Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2001/11/05CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW WORK SESSION AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2001 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Sonterre, Quick, Marty, Stigney, Thomas Items Discussed Per Consensus ________ 1. Discussion Regarding Status of SYSCO Billboards with DeLite Outdoor Advertising Representatives – Ericson (oral report) ________ 2. Clubhouse Manager’s Salary-Reed (will be provided Friday, 11/2/01) ________ 3. Discussion Regarding Proposed County Highway 10 Corridor Improvement Plans - Ericson ________ 4. Discussion Regarding Updates to the Nuisance Code - Anderson ________ 5. Discussion Regarding Rental Property Licensing Requirements and Procedures - Anderson ________ 6. Discussion Regarding County Highway 10 Corridor Streetlights - Ericson ________ 7. Discussion Regarding Draft Purchase and Rehabilitation RFP for 2091 Hillview Road, EDA-owned Four-plex - Ericson ________ 8. Reclassification of Positions:Police Department Records Clerk Brennan/Reed ________ 9. Compensation for Public Works and Golf Personnel- Reed ________ 10. Overview of Emergency Management Plan (oral report)- Brick or Brennan ________ 11. Discussion Regarding Tobacco Ordinance Revision - Brennan ________ 12. Discussion Regarding the Building Official Position - Reed, Ericson, Zikmund Item No: 4 Meeting Date: 11/5/01 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Item Title/Subject: Discussion regarding updates to the Nuisance Code Date of Report: October 30, 2001 Background: At the March 5, 2001 council work session meeting, council directed staff to conduct research regarding vehicles constituting a public nuisance and begin drafting an ordinance, which strengthened the existing nuisance code provisions. At the May 7, 2001 work session meeting, staff presented proposed changes to the nuisance code for discussion. At that meeting, it was discussed that the issue of trailers being parked in yards and trailers needing to display current license needed additional clarification. Given the time that has elapsed since this item was last before the council, staff felt it was appropriate to revisit the issue. Discussion: Staff recommended several changes to the nuisance code at the May 7, 2001 work session meeting. Many of the proposed changes were for clarification purposes and to eliminate confusion within the nuisance code. Additionally, legal council has explained that it is not necessary to include state statutes verbatim in a city ordinance, however, staff feels that it is necessary to include the relevant statutes within the ordinance rather than only referencing them because it could help to eliminate confusion when residents request a copy of the ordinance and notice many references to other state statutes. At the May 7, 2001 work session meeting, the parking of trailers, snowmobiles, and ATV’s in yards was a subject of discussion. Currently, the nuisance code defines a vehicle as “any vehicle as defined in Minnesota Statutes as every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway”. However, the nuisance code specifically excludes trailers with weight classifications of A and B (0-1,500lbs. and 1,501-3,000lbs.), snowmobiles, and ATV’s from this definition. As such, the parking requirements listed in the nuisance code would not apply to such trailers, snowmobiles, and ATV’s. As an example, a property owner could park numerous snowmobiles, ATV’s or trailers with class A or B weight classifications anywhere in the yard of a property and not be in violation of the nuisance code. To elaborate further, the snowmobiles, ATV’s or trailers could also be junked/inoperable and not display current registration on the license plates and violate the requirements of the nuisance code. Nuisance Code Update October 30, 2001 Page 2 Recommendation: Staff is requesting direction regarding three items. 1) Should the outside storage of snowmobiles, ATV’s, and trailers in yards be permitted 2) If snowmobiles, ATV’s and trailers are permitted to be stored outside should they be required to display current registration (which would require them to be insured) on the license plates 3) if snowmobiles, ATV’s and trailers are permitted to be stored outside should they be required to be in a state of operability. Jeremiah Anderson Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Item No: 5 Meeting Date: 11/5/01 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor & City Council From: Jeremiah Anderson, Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Item Title/Subject: Discussion regarding rental property licensing requirements and procedures Date of Report: October 30, 2001 Background: Title 1000, Chapter 1005 of the Mounds View Municipal Code is entitled the Minimum Housing Standards for Dwellings and Multiple Dwellings and may be cited as the Housing Code. This chapter establishes minimum standards for the initial and continued occupancy of all buildings and applies to all Preexisting dwellings, multiple dwellings, and manufactured homes located within the City. The purpose of the chapter is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by enacting a housing code, which establishes minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities; for safety from fire, and to provide residents safely maintained and sanitary dwellings and multiple dwellings. Chapter 1005 is broken down into several sections, which address things such as, Health and Sanitation, Exterior and Structural Standards, Basic Facilities, Interior Standards, Fire Safety, and Multiple Dwelling Registration. Discussion: Currently, the housing code requires all multiple dwelling owners/operators