.

Judge said residents and business owners could potentially see greater costs for permits and fees and may see a longer turnaround time for inspections if the city goes with the county.

Judge said if the council votes to continue to work with the county, the agreement will go into effect 30 or 60 days from now.