During the meeting, the discussion primarily revolved around the procedural hurdles in issuing permits following recent hurricane damage assessments. The current approach to evaluating damage, particularly for structures that sustained up to 30% damage, was criticized for its lack of systematic processes. The absence of a comprehensive protocol for conducting site visits before issuing permits was seen as a major contributor to delays in the recovery process. The aim was to streamline the transition from approved to issued permits without waiting for county determinations, which were not promptly available.

To address the increased workload, the city expanded its staffing levels. Pre-hurricane, the city had 19.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) dedicated to hurricane-related tasks, including code enforcement personnel. In response to the disaster’s demands, an additional 16.5 FTE were recruited, bringing the total to 36 FTE focused on recovery efforts. This expansion was supported by vendor commitments, although it presented logistical challenges, as some contracted personnel were assigned to multiple locations.

A detailed chart presented at the meeting illustrated the allocation of these additional personnel, with responsibilities spanning permit inspections, plans examinations, and packet reviews. The backlog of over 180 applications awaiting permits underscored the need for efficient deployment of inspectors, particularly in relation to determining substantial damage (SD) criteria. A suggestion to utilize building inspectors for SD inspections was raised, although this brought up concerns about their qualifications, as SD determinations require specific licensing not necessarily held by building inspectors.

Concerns were also expressed about the reliance on residents to initiate requests for SD inspections, which could lead to inconsistencies. While a framework existed for residents to call for inspections, its effectiveness remained uncertain. Additionally, the overlap between city and county inspections presented challenges in data processing, as the county had already performed several inspections.

The subjective nature of determining substantial damage was noted, with the city appearing to lean on county assessments due to their comprehensive data access. This highlighted a potential conflict in inspection prioritization, as both city and county evaluations were being conducted, necessitating a decision on which findings would carry more weight.

In addressing challenges related to accessing homes for inspections, it was mentioned that city inspectors faced difficulties when residents were unavailable. The approach included leaving notices and rescheduling when necessary, particularly for homeowners located out of state. This situation illustrated the logistical hurdles inspectors encountered while trying to maintain thorough evaluations and meet residents’ expectations for rapid resolutions.

In addition to permit and staffing issues, the meeting also covered the use of a software tool known as the “SD tool” for substantial damage determinations. Concerns were raised about the tool’s functionality, described as clunky and glitchy, which necessitated intensive quality assurance processes. The question of whether alternative tools could be used, as opposed to the potentially federally mandated SD tool, was discussed, although no clear resolution was reached.

The meeting further addressed the backlog in data entry at the county level, with discussions of supplementing the current 30 data entry personnel to alleviate delays. The topic of minimal repair permits was brought up, revealing that while 35 applications had been received, only 12 had been issued.

The conversation then shifted to local historic designation, with an update that 33 applications had been received, of which 10 were approved, and 11 were slated for consideration at an upcoming meeting. Debris cleanup efforts were also discussed, with a private residential debris pickup deadline set for December 23. The contractor, Aftermath, anticipated completing residential cleanups by December 18. Code enforcement had begun notifying property owners, issuing courtesy notices before official violation notices.

The enforcement process involved site visits for direct communication, supplemented by leave-behind notices and phone calls. Despite these efforts, some small apartment buildings continued to accumulate debris, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the outreach. Failure to comply by the set deadline could result in fines and further legal action through a special magistrate.