to obtain a certificate of registration prior to the initial occupancy of the building and each year thereafter. A certificate of registration is issued after a registration statement and application have been filed and the multiple dwelling has been inspected and found to comply with the provisions of the housing code. A multiple dwelling is defined in the housing code as a building or portion thereof containing two or more dwelling units. Therefore, all large apartment complexes, four-plexes, and duplexes are considered multiple dwellings and as such, are inspected annually and are issued a certificate of registration once they pass the inspection. Currently, The City of Mounds View has approximately 1,500 registered dwelling units. Staff is seeking direction to have this section removed from within the housing code and placed into a separate section of the City Code. Legal council will probably need to examine where the most suitable location would be. This change of location would provide more clarity in the housing code. Rental Property Licensing Requirements and Procedures Page 2 Additionally, the term certificate of registration is used in section 1005.12 of the housing code to describe what could probably be better described as a Multiple Dwelling License. A license is a term that most people understand and the term clearly illustrates a formal or legal permission to do something specified. To grant a license would indicate such legal permission. The term certificate of registration sounds less clear, may create a loophole, and adds a gray area. The fee for a certificate of registration is established by council resolution each year and has not been changed or increased in more than 9 years. Currently, the fees are $5 per unit with a $30 minimum per building. This blanket type fee approach has been in effect since the inception of the housing code, which dates back to the mid 1970’s. While this is a simple approach to administer, staff is seeking the council’s direction in considering changing the fee structure to represent conditions present at a property and the level of participation in certain activities with the City. As an example, should a multiple dwelling that has been certified in the Crime Free Multi Housing program be paying the same fee as a property that has not been certified and incidentally, generates excessive illegal activity? Several other suburban Cities have adopted similar approaches recently, some pro-active and some reactive. Staff believes that a combined approach which rewards properties that participate in the CFMH program and allows the City some recourse to address the occasional problematic property, and residents’ conduct on licensed premises, would seem to make sense and best accomplish this. Additionally, in it’s current form section 1005.12 of the housing code is unclear as to what actions are to be taken in the event that a registered property is repeatedly inspected and does not comply with housing code standards. This situation would be considered a violation of the housing code and a citation could be issued for non- compliance. However, staff feels that the current procedures listed within the housing code in section 1005.12 Subd. 7 are an administrative remedy and as such, would be more suitable for the council to hear and act upon accordingly. Lastly, staff is seeking direction regarding the number of dwelling units to be inspected. The housing code states that the enforcement officer shall make every effort to inspect the premises of all multiple dwelling buildings on an annual basis. However, in 1994 the council directed staff to inspect all multiple dwellings within a four-year timeframe. As such, staff has been inspecting 25% of all dwelling units in each complex on a yearly basis. Staff is requesting that this procedure be modified to increase efficiency and provide better service to residents of the City. Staff feels inspecting 91 units in a 364- unit complex and coming up with little or no problems is not an efficient use of resources. To that avail, all of the large complexes in the City have fulltime management, on site maintenance staff, and are owned by individuals interested in running a business. Conversely, most smaller properties are usually owner managed and do not have access to full time maintenance staff. The owner may come around once a month to collect late rent and make repairs as needed. Staff time could be better utilized inspecting properties which have problems and less time in properties that have none. Recommendation: Provide direction to staff that indicates an interest to present proposed changes at a future work session meeting for additional discussion. Jeremiah Anderson Housing/Code Enforcement Inspector Item No: 6 Meeting Date: November 5, 2001 Type of Business: WS City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Discussion Regarding County Highway 10 Corridor Streetlights, Decorative vs. Standard. Date of Report: October 31, 2001 Background: The City Council reviewed various streetlight fixture designs last year and authorized the installation of decorative “Domus” lights along the realigned Edgewood Drive and standard shoebox lights along the newly paved path behind City Hall. While I do not have the documentation for the originally quoted cost of the individual lights, the decorative lights were about $4,500 each and the shoebox design about $2,500 each. Altogether, the cost of for the Edgewood lights and City Hall lights amounted to $55,995. In October of last year, staff approached the EDA regarding the installation of trailway lights in front of Walgreens and the Mermaid. Based on the direction to utilize decorative lights within the corridor, the EDA authorized