CR 99-126 Health Inspection Services
~I~~
n~~-:""" -",-",,"-
July 1, 1999 ~<~/ Council Report 99-126
0 1 ~~d/ [
"' ~C'''-~"----.L ~__
HEAL T~~ INSPE:CT~ON SERV~CES
Proposed Action
Staff recommends that the Council approve the following motion: Move that the Hopkins City
Council authorize staff to solicit proposals from private contractors for the provision of health
inspection services.
Approval of this motion will result in the solicitation of detailed proposals from independent
contractors for the provision of health and sanitation inspection services.
Overview
When the City lost the services of its health inspector, Manny Roesler, in 1998 staff proposed
turning over the service to Hennepin County. The City Council had concerns with permanently
giving up the service.
The City Council authorized staff to seek proposals from other cities to provide Hopkins with health
and sanitation inspection services. Staff received proposals from St. Louis Park and Crystal.
Based upon the proposals St. louis Park was chosen to provide services.
o SI. Louis Park has been providing health inspection services since June of 1998 although a
contract has never been signed. Recently St. Louis Park has indicated that they no longer want to
provide this service.
Staff sent letters to every licensed health inspector in the metro area to determine whether there
was anyone interested in contracting with the City for this service. Staff has received letters
indicating interest from eight individuals.
Prima!)! Issllles to Consider
(') Examination of the options for providing this service
(')j' 1/'
/!/ t-. . <.
/":' l' _ , . ~ ~
Jim/Genellie ''',''{~.,'
cJ's'Sistant City Manager
0
---------
Council Report 99-126 2
o Analvsis of ~he Issues
OpHan 1
The preferred option of contracting with another City no longer appears viable. Staff originally sent
proposals to the following cities: Bloomington, Brool<lyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Edina,
Golden Valley, Minnetonka, Richfield, and 81. Louis Park. Only 81. Louis Parl< and Crystal
responded with proposals.
81. Louis Parl< no longer wishes to provide this service. Crystal is still interested but at a mucll
higher cost than their original proposal.
Option 2
The City could contract with an individual health inspector and retain environmental health
services entirely within its own jurisdiction. If the Council selects this option, detailed proposals
would be sought from interested individuals. Upon receipt of these proposals, staff would conduct
background checl<s and then make a recommendation to Council.
Preliminary costs estimates are between $16,000 and $24,000 per year.
o The advantages of contracting with an environmental health services inspector are that the service
/ and accountability remain at the municipal level.
The disadvantages include:
0 any single individual may not have the knowledge or experience to deal with all aspects of
health inspections;
0 this service will continue to incur administrative costs in processing licenses and dealing with
complaints.
Op~ion :3\
The final option that the City has is to relinquish control of environmental health services to
Hennepin County. The County would assume all responsibilities for inspections, plan reviews,
licensing, fee collection, public education, and emergency outbreak responses. The County would
perform the service at no cost to the City.
The advantages with turning this service over to the County include:
0 the County has the staff and expertise to best perform these inspections
0 the County can provide training to businesses
0 elimination of this service will free up staff time to concentrate on the core services the City
0 must provide
Council Report 99-126 3
The disadvantages include:
o 0 once this service is turned over to the County it cannot be returned to the City of Hopkins
Alternatives
1. Authorize staff to solicit proposals from independent contractors to provide health inspection
services.
2. Turn over health inspection to Hennepin County and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
Staff still prefers Alternative #2 primarily because of the staff time that the current situation
demands as well as what will be required with an independent contractor. Since the City Council,
however, prefers that the City maintain control over this service Alternative #1 will have to be used.
0
0
1- -