Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 02.18.1992Minutes of the City Council of Laurel February 18, 1992 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Laurel, Montana, was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Chuck Rodgers at 7:20 p.m., on February 18, 1992. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Marshall Gay Easton Norman Orr Lonnie Kellogg Bob Graham COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Donna Kilpatrick L. D. Collins Albert Ehrlick INVOCATION: Invocation was given by Alderman Kellogg. MINUTES: Motion by Alderman Marshall to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 4, 1992, as presented, seconded by Alderman Graham. Motion carried 5--0. CORRESPONDENCE: Received a letter from Cenex thanking the city for their business during the 1991 asphalt season. Received a memo from the Montana League of Cities and Towns regarding Small City Environment Regulations and the American With Disabilities Act. Received the December 1991 and January 1992 minutes and activity report from the Air Pollution Control Board. Received a letter from the Laurel Chamber need of an office facility. This was Committee. of Commerce regarding the referred to the Building CITY CLERK & CITY TREASURER'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: The City Clerk and City Treasurer's financial statements for the month of January were presented. Motion by Alderman Marshall that the City Clerk and City Treasurer's financial statements for the month of January, 1992, be approved, seconded by Alderman Graham. Motion carried 6--0. CENEX TRANSPORTATION - WASTE DISPOSAL: The Public Utilities Committee minutes of February 10, 1992 were reviewed at this time. The committee recommends that the city allow Cenex truck wash to hook up to the sewer system with periodic testing to be done at the expense of the Cenex. Bob Graham stated the minutes are not complete in that Cenex stated they would stand behind this system. If any problems would arise at the sewer plant due to this hook up, they would take responsibility for it. Bob relayed to the council L.D.'s comments regarding this. L.D. is against this for two reasons. The first is because of the possible damage to our sewer system which may not be detected until it has already caused damage. The second reason is that even though they say they will stand behind it, if something goes wrong, how long would it take the city to get them to admit fault and do something about it? Bob said L.D. also agreed with a previous comment from another alderman that the city would be allowing the sewer system outside the city limits. Bob explained that he is for this because it would give the city some type of control over Cenex washing their trucks off. Re feels that this type of truck washing is going on at the car washes in town now and the city has no control over it. Page 2 Council Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Meeting of February 18, 1992 Bob approves of it because Cenex has stated they will stand behind their promises to us and they will monitor it at their cost whenever we want testing done. Joe Bradley asked Bob if the committee is satisfied that the city could pinpoint Cenex as the cause of any problems, if they should arise? Bob gave the floor to Frank Wilson who is the plumber that would be doing the work. Frank stated he feels they could definitely pinpoint a cause. Joe questioned whether this could be done in the form of a special motion or contract. Dave Michael said the city has an industrial waste permit with Burlington Northern and he hopes Cenex's discharge would be handled in the same manner. This agreement explains what can or cannot be discharged and if they are found in violation, they must withstand all costs. Joe questioned Dave whether he feels we could pinpoint a problem and attribute it to Cenex if they are at fault. Dave feels we could be specific enough to do so. There have been no spillages in the last few years but we have pinpointed the direct cause before. Joe said we are dealing with personal property rights and there is always a problem with city officials going on private property to check things. They have the right to tell us we cannot go on their property. Dave said we can make checks in our own manholes and pinpoint it through there. This would be the only hook up on this particular line. Jim Worthington stated that Cenex is willing to sign this type of an agreement and he told them that such an agreement must be approved by the council. Joe said a resolution of agreement will be drawn up to be presented at the next council meeting. Frank stated that the new offices that would be hooked up to the system would generate more waste than the one wash bay. Joe asked whether the question of annexation has ever come up. Lonnie Kellogg was also wondering about this since it is something that the city generally requires when a line is extended. Joe said the council has the right to require this. GREYHOUND BUS DEPOT: When the Greyhound Bus depot was initiated at its current location, a motion was made by the council on February 29, 1989 to review it every year. It was questioned whether the council wants to continue reviewing it on an annual basis. Keith Thompson was questioned whether he has received any complaints regarding the bus stop at his store. Keith said he is not aware of any complaints and Mike Atkinson, Police Chief, stated the police department has not received any complaints. Joe Bradley felt it was a good idea to continue reviewing it on an annual basis. People often drive around the bus into the oncoming traffic lane, which poses a risk. For this reason, he would like to continue the annual review. It was the consensus of the council to continue the annual review. ALLOW LIMITED NUMBER OF RABBITS: ORDINANCE NO. 1008 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 6.16.010 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW A LIMITED NUMBER OF RABBITS TO BE KEPT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Page 3 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Marshall that Ordinance No. 1008 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Orr. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. MEETING - PRESIDING OFFICER: ORDINANCE NO. 1009 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.08.090 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, MEETING - PRESIDING OFFICER Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1009 {second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. PRESIDENT & VICE-PRESIDENT - ELECTION & TERM: ORDINANCE NO. 1010 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.08.100 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, PRESIDENT AND VICE- PRESIDENT - ELECTION AND TERM Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Marshall that Ordinance No. 1010 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Aldermen Orr. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. VOTING PROCEDURE: ORDINANCE NO. 1011 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.08.130 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, VOTING PROCEDURE Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 1011 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Graham. A roll Motion call vote was taken and carried 5--0. STANDING COMMITTEES: all aldermen present voted, "YES". ORDINANCE NO. 1012 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.08.240 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, STANDING COMMITTEES Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Marshall that Ordinance No. 1012 (second reading) be passed and adopted~ seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. Minutes of the City C°uncil of Laurel Page 4 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 DUTIES OF TREASURER: ORDINANCE NO. 1013 second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.24.010 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, DUTIES Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1013 (second council . reading } be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Easton. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. DISPOSITION OF FINES: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 (second reading AMENDING SECTION 2.68.130 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, DISPOSITION OF FINES Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Marshall that Ordinance No. 1014 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Graham. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. LIBRARY FUNDING: ORDINANCE NO. 1015 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.80.040 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, LIBRARY FUNDING Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1016 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. EXPENDITURES: ORDINANCE NO. 1016 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.80.060 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, EXPENDITURES Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1016 (second reading} be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marshall. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. CEMETERY FUND: ORDINANCE NO. 1017 (second reading) REPEALING SECTION 2.84.040 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, CEMETERY FUND Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any ob3ection from the council. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Page 5 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Motion by Alderman Marshal] that Ordinance No. 1017 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Graham. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. HOLIDAYS OBSERVED: Public Hearing: ORDINANCE NO. 1018 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 2.96.180 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, HOLIDAYS OBSERVED No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1018 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll call vote was taken. Motion carried 4--1 with Alderman Marshall voting, "NO". He feels there are too many holidays. RETIREMENT REQUIREMENTS: ORDINANCE NO. 1019 (second reading) REPEALING SECTION 2.96.260 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, RETIREMENT REQUIREMENTS Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Graham that Ordinance No. 1019 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll Motion call vote was taken and carried 5--0. TERM OF LICENSE: all aldermen present voted, "YES". ORDINANCE NO. 1020 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 5.04.080 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, TERM OF LICENSES Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Marshall that Ordinance No. 1020 reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Graham. call vote