Loading...
3.b) Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor Position � � � �� , ��: _ > �a` � � � 1 ;� !"�` '' �'� ��� �� ,, �� `....�'+. e.,� v Memo SC��NDIA To: Mayor and City Council From: Anne Hurlburt,City Administrator Date: August 17,2011 for August 23,2011 Budget Work Session Re: Building OfficiaU Maintenance Supervisor Position At the August 9,2011 work session on the 2012 budget,Mayor Simonson made a written proposal concerning the Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor position,which would reverse the decisions made concerning the position at the June 14,2011 work session. The purpose of this memo is to respond to that proposal and to document how it would affect the 2012 budget as drafted by staff. Response to Simonson Proposal Building OfficiaU Code Enforcement Issues • The Mayor stated that the city does not need a full-time building inspector. Staff agrees and points out that the city has not had a full-time building inspector for quite some time,both unofficially(as Steve began taking on maintenance responsibilities several years ago)and officially since the job description was changed over a year ago. How the position has changed and evolved was documented in detail in my memo dated June 9,2011 which was prepared for the June 14 work session. A copy of that report is attached. • A detailed proposal for a contractual position was presented. Specific requirements suggested, such as giving the inspector"rules of conduct to follow"and a schedule for inspections and hours available to the public may not be realistic. An independent contractor must have the right to control the means and manner in which the services are performed. An employer cannot declare an employee to be a contractor and still expect to manage details of how the job is done. • If the city contracts building inspecrion,the level of service to the public would change dramatically. The availability of the inspector would be reduced significantly and permits would take longer to issue. There would be no avoiding this,even if the city negotiated requirements for a certain amount of of�ice hours for the inspector to be at the office or available to the public. • The proposal failed to take into account all of the other work now assigned to the current position that would need to be contracted to others or absorbed by other staff. The city would need to rely on consultants for some of this work,which would tend to negate the savings from eliminating an employee. This was documented in detail in the June 9 memo. 8/17/2011 Page 2 of 4 • The Mayor's memo commented on both animal control and other code enforcement. The ordinance mentioned is currently being followed; staff does not understand how he suggests that this would be different. The City would still be responsible for enforcing the administrative requirements for dangerous dogs. This is not an item that takes a lot of time overall,but someone does need to be responsible for it. It is highly unlikely that the Sherif�s Department would agree to do this. • The same is true of other code enforcement matters. LTltimately,code enforcement may become a matter of criminal law and it is important to properly investigate,collect evidence and document the situation if enforcement is to be effective. It is not a clerical job,but one that is best performed by someone who is familiar with enforcing codes and working with law enforcement and the legal system. It is easy to underestimate the amount of time even simple issues can take. The Sherif�s Department is unlikely to take on any additional responsibility for these matters. Public Works Supervisor • The Mayor proposes to split the current full time position and to create a new,part-time position that appears to be a hybrid of a heavy-equipment operator and a supervisor. Staff believes it would be unrealistic to expect to find a qualified person on a part-time basis with no benefits. • Detailed qualifications for the job were listed,including a response time to the Public Works facility. The City Attorney has advised that M. S. 415.16 Subd.2 read in conjunction with M.S. 473F.02 states that a response time cannot be made part of a job requirement in the 7 county metropolitan area,except for two ciries,and except for volunteer firefighters. The qualifications also included a CDL(Commercial Drivers License.)As long as the city has 2 full-time workers with CDLs and can hire seasonal back-ups,a CDL for the supervisor is probably not required. • The description proposed for the part-time position ignores many of the issues now dealt with by the current posirion(building maintenance issues,safety/OSHA compliance