Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Services topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Genola interviews three firms for building‑inspector contract; decision deferred to February

3380347 · January 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council heard presentations from Staley & Associates, SiteServe (power/structural firm) and a third inspection firm; council members praised relationship approach but deferred hire to next meeting for additional review and contracting.

Genola town officials interviewed three candidate firms on Jan. 15 to provide building‑inspector and plan‑review services for the town but did not make a hiring decision. The council said it expects to select a firm at its February meeting and then negotiate a contract.

Ryan Staley of Staley and Associates described his firm's experience inspecting and performing plan review for state agencies, school districts and municipalities across Utah, and said he would perform most on‑site inspections for Genola from his local office in Payson. Staley said his firm holds ICC certifications for plan review and inspections and seeks to resolve disputes by pointing to the code and, where interpretation differs, consulting state building officials for clarification.

A representative from SiteServe (identified in the meeting as the company CEO, and a field inspection manager named Lane) described a mix of engineering and inspection work including power‑line and structural inspections. The SiteServe representatives said they operate a crew of inspectors and emphasized training and contractor relationships to keep projects moving.

A third candidate, a small firm led by an inspector who said he previously worked for Salt Lake City and overseas government inspection programs, described prequalification for state DFCM (Division of Facilities Construction & Management) work and said he would rely on a small network of contract inspectors in the region to provide backfill.

Council members asked about turnaround times for inspections and plan review, mileage and hourly billing, how each firm handles conflict with contractors, capacity to cover the town's current surge in gas‑line inspections related to the town's conversion to natural gas, and whether the firm would waive travel/mileage given the short local distances. Firms described typical 48‑hour inspection response goals and plan‑review timelines of about two weeks; firms said they attempt to cluster inspections (AM/PM windows) to reduce travel time and costs. One firm said they would not charge mileage for local work and would start billing when leaving their office; another listed a mileage provision on its fee schedule.

Councilmembers praised the candidates' emphasis on relationship building and education with contractors and owner‑builders. No vote was taken; the council asked staff to place the hire on the February agenda so members can review written proposals and negotiate contract terms.