was taken and carried 5--0. LICENSE PRORATED WHEN: all aldermen present voted, "YES" ORDINANCE NO. 1021 (second reading (second A roll Motion AMENDING SECTION 5.04.090 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, LICENSE PRORATED WHEN Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1021 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. CITY TO OPERATE TRANSFER SITE: ORDINANCE NO. 1022 (second reading AMENDING SECTION 8.08.010 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY TO OPERATE TRANSFER SITE Page 6 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Graham that Ordinance No. 1022 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. SOLID WASTE FEES FOR NON-CITY RESIDENTS: ORDINANCE NO. 1023 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 8.08.020 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, SOLID WASTE FEES FOR NON- CITY RESIDENTS Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Kellogg that Ordinance No. 1023 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Orr. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. PUBLIC NUISANCE - ITEMS PROHIBITED: ORDINANCE NO. 1024 (second reading) AMENDING SECTION 8.12.030 OF THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, LUMBER, GARBAGE, MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS, FURNITURE AND APPLIANCES PROHIBITED Public Hearing: No comments. The public hearing was closed without any objection from the council. Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1024 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marshall. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted, "YES". Motion carried 5--0. NEW SERVICE FEE: ORDINANCE NO. 1025 (second reading) ADDING SECTION 13.08.095 TO THE LAUREL MUNICIPAL CODE, NEW SERVICE FEE Motion by Alderman Orr that Ordinance No. 1025 (second reading) be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marshall. A roll call vote was taken and all aldermen present voted~ "YES". Motion carried 5--0. AUTHORIZING BUDGET TRANSFERS: RESOLUTION NO. 2576 BEING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BUDGET TRANSFERS OR REVISIONS Motion by Alderman Marshall that Resolution No. 2576 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Graham. Motion carried 5--0. FEE FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: RESOLUTION NO. 2577 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN APPLICATION FEE FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Page 7 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Motion by Alderman Orr that Resolution No. 2577 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Marshall. Motion carried 5--0. ANNUAL ENCROACHMENT RENTAL FEE: RESOLUTION NO. 2578 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ANNUAL ENCROACHMENT RENTAL FEE Motion by Alderman Graham that Resolution No. 2578 be passed and adopted, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 5--0. COMMITTEE REPORTS: --Budget/Finance Committee minutes of February 2, 1992 were presented and reviewed. Darrell McGillen reported that the new fire truck will be picked up on March fi, 1992. Motion by Alderman Marshall to enter the Budget/Finance Committee minutes of February 2, 1992, into the record, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 5--0. --City Council Committee of the Whole minutes of February 4, 1992 were presented. Motion by Alderman Kellogg to enter the City Council Committee of the Whole minutes of February 4, 1992, into the record, seconded by Alderman Graham. Motion carried 5--0. --City-County Planning Board minutes of February 14, 1992 were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Orr to enter the City-County Planning Board Minutes of February 14, 1992, into the record, seconded by Alderman Kellogg. Motion carried 5--0. HOME OCCUPATION: William Goff was not present. Lisa Greenwood, 1422 West Ramshorn, stated that her business will offer help in matching students with available scholarships and grants. There will be no traffic coming to her home. Motion by Alderman Kellogg to grant Lisa Greenwood a home occupation, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 5--0. --Investment Committee minutes of February 12, 1992 were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Orr to enter the Investment Committee minutes of February 12, 1992, into the record, seconded by Alderman Marshall. Motion carried 5--0. --License Committee minutes of February 1]., 1992 were presented and reviewed. Motion by Alderman Graham to approve a business license for the Dairy Queen, pending a fire inspection, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 5--0. PETE KUNTZ Discussion followed regarding the office Pete Kuntz is operating out of a bus. Rob Harris, Fire Marshall, stated that when Pete applied for a business license, he was asked to do a fire inspection for two buildings located behind Richard's Repair that Pete was going to be using. The bus was not there at that time and he has not inspected it. If the council gives approval for the bus to be located there, Rob will then do the fire inspection. Jim Worthington is looking into the codes to see if the bus can legally be parked there. He has found that it must be l0 feet behind the property line if it is more than 26 feet in length. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Page 8 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Joe Bradley said Pete spoke to him and said he is running his office out of the bus. Joe said he apparently can do it unless there is a fire code problem. Joe said he cannot imagine how a motor vehicle can meet fire codes for an office. Darrell McGillen said he doesn't know if it's the fire codes so much as the building codes. Is the city going to allow him to do business out of a bus, regardless of where it is located? Do the building codes address this issue? Jim said according to the true definition of a building, it is not one. When you get into the specifics of the codes, it does not address a movable structure as a building. Jim said all he can find on a vehicle is that if it is in excess of 26 feet it must be 10 feet behind the property line. Joe said the building and fire codes are broke down into types of occupancy. If you look under office space in both codes, does it meet both building and fire codes? He is running a power supply with an extension cord, so does he have the proper type of wall separation required? Regarding the power supply, Rob said this will not meet the fire code. Jim said for an office that has trade, it requires a sewer and water supply. According to what has been said, it was the consensus of the council and Joe that the bus does not meet the codes and he cannot do business out of it. Joe said we will notify him that the structure he is operating out of does not meet the building codes and probably not the fire codes either. Before sending a letter, Joe would like Rob to do a fire inspection of the bus. Joe said Rob should be looking at it under the category of office space since that is what he is using it for. Darrell said he feels that this is getting dumped on the fire department. He said it must be permissible through the building codes before the fire codes even enter into it. Rob questioned whether the city would allow this type of thing based on a hypothetical situation. If he did the fire inspection and found the power supply to the bus was run through conduit, he had two exits, a fire extinguisher, etc., would he be allowed to park his bus anywhere he wants and do business? More discussion regarding where the process should start. It was suggested that it should meet the zoning requirements first. Do we allow motorized buses to park in a commercial area and do business? If it passes the zoning, it would then have to meet the building codes and finally, the fire codes. Cai Cumin was asked if this would meet the zoning requirements and he felt it would not. Rob once again stated that when he was called for a fire inspection for Pete Kuntz, it was for two buildings. They did not pass the inspection and Rob told him what he needed to do. About three months later he received a call to do another inspection. Pete had cleaned everything up and was now in compliance. The bus was not there at that time and had nothing to do with it. Joe said the bus had been parked in back next to one of the sheds, but Pete never mentioned that to anyone. Apparently, he was doing business out of it but never said anything about it and now he has moved it out front because he wants a more visible place for his sign. It was also stated that he has put up "No Parking" signs on the public right-of-way. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Page 9 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 DAY CARE CENTERS: (The committee recommended that Ordinance No. 997 be changed to read Child Day Care Centers instead of Day Care Facilities. At the committee meeting~ Joe explained that we cannot make baby-sitters with 12 or fewer children go through the special review process which costs $ 100.00. It is the larger day care center that requires a review.) Joe said this goes back to the old day care discussion. The Planning Board recommended that the council continue to require the special review, even for 12 or fewer children. The reason for this is to keep the neighbors informed as to what is going on and to get their input. This also informs the neighbors that the state sets the requirements for ]2 or fewer children and the city cannot do anything about it. Joe said the problem with our special review is that it costs the people a lot of money to go through it. We send certified letters out and publish notice in the newspaper. The problem is, how can we make them pay $ 100.00 to go through a process that we cannot deny them? Joe said the question is~ does the city want to drop that requirement altogether or waive the $ 100.00 fee and the city absorbs that cost. Cal questioned what the final recommendation was on this and Joe said it was to keep it. Lonnie Kellogg said the reason for keeping it was to let the neighbors know what is going on. Vicki Metzger said that when a person applies for a home occupation, they have to list the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 100 feet. The application also asks if adjacent residents have been notified of the home occupation. Joe said this is on their honor and the Planning Board does not really check out whether they have notified them. Joe said if you want to keep some type of hearing process on these people but you don~t want to foot the bill, we need to come up with some type of notification system. The simplest thing would be to eliminate the special review process for 12 or fewer children but the neighbors would not be notified. We may get a lot of complaints but we would just inform them that the city