Munhall hears pitches from two third‑party inspection firms; staff to compare fees

Munhall Borough Council heard presentations Tuesday from two third‑party building inspection firms — Codesys Consulting and Building Inspection Underwriters — as council considers whether to consolidate inspections under a single contractor and how that would affect fees and borough revenue.

The presentations came after staff and council described the borough’s existing practice of accepting certified third‑party inspections and asked for proposals that would centralize permitting and inspection processing. "We're email driven ... you go on our website, and you click on new project submit," Jim Russell, owner of Codesys Consulting, told council as he demonstrated an online permitting workflow. "We process plans 1 to 3 business days ... everything is visible to the borough and the applicant." Russell said Codesys would add a 20% administrative fee in the firm’s proposal that would be shared with the borough as an administrative revenue stream.

Mark Stanton, regional manager for Building Inspection Underwriters, emphasized in-person service alongside electronic submissions and said his firm handles roughly 60 communities in western Pennsylvania. "We offer personal service. If someone wants to sit down with the inspector, go over their application, we're very happy to do that," Stanton said. He described a hybrid model that accommodates design professionals who submit electronically as well as smaller contractors who prefer in‑person assistance.

Council members and residents pressed presenters on three practical points: whether residents would pay higher permit costs, how large file or project data are handled, and whether a single contractor would change the role of the borough’s building code official. Councilor Eads asked whether resident permit fees would rise; Russell said actual permit fee levels would be set in contract negotiations and that his company’s sample proposal shows the 20% administrative add‑on. Council staff asked about technical capacity; Russell said his web‑based service currently handles large institutional projects, including work on UPMC and Pittsburgh International Airport facilities.

During public comment and council discussion, residents and councilors noted the borough already uses multiple certified third‑party inspectors (named in discussion as MDIA, BIU, COSIS and plans examiners) and that moving to a single vendor could simplify scheduling and produce consistent inspections but might reduce the borough’s direct control and change the fee structure for applicants. A resident observed that some contractors prefer dealing with the same inspector repeatedly; supporters of consolidation said a single vendor would standardize procedures across the borough.

Council did not take a formal vote. Instead, Borough staff were asked to compare the two firms’ proposals and existing fee schedules and return a written report at the next meeting. "Could you give us a report on this for next week?" a council member asked; staff agreed to do so.

The issue will return to council with staff recommendations and (if requested) a draft contract specifying fee splits, service levels, and termination terms. Councilors said they want clarity on how permit revenue and any new administrative fee would be split and whether the borough should adjust its own permit fees if third‑party fees change.

Ending: If staff recommend a change, councilors said they expect to review a draft contract and fee schedule before any formal vote.