expenditure of $82,500 of tax increment funds which was also to pay for the extension of Mermaid’s trail up to Woodale Drive. The lights in front of Walgreens cost $46,145, which has already been paid. The cost to install the Mermaid lights will be $63,476, which is more than what was originally quoted. Even with the Mermaid’s contribution of $23,084 for four of the lights, the total amount exceeds what was authorized by the EDA by about $4,000 and does not leave any extra to pay for the trail extension. Discussion: Given the increasing cost of the lights and the plan to install these along both sides of the County Highway 10 corridor, staff did some math and determined that the cost to install the decorative lights along both sides of the highway will be significant. There is approximately 19,000 feet of frontage along County Highway 10, less intersections and less frontage already improved with lights. The recommended spacing requirement for the “Domus” decorative lights is 95 feet with a maximum of 125 feet. (The lights in front of Walgreens and proposed for the Mermaid were spaced at 125 feet which we’ve discovered to be inadequate.) Thus assuming a spacing of one light per 100 feet, about 190 lights would be needed in the corridor. Assuming again a cost of $5,771 per light, the total cost to install decorative corridor lighting would be $1,096,000. This cost could however be less in return for bulk purchasing discounts. My thought would be to limit the decorative lights to a certain section of the corridor; for example, from County H2 to Silver Lake Road, and use the standard shoebox lights in the periphery areas. While I do not as of yet have a quote for the shoebox lights, it is Streetlight Report November 5, 2001 Page 2 anticipated that they would be approximately $3,000 per light, saving almost 50% of what the decorative Domus lights cost. Another added benefit of the shoebox style of lighting is that they typically cast more light and thus can be spaced out more than the decorative lights. If the City were to consider the area between County Road H2 and Silver Lake Road (the City Center) for decorative lights and the areas lying beyond the City Center for the shoebox lights, the following costs could be anticipated: City Center Frontage = 9,000 feet 90 lights x $5,770 = $519,300 Periphery Frontage = 10,000 feet 80 lights x $3,000 = $240,000 Total: $759,300 Utilizing this approach would save approximately $300,000. Recommendation: Discuss this information and direct staff with regard to the potential of creating a City Center within which decorative lights would be installed, beyond which standard shoebox lights would be installed. _____________________________________ James Ericson Community Development Director 763-717-4021 N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\City Council\General Reports\Streetlight Report - Nov 5, 2001.doc Item No. 8 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Tim Brennan, Interim Police Chief Item Title/Subject: Reclassification of Records Clerk (Senior Clerk Typist) from Three-Quarter Time to Full-Time Date of Report: November 5, 2001 In response to the former Police Chief’s request for an additional full-time clerical position, at the February 26, 2001 Human Resources Committee meeting the Committee made several recommendations in lieu of hiring additional clerical personnel. Those recommendations included moving the Records Clerk (Senior Clerk Typist) position from three-quarter time to full-time, sharing clerical staff with other departments, and seeking grant dollars for an intern. This issue was discussed at a Council meeting and the Council concurred with the recommendations of the HR Committee. The Records Clerk is currently working full-time and staff believes there is justification for moving the position to full-time permanently. The cost to reclassify the Records Clerk position is reflected in the proposed 2002 budget that has been under review. Formalization (adoption by resolution) of this reclassification is being sought prior to final approval of the 2002 budget. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Tim Brennan Interim Police Chief Item No.9 Meeting Date: November 5, 2001 Type of Business:WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Compensation for Public Works and Golf Course Personnel Date of Report: October 31, 2001 In the absence of department directors for Public Works and the Golf Course, several staff members have taken on additional responsibilities. In June of 2000 the Council adopted a resolution approving a policy whereby employees serving in department head level positions would receive 15% above their base rate of pay. The Council also recently adopted a policy for compensating individuals working in higher classification positions. The Council has asked staff to present options for a merit pay policy at a future meeting, however, merit pay typically takes into consideration exceptional performance of one’s own duties, not those of someone else. Regrettably, neither of the current or proposed policies apply to the situation before the Council today. Three members of the Public Works staff are currently handling projects and routine tasks that would typically be handled by the department director. The additional responsibilities include, but are not limited to, attending council meetings, preparing staff reports, coordinating projects such as County Road H2, Hillview Park Shelter bid opening and construction and meeting with engineering consultants. Staff members covering the former golf course superintendent’s position have taken on additional duties such as applying chemicals to the greens, landscaping, operating and repairing the irrigation system, meeting