03/25/1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 9,1995 The overall savings to the City per year would be $865.20 by changing over to the Anoka County Program. Benefits for each employee would be increased. The City Council is required to take formal action to allow staff to apply for this coverage. Mr. Schumacher explained that the City employees will have better coverage for less money and they will also have more options in applying for additional coverage. Council Member Elliott moved to approve switching to Prudential Life offered through the Anoka County Instrumentality plan effective January 1, 1996. Council Member Kuether seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF A CONTRACT FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS, PETE KLUEGEL Mr. Kluegel explained that early this summer he started exploring the possibility of the City of Lino Lakes entering into a contract for electrical inspections. The advantages of this arrangement to the City is that an additional revenue of $7,000.00 per year would be generated and the City could confirm, cross reference and control electrical permits with the building permits. Mr. Kluegel said that he has contacted other cities with contracted electrical inspections and has found that they are well pleased with the arrangement. Mr. Kluegel explained that a contract between Mr. Ken Peterson and the City has been drafted. Mr. Peterson is a very competent and qualified inspector and is very familiar with the City. The draft contract was prepared by the Mr. Hawkins, City Attorney, and the contract has been reviewed by Mr. Peterson. Mayor Reinert asked if the State could retaliate since the City would be taking some revenue away from them. Mr. Kluegel said he was not aware of anything that could happen. Council Member Neal asked if the State could come and harass the contracted inspector or the City. Mr. Kluegel said he was not aware of this happening either. In his discussions with other cities who contract their electrical inspections, nothing along this line was mentioned. Mr. Peterson was in the audience and explained that he has discussed this concern with other contractual inspectors and was told that the State sees that it is their responsibility to inspect what the cities choose not to inspect. The State does not like to loose the revenue generated by their inspectors. Council Member Neal asked what kind of revenue will be generated by the prison expansion. Mr. Kluegel was that the fee is based on the value of the improvement and would be difficult to determine until the permit is requested. Mr. Peterson said that the biggest advantage to the City is to have an in-house recognition of the electrical permit fee. He also explained that cross reference cannot happen now because the State keeps the electrical permits. With an in-house inspector, every time a building permit is issued PAGE 10