Memo 2nd Reading Ordinance 92-719
.
.
e
CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1, 1992
TO: Hopkins City Council
FROM: George Magdal, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: Second reading, Ordinance 92-719, Fee for Fire
Inspections
I. Staff recommends approval of the second reading of Ordinance
92-719.
II. Background
Since the first reading of ordinance 92-719, we have met with the
Hopkins Business Council. They voted to support this ordinance. I
have also had a conversation with Bob King of Super Valu
regarding this ordinance. He does not have any great concerns
regarding the fees.
A letter was mailed out to the apartment building owners
describing the proposed ordinance. I have heard back from Steve
Shuckman with Barrett Investment Company, and George Warner of
The Minnesota Multi Housing Association. They feel that an
apartment pays three times as much taxes per dwelling as a
homeowner would, and they do not receive three times the
services. Mr. Shuckman proposes that the initial and first
re-inspection be at no charge. He suggests an exorbitant fee for
visits after the first re-inspection. We currently are charging a
straight $30 per hour for the inspections after the first
re-inspection. In the last six months, there have only been two
occasions where we've used this charge. I doubt that very many
people would allow their violations to continue to the point
where they would be charged high fees. Mr. Shuckman stated he may
be present at the December 8 City Council meeting.
.
.
e
An article was placed in the Sailor Newspaper and Twin West
Newsletter outlining the proposed fees. I received one telephone
call from a business owner because of this article. He had no
comments about the proposed fees. He simply wanted to know what
type of violations we would be looking for so that he could
correct them prior to his fire inspection. We will be working on
a self inspection form to help businesses prepare for a fire
inspection.
A question that was raised at the first reading of the ordinance
was regarding the legality of collecting the fee from either the
owner or the occupant. I have discussed this verbiage with Jerre
Miller. He said he feels it is appropriate because it does give
us the option of charging the person who is getting the fire
inspection whether or not they own the premises. It also allows
us to inspect the common areas of the building that do not belong
to a specific tenant and charge the owner for that.
Another question that came up at the first reading was how we
would collect these fees. I asked both the City Attorney and John
Schedler, the Finance Director, about this. They said that if a
bill was not paid that it could be placed against the property as
a miscellaneous assessment. An unpaid invoice that had been
originally been sent to a tenant would be redirected to the
property owner.
"\ Y
o
November 11, 1992
CI /:'
~
'" '"
o P K \ ~
Fees for Fire Inspections
CR Report 92-224
.....
...,.
Proposed Action
staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move to accept the
first readinq of Ordinance No 92-719 which authorizes charqinq fees
for fire inspections.
Overview
Through analysis, the city has recognized fire inspections as an area
where service is provided without fees. The city can recover part of
the cost incurred by charging for this service. Last March the city
council asked staff to work on implementing a fee schedule relating to
fire inspections.
The Hopkins Business Council was approached with this idea last spring
and voted to support .the concept. staff anticipates undertaking
additional public input measures prior to the second reading.
.
As an incentive to correct code violations quickly this ordinance
adjusts the rate depending upon the inspection results. If there are
no violations found during the initial inspection or corrections are
made prior to the end of the first re-inspection, the business would
pay 50% of the normal hourly rate. A business complying by the end of
the second re-inspection would pay the normal hourly rate. A business
not complying by the end of the second re-inspection would pay a fee
of 150% of the normal hourly rate.
Our current Ordinance does not allow fees to be charged for the first
or second visit. Additional visits are currently charged at a flat
rate. The rate that has been set by council Resolution is $30.00 per
hour with a one hour minimum per visit.
Primary Issues to Consider
o Should businesses be responsible for the cost incurred doing fire
inspections of their premises?
o Is the additional cost this poses for a business operating in
Hopkins reasonable?
o Should the business who abuses the fire inspection process be
penalized financially with the proposed sliding scale?
o What additional public input measures does Staff propose?
Supporting Information
o March 5, 1992 Staff memo to City Council
o Ordinance No.92-719
,
~ffy--i m:C~j(/)
George Magd , Fire Marshal
CR Report 92-224
Page 2
.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Should Business be responsible for the cost incurred doing fire
inspections of their premises?
The benefactors of fire inspections include public visiting the
business, owners, employees, and the city. People shopping and working
in Hopkins expect to be safe. The hazards created are a direct result
of business owners and managers activities. It seems appropriate for
the business to pay for the inspections.
o Is the additional cost this poses for a business operating in
Hopkins reasonable?
A small business that requires two visits by a Fire Inspector would be
billed a total of $30.00. Unless they have some special hazards, it is
likely they will not receive another Fire Inspection for three years.
This breaks down to $10.00 per year. This does not seem excessive.
.
o Should the business who abuses the fire inspection process be
penalized financially with the proposed sliding scale?
Yes. There are many cases where the business owner doesn't feel it's
necessary to be ready for the Fire Inspector on time. After all, the
violation has been there for months. What's a few more weeks? We don't
want to legally prosecute violators when we know they are going to fix
the hazard. The problem is Fire Inspectors spend a good portion of
their time going back again and again waiting for the violator to
repair the hazard. The sliding scale will cause violators to be
prompt, making the Fire Inspectors time more productive.
o What additional public input measures does Staff propose?
Due to the time which has elapsed since the Business Councils last
review Staff proposes to undertake the following measures:
Discussion at November 19th Business council Meeting
. Article in Twinwest Newsletter
Article in H.C.P. Newsletter
Article in Hopkins Sailor
Alternatives.
e
o Approve Staffs recommendation
o Do not approve Staffs recommendation
o continue matter for more information
.
e
e
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 92-719
FEE FOR FIRE INSPECTIONS
BE IT ORDAINED By the Council of the City of Hopkins that Section
905.13 of the Hopkins City Code be deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
905.13 Fee for Fire Inspections. A fee.shall be charged for fire
inspections. This fee will not apply to complaints on specific
hazards. Such fee shall be collected from either the owner or the
occupant who gets the inspection. The fee shall be in an amount
established by Council Resolution. If there are no violations
found or the violations are corrected by the end of the first
re-inspection the fee shall be 50% of the established rate. If
the violations are corrected by the end of the second
re-inspection the fee shall be 100% of the established rate. If
the violations are not corrected by the end of the second
re-inspection the fee shall be 150% of the established rate.
First Reading:
November lOth, 1992
Second Reading:
December 8th, 1992
Date of PUblication:
December 16th, 1992
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: January
5th, 1993
Mayor
City Clerk