The Backlog and the Moonlighting Inspector

Step 1: shrink the number before working it. Sort the 620: (a) expired or abandoned under IBC Sec. 105.5 (no activity or inspection for 180 days), (b) active and on schedule, (c) active and behind. Send written expiration notices to (a) with a reinstatement path. That bucket usually collapses quickly and honestly.

Step 2: risk-based priority for what remains.

1. Life-safety impairments: sprinkler or alarm out of service, occupancy without a CO, schools, assembly, high-rise.
2. CO-dependent inspections in occupied buildings.
3. Residential rough-in and finals.
4. Low-risk work - fences, reroofs, simple trade finals - through video or photo inspections, over-the-counter approvals, or self-certification where code and local policy allow.

Step 3: capacity. Use contract or interlocal inspectors for the predictable volume; target overtime only at the life-safety queue. Ask council for a supplemental appropriation with a number attached - the cost of two contract inspectors against the liability of 620 unclosed permits.

Step 4: publish it. Give council and the public a written service-level commitment with the priority order and target days. Report weekly: permits closed, median review days, aging buckets by category.

What not to do. Do not let the loudest developer's project jump the queue through informal pressure. That is how a backlog becomes a lawsuit.

Third-party review. Nothing is inherently improper about it, but it must run through an adopted process, not an applicant's private arrangement with staff. Where authorized, third-party review is done by an approved agency under contract with the jurisdiction, with a written report; the building official retains the permit decision and the responsibility.

A private payment to a reviewer the applicant selected, where staff then adopt the result, fails on procurement, scope control, conflict screening and appearance. Decline it.

Expedited review. Legitimate if it is (a) authorized by ordinance, (b) in the adopted fee schedule, (c) available to anyone who pays, (d) priced to recover cost, and (e) does not reduce the technical review. What is not legitimate is a payment that buys a different standard of review or that goes to an individual employee.

Message to council. If the city wants expedited service, council adopts a fee and the department creates a review lane. Staff cannot accept the developer's arrangement as offered.

Check state procurement and ethics rules, and whether the developer has pending applications that would make the arrangement look like a gift to staff.

Immediate. Reassign the six permits from that inspector today. He inspects or approves nothing connected to that contractor. Document the reassignment.

Audit. Pull the two approvals he signed for that contractor: dates, inspection records, photos, whether the work matched the approved plans. If approvals were signed without inspections or backdated, that is a separate and far more serious matter.

Investigate. Notify HR and the city attorney; follow the personnel policy and any applicable ethics statute. Interview the inspector with representation. Determine whether outside work for a permit holder is prohibited by policy and whether he was compensated.

Correct the record. Have a second inspector re-inspect the two projects. If deficiencies exist, issue the appropriate notices - the work is judged on the code, not on who approved it.

Systemic fix. Annual conflict-of-interest disclosure for all inspectors; a written policy prohibiting outside work on projects within the jurisdiction; rotation of inspectors so one person does not cover the same contractors indefinitely; supervisory review of a sample of approvals each quarter.

Tone. Treat it as an integrity and policy problem, not a personal betrayal. The department's credibility with council depends on the appearance of even-handed enforcement.