with other golf course superintendents to gather knowledge and expertise, preparing the budget and attending council meetings. The matter of compensation for the individuals in public works and at the golf course who have taken on additional responsibilities has been discussed with the Human Resources Committee. The Human Resources Committee is supportive of compensating the following positions for the additional work they are performing at the following percentage rates: Public Works Foreman: 10% Information Services Engineer/Tech: 5% PW Administrative Assistant: 5% Parks Foreman: 7.5% Seasonal Maintenance Worker: 7.5% Clubhouse Manager: 5% Please note that the recommended percentages would be paid retroactive to the date the positions became vacant. In addition, the “interim pay” would cease when the positions are filled or when the individuals are no longer performing the additional duties (ie, due to the closing of the golf course). Dollars associated with the proposed rates of “interim pay” will be offset by payroll savings from the two vacant positions. Recommendation Direct staff to prepare a resolution compensating each of the positions listed above at the rates indicated. The rates will be applied to the employee’s base hourly rate. Respectfully Submitted Givonna Reed Item No. 11 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Tim Brennan, Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief Item Title/Subject: Discussion of Revisions to the Tobacco Ordinance Date of Report: November 5, 2001 TOBACCO ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Revision of the Mounds View Tobacco ordinance, Chapter 512, is necessary for a number of reasons. Some language in the current ordinance is unclear in some of its wording, and some of the language is in fact in conflict with existing state statute. The suggested revisions to the ordinance help correct these issues. A possible contradiction that remains between 512.07(Subd. 1) and 512.08 should be addressed during the revision process. Language addressing penalties for minors found using or possessing tobacco needs to be inserted into 512.07 (Subd. 4) after the public hearing. Consideration of language holding commercial property owners or managers accountable for the conduct of minor employees or patrons on their premises need also be considered. . RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the provided “redline” revised copy of the current ordinance be adopted, after the issues expressed above have been resolved. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________________ Tim Brennan Deputy Police Chief/Acting Chief [Redlined #1] ORDINANCE NO. 689 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND AMENDING TITLE 512 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title 512 of the Mounds View Municipal code shall be amended to read: CHAPTER 512 CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS SECTION: 512.01: Definitions 512.02: License Required 512.03. Application 512.034: License Restrictions 512.04: Prohibited Sales 512.05. License fee; Term; Transfer 512.06. Display of License 512.057: Penalties 512.068: Suspension Or Revocation 512.079: Hearing And Notice 512.108: Exception 512.01: DEFINITIONS: Subd. 1. TOBACCO-RELATED PRODUCT: Cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, stogies, perique, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready rubbed and other smoking tobacco, snuff, snuff flower, cavendish, plug and twist tobacco, fine cut and other chewing tobaccos, shorts, refuse scrips, clippings, cuttings and sweepings of tobacco prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing or smoking in a pipe, rolling paper or other tobacco related devices. Subd. 2. VENDING MACHINES: Any mechanical, electric or electronic device, appliance or any other medium or object designed or used for vending purposes which, upon insertion of money, tokens or any other form of payment, dispenses tobacco products. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95) 512.02: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall directly or indirectly keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispense tobacco products unless licensed by the City. License applications shall be submitted to the Clerk-Administrator together with the license fee as determined from time to time by City Council resolution. A license shall be issued for a specific premises identified in the application and shall expire on December 31 of each year. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)No person shall directly or indirectly or by means of any device keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispose of tobacco at any place in the city unless a license therefor shall first have been obtained as provided in this section. 512.03. Application. Subd. 1. Contents. Application for a license required by the provisions of this section shall be made to the City Clerk-Administrator on a form supplied by the City. Such application shall state: (a) the full name and address of the applicant; (b) the location of the building and the part intended to be used by the applicant under such license; (c) the kind of business conducted at such location; and (d) such other information as shall be required by the application form. Subd. 2. City Council Review. Upon the filing of an application with the Clerk-Administrator, it shall be presented to the City Council for its consideration. If granted by the Council, a license shall be issued by the Clerk-Administrator upon payment of the required fee. 512.034: LICENSE RESTRICTIONS: Subd. 1. General Restrictions. No license shall be issued under this section except to a person of good moral character. No