cannot do anything about it. It was questioned whether we could inform the neighbors by regular mail instead of certified letters and Joe said we could. This is so hard because we can't make them give us a list of neighbors or do anything else~ since it is automatically allowed. If the applicant is uncooperative, city personnel would have to look up all the names and send out the letters with our postage. Bob Graham said that if we cannot enforce it~ we should drop it from the ordinance. Joe said in theory it is good to get the neighbors involved so they know all about it but it is not practical to put requirements on the applicant that we cannot hold them to. Cal asked Joe if the reason we can't hold them to it is because they are allowed to do it by state law? Joe said we can't unzone someone. The special review is a zoning process. You can hold them to the business license and the fire inspection but if there are 12 or fewer children, we can't make them pay the $ 100.00 fee for a special review. We can require the special review but if they don't pay the $ 100.00, we cannot deny them the right to do business, according to state law. Joe said it comes down to the city eating the cost of a special review or we just drop it. It was questioned whether group homes fall under this and Joe said some of them do. Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Page 10 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Regarding the fee, Cal questioned why we cannot charge the fee. Joe said state law says we cannot put any conditions on the operation of a day care home. If we tell the applicant they have to pay the $ 100.00 fee or they cannot operate in our town, we are putting a condition on them. Joe stressed we have no rights on the homes with 12 or fewer children. The legislature has decided they are needed and the cities cannot regulate them. Joe said if the council accepts this, a new ordinance will be put on the agenda for the next meeting to amend this portion of it. Vicki questioned how this will effect the upcoming applicant that she has. Joe said we can't charge them the fee under state law. What we are doing is bringing our ordinance into compliance with state law. Joe said the city still has the right to do a business license and a fire inspection but we cannot do a conditional use zoning permit. FRED WINTERS - FIRE INSPECTION Discussion followed regarding whether the building Fred Winters moved into needs a fire inspection. Rob Harris clarified that the recent fire inspection mentioned was done on the storage buildings and not on the actual building where Fred is located. Because of this, Rob said it does need an inspection. In response to a question, Richard's Repair, Fred's Recycling. Rob stated that on those same grounds are TV, the storage facility, and Pete's Darrell McGillen stated that we are getting into multiple occupancy in the same facility. If fire codes do change, with the addition of occupancy within the same facility, it reflects the whole structure, not just one business. KBSR RADIO STATION The radio station completed an application and paid the fee but has never met with the committee. Vicki contacted the landlord of the building and she stated the man is out of town but she will inform him he needs to come in when he gets back. TEMPORARY LICENSE Discussion regarding the possibility of having a temporary license. Joe stated there are transient merchants who come through town and want to set up shop for a few days. These people will not go through the process because they are not here long enough. Years ago we had a transient merchant license and it's up to the council whether they want to reinstate it. Vicki stated the license fee is $ 50.00 a year whether or not the person only chooses to use it one day out of the year. The city prorates the license starting January 1st for the remaining fiscal year at a cost of $ 25.00. More discussion regarding the fact that our city businesses often sell the same products that the transient merchants due and they have to pay the full fee. If they buy a regular license, they can come back as often as they wish. Vicki stated she goes back and forth on whether this is too much to charge. There was a situation where a man wanted to sell trinkets on the 4th of July but didn't feel he would even make $ 50,00 He and many others came into town during the 4th of July, license or not, and were selling on Main Street. Norman said he feels they should have a license and it should remain at $ 50.00. Lonnie agrees that it should be left at $ 50.00. He is a businessman downtown and it keeps a lot of the itinerant merchants from coming in and bothering him. He said when you have a door open downtown, regardless of where it is at, you get all the transient salesmen. Page 11 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 When the craft sales are set up in Firemen's Park, Vicki questioned who is going to go and tell them they need a business license? Joe said this would be up to the organizers of the event. It is their responsibility to make sure all participants have a business license before signing them up. The Mayor suggested that maybe the organizer or committee in charge of the event, come in and buy a license to cover all the events for the one or two day period it covers. This cost could be split out on the booth rental. It was the consensus of the council not to have a temporary