San Juan County, Monticello City to negotiate service agreement after inspectors prove scarce

San Juan County commissioners and Monticello City representatives spent the Nov. 18 work session laying out options to replace an outdated interlocal building-inspector agreement, with the county attorney warning the draft as written could be rejected by the county insurer and may conflict with state law.

"If a county or municipality can't provide a building inspection within 3 business days after receiving a request and collecting the fee, the applicant may engage a third party inspector from a list," Speaker 4 said while summarizing the statute, adding that counties of the first through fourth class must maintain a list of at least three inspection firms. He also reported UCIP raised concerns about the current draft and would not approve it as written.

Monticello City argued a different approach would work better locally. "A service agreement probably would serve this type of thing better," Speaker 3 said, describing a paid, back-and-forth arrangement in which the city would continue to manage land-use approvals and the county would provide inspection and plan-review services for a fee. The city representative said the contract used elsewhere (copied from Bluff) does not match Monticello's operations.

Monticello and county staff described a constrained hiring market: "We solicited contracts for service, and we also put out a part time position for a building inspector. We received 0 applicants," Speaker 2 said, noting a new state requirement about who qualifies as a building official and that only a very small pool of qualified people exist locally.

Commissioners expressed broad support for negotiating a service agreement rather than pushing an interlocal that insurance counsel would not back. Several commissioners said a set periodic fee would be administratively simpler than billing per permit, a point repeated by Speaker 1 and Speaker 2.

On timing, Monticello staff estimated one to one-and-a-half months to draft a service agreement and additional time for negotiations; commissioners identified the Dec. 2 commission meeting as an early milestone and discussed returning a finalized proposal by January if schedules allow. Participants also agreed Monticello could operate under the current arrangement while the new agreement is negotiated to avoid a service interruption.

County and city attorneys agreed to include operational staff (Corey Coleman was specifically named) in drafting to capture implementation details the attorneys lack. Commissioners asked to be informed of substantive red flags during drafting and emphasized that any final agreement must follow state statutory requirements.

Next steps: county and city attorneys will draft a service-agreement option, include operational staff for technical details, and return to the commission with a proposed contract and recommended fee model for final action.