license shall be issued to an applicant for the sale of tobacco at any place other than applicant's established place of business. A separate license shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business. No person shall sell, offer for sale, give away, furnish or deliver any tobacco-related product to any person under eighteen (18) years of age. No person shall keep for sale, sell, or dispose of any tobacco containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco or lawfully added as part of the manufacturing process. Subd. 2. Possession by Minors. No person under the age of 18 years shall purchase, possess, or consume tobacco. Subd. 13. Vending machines used to dispense tobacco products shall not be located in an area which permits unrestricted access by a person under the age of eighteen (18) years even though such area may be under the supervision of the licensee or the licensee's agent or employee. This restriction shall apply to vending machines located in structures used for commercial, industrial, high-tech, office or public purposes. Subd. 24. Only one license is required for any or all vending machine(s) located on the premises of the licensee. Subd. 35. Every licensee is responsible for the conduct of its employees while on the licensed premises and any sale or other disposition of tobacco products by an employee to a person under eighteen (18) years of age shall be considered an act of the licensee. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95) 512.04: PROHIBITED SALES: No person shall sell, offer for sale, give away, furnish or deliver any tobacco-related product to any person under eighteen (18) years of age. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95) 512.05. License fee; Term; Transfer. The fee for every license required by the provisions of this section shall be set by resolution of the City Council. The license is effective from January 1 to December 31st of each year. Payment of the license fee is due on or before the close of business on January 1st of each year. Licenses issued under the provisions of this section shall not be transferable from one person to another. 512.06. Display of License. Every license issued under the provisions of this section shall be kept conspicuously posted about the place for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any authorized person upon request. 512.057: PENALTIES: Subd. 1. Any person selling or furnishing a tobacco-related product to any person under eighteen (18) years of age shall be guilty of an administrative offense and shall pay an administrative penalty of twenty five dollars ($25.00).Licensees. If a person licensed under this section or an employee of a person licensed under this section violates any provision of this ordinance, the licensee shall be charged an administrative penalty of $75.00. If a person licensed under this section or an employee of a person licensed under this section violates any provision of this ordinance twice at the same location within 24 months of the initial violation, the licensee shall be charged an administrative penalty of $200.00. If a person licensed under this section or an employee of a person licensed under this section violates any provision of this ordinance three times at the same location within 24 months of the initial violation, the licensee shall be charged an administrative penalty of $250.00, and the licensee's license shall be suspended for seven days. No penalty under this section 512.07, subd. (1) shall take effect until the licensee has received notice, served personally or by mail, of the alleged violation, and has had an opportunity for a hearing before the City Council. A decision by the city council that a violation of this ordinance has occurred shall be in writing. Judicial appeal shall be as provided for by state law. Subd. 2. Any licensee whose employee violates any provisions of this Chapter is guilty of an administrative offense and shall pay an administrative penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00). (Ord. 553, 4-24-95)Individuals. Any person who sells tobacco to a person under the age of 18 years shall be charged an administrative penalty of $50.00. This penalty shall be in addition to the penalty charged under section 512.07, subd. (1). No penalty under this section 512.07, subd. (2) shall take effect until the person against whom the penalty will be charged has received notice, served personally or by mail, of the alleged violation, and has had an opportunity for a hearing before the City Council. A decision by the City Council that a violation of this ordinance has occurred shall be in writing. Judicial appeal shall be as provided for by state law. Subd. 3. Defenses. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of selling tobacco to a person under the age of 18 years in violation of this ordinance that the licensee or individual making the sale relied in good faith upon proof of age as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.503, subdivision 6. Subd. 4. Minors. Any person under the age of 18 years who purchases, possesses, or consumes tobacco shall be __________[language to be inserted after public hearing]. 512.068: SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION: In addition to any other penalty imposed under section 512.07, any license issued under this section may be revoked by the City Council for a violation of any provision of this Chapter if the licensee has been given a reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.Any violation of any provision of this Chapter may be cause for suspension or revocation. A second violation within twelve (12) months shall result in a suspension of at least two (2) days. A third violation within a twenty four (24) month's time frame shall result in a suspension of at least five (5) days, A fourth violation within a twenty four (24) month's time frame shall result in revocation of license for the balance of the year. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95) 512.079: HEARING AND NOTICE: Subd. 1. Revocation or suspension of a license shall be preceded by a hearing before the Police ChiefCity Council. A hearing notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing including notice of the time and place of the hearing and shall state the nature of the charges against the licensee. Judicial appeal shall be as provided for by state law. Subd. 2. An aggrieved party may appeal the decision of the Police Chief within ten (10) days of receiving notice of the City's action. The filing of an appeal stays the action of the Police Chief in suspending or revoking a license until the City Council makes a final decision. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95) 512.108: EXCEPTION: A person under eighteen (18) years of age who purchases or attempts to purchase tobacco-related products while under the direct supervision of a responsible adult for training, education, research or enforcement purposes shall not be subject to the penalties imposed by Section 512.05. (Ord. 553, 4-24-95) SECTION 2. This ordinance takes effect __days after its publication. Read by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this ____ day of ________, 2001. Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this _____ day of _____________, 2001. Richard Sonterre, Mayor Kathleen F. Miller, City Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott Riggs, City Attorney Item No.12 Meeting Date: November 5, 2001 Type of Business: WK WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Givonna Reed, Assistant to the City Administrator Item Title/Subject: Discussion Regarding the Proposed Building Official Position Date of Report: November 1, 2001 Background In 1999 the City eliminated its Building Official position to begin contracting with the Fire Department in an effort to save money. At that time, the City also held a contract with the Fire Department for Fire Inspections services. The intent to save dollars was quickly lost when the City experienced a dramatic increase in the number of inspections performed. When the volume of building inspections increased by more than 10%, the compensation provision of the contract was renegotiated and the Fire Department was paid per hour for services rendered. In 1999 and 2000 the City spent $67,646 and $84,099 respectively for building inspections services. The only contract that staff was able to locate for Fire Inspections services was from 1996, and the maximum compensation amount ($4,000 annually) was quickly exceeded. In 1999 and 2000 the City spent $9,126 and $17,037 respectively on fire inspections services. For 2001, $21,000 was budgeted for fire inspections services. The City has spent approximately $48,000 for building and fire inspections in 2001 (through September). FTE Proposal As the Council is aware, at the October Work Session, a Human Resources Committee meeting and at budget meetings, staff has proposed returning to a full-time building inspections position in an effort to save money. This position would be responsible for building inspections, fire inspections and fire fighting. Exhibit A shows the potential savings to the City under the proposed scenario. At the October Work Session, the Council asked staff to look into other options for providing building inspections services to residents and businesses. Staff has considered the following options: continuing on a contract basis with the fire department, contracting with the state for building inspections services and contracting with an independent third party for building inspections services. The results are as follows: Contracting with the Fire Department The Fire Chief has submitted a proposal (see Exhibit B) to the City which is valid for 60 days, or until December 8, 2001. Under the Fire Department’s proposal, there are two possible scenarios. In Scenario 1 the City would pay 55% of revenue ($125,000 for 2002) and in Scenario 2 the City would pay 75% of revenue. Contracting with the State The state, according to one of the directors of the program, Scott McClelland, indicated that the State of Minnesota is not in the business of providing inspections and plan review services for communities as a matter of course. They will step in during an emergency or for a specific project, but their intent is not to become a city's building official. They are considering offering this service, however, because some cities have expressed an interest but they do not currently offer this service. Contracting with an independent third party Metro West Inspections has indicated that they would charge 40-50% of building permit fees, 30% for permits over $1,000,000 and all plan review fees. Conservatively, Metro West would charge the City $62,500 (based on $125,000 in revenue) leaving the City with a profit of $62,500. Please note that Exhibit C (Financial Implication for Building Official Options) shows a financial comparison of each of the options being considered. In addition, the Council should be mindful that the numbers from Metro West are preliminary and staff is uncertain as to what increases might be proposed after the initial year of the contract. 2002 2003 2004 Revenue 125,000 125,000 125,000 FTE 62,000 64,300 67,000 Fire Dept (55%) 96,750 96,900 97,055 Fire Dept (75%) 121,750 121,900 122,055 Outside Contract 62,500 62,500 62,500 Recommendation Provide staff with direction regarding whether (and what) the Council would like presented.