license. Motion by Alderman Graham to enter the License Committee minutes of February 11, 1992, into the record, seconded by Alderman Orr. Motion carried 5--0. --Public Utilities Committee minutes of February 10, 1992, reviewed. were At the committee meeting Jim Worthington requested that a flat fee and billing procedure be drawn up for curb box repairs. Jim stated this was brought up because of the problems we have had. The city sends out notices to property owners to repair their curb boxes and if they do not do it, the city goes out and does it. Many times people call inquiring about the cost. Jim said out of the last ten that the city did, the cost ranged from $ 88.00 to $ 490.00. A lot of this is due to the difference in manpower and equipment. Jim suggested to the committee that a flat fee be set for doing it. The committee recommended that he review previous ones and the average cost is around $ 227.00. Joe said we do not want to set an average, we want to get enough to cover the worst possible case. We are not in the business of fixing curb boxes and we don't want to compete with private contractors. In response to a question, Jim stated that the local contractor charges according to what it costs him on each job. He is in the same boat as the city when it comes to giving quotes on a job. Joe said the real question is whether business of repairing curb boxes. intention. the city wants to get in the He doesn't feel that is our Jim stated that what the city wants is curb boxes that operate properly and we would prefer that someone else repair them but that is not always possible. We fix them as a last resort. More discussion followed. It was the consensus of the council to leave the charging as it is now, based on time and material. Motion by Alderman Kellogg to Committee minutes of February 10, 1992, Alderman Marshall. Motion carried 6--0. enter the Public Utilities into the record, seconded by COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: Due to the recent controversy that has arisen with licensing and fire inspections, Rob Harris asked the council if they have any question regarding decisions that he has made in his position as Fire Marshall. Bob Graham asked if Celeste Davis had a fire inspection and if everything passed. Rob stated that it has been done and it passed. Ron Marshall inquired whether there is something he can read to familiarize himself with the fire codes. Jim stated there is a copy of the regulations downstairs but it is very lengthy. Page 12 Council Meeting of February 18, 1992 Minutes of the City Council of Laurel Bob Graham asked the Fire Chief and Marshall what their opinions are of the proposed full time/part time fire inspector position. Rob said there is no doubt in his mind that there is a real need for one in the City of Laurel. The city adopted the Uniform Fire Codes which require inspections, but as a volunteer, Rob said he is having a hard time doing inspections as they should be done. We've accepted these codes and it requires that annual inspections be done. Rob said there are lawsuits pending against cities where deaths have occurred in public buildings. According the the State Fire Marshall, these cities will have to pay because the fire inspection was not done. Bob Graham strongly recommended that the city find a way to employ at least a part-time fire inspector. Darrell McGillen said there is an ultimatum and that is to not adopt the uniform fire and building codes. The city would not be liable in that case. But, if this route is taken the city would have no grounds for doing a fire inspection and could not enforce any building codes. People could put up anything and move into anything. Rob stated that the book containing fire codes is very thick and he's the first to admit that there is a lot he doesn't know. He tries to do the best with what knowledge he has. He may not catch everything during an inspection but according to the state, the city is not liable if an inspection has been done. Darrell said the State Fire Marshall commented that the state has passed these codes, but they have been negligent in offering classes that will educate the people in their use. Darrell spoke on behalf of the Fire Department and said they do the very best that they know how to do. Me said what hurts is when people start calling them names and telling them they are not doing the best. job they possibly can. This puts a question mark on their ability. They're not out to mess with anybody, they just want to do what they think is proper. Darrell feels problems that arise should be addressed through the chain of command that we have in place within the city. These people are trained in their positions and when someone goes over them it sheds a negative light on that department. The question of having a Fire/Building Inspector was referred to the Fire Committee. MAYOR'S COMMENTS: The Mayor reminded the council to read the mail that Don Hackmann distributed from the Montana League of Cities and Towns. Chuck asked the council to complete the project list that he distributed since budget time is coming up shortly. There being no further business to come before the Council at time, the meeting was adjourned at~ p.m. Donald L. Hackmann, City Clerk this Approved by the Mayor and passed by the City Council of the City of Laurel~ Montana, this 3rd day of March, 1992. Chuck Rodgerr's, ~t/~yor ATTEST: Donald L. Hackmann, City Clerk