Carroll County considers bringing building permits and inspections in-house with proposed ordinance

Carroll County officials held a public forum on a proposed ordinance to adopt the Kentucky Building Code and the Kentucky Residential Code at the local level, a move county staff said would let the fiscal court contract a local building inspector and keep permitting and inspection records in the county.

The proposal, presented by Matt Doozing, Carroll County director of government services, would not change state technical standards, Doozing said; it would allow the county to administer the existing Kentucky codes locally so residents do not have to travel to Frankfort for routine permits. "This has nothing to do with data centers," Doozing told the audience, adding that the ordinance "will not help them come in. It will not keep them out." He said the county wants to provide a local resource for questions and inspections and to make certificates of occupancy and permit records more accessible for homeowners and lenders.

The county emphasized two practical changes the ordinance would enable: hiring or contracting a local building inspector and retaining permanent permit records locally. Doozing said the county modeled permit fees on neighboring jurisdictions; under the proposal the inspector would receive about 90% of permit fees to cover inspection costs while the county would retain roughly 10% for administrative overhead. "We're not trying to make money off this," Doozing said; "it's primarily to pay for the inspector and to provide a local service." The draft ordinance adopts the state codes under Kentucky's 'mini-maxi' approach, meaning Carroll County could not weaken the state standards and would generally adopt the minimums and maximums already in state code.

Matt Dunway, introduced as the building inspector who has worked regionally as a consultant, described the inspection sequence for new residential construction: footing/foundation inspections before concrete is poured, a rough-framing inspection after mechanicals are installed, an insulation inspection to verify R-values, and a final inspection before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Dunway said inspections focus on safety and compliance with the code rather than cosmetic work. He added that some specialized or third-party testing (concrete slump tests, certain special inspections) remains the responsibility of third-party inspectors and would still be collected and filed with county records.

Speakers clarified limits on local authority: several categories remain state-controlled even if the county adopts the ordinance — notably occupancies over certain thresholds (for example, venues with large public occupancy, some churches and industrial buildings) and certain historic 'Main Street' designations that the state retains. Doozing said agricultural uses that meet state definitions generally remain exempt from permitting.

The forum included a lengthy public exchange about planning and zoning, a separate legal and procedural effort. Multiple residents tied the building-code conversation to broader worries about industrial development and data centers and urged the court to pursue planning and zoning in addition to local permitting. Doozing and others responded that planning and zoning is a distinct, multi-step process that would require separate deliberation and typically takes years to implement.

Residents raised enforcement and equity concerns: how the county would detect unpermitted work without relying solely on neighbor complaints, how low-income residents would access cleanup or compliance assistance, and whether permit fees would be burdensome. Doozing said Carroll County already has a nuisance ordinance and a code enforcement officer and that the county is pursuing grant funding to help build enforcement capacity. He identified a grant program (referred to in the forum as the BRIC/"brick" grant) that is FEMA-funded as one potential source to support hiring and training; staff said grant funds could accelerate implementation but would not be the county's only funding option.

Doozing told attendees the ordinance has completed a first reading and that a second reading is scheduled for the second Tuesday in June (the county agenda and website list meeting dates). No final vote was recorded at the forum. The forum closed after residents and staff exchanged further details on timelines, inspection response windows and how the county would make records and services accessible to residents.

The fiscal court will consider public comments before the second reading; if Carroll County adopts the ordinance it would administer state building requirements locally, contract or hire inspectors, and begin keeping permit records in-county while some state-level inspections and approvals would continue to be required for high-occupancy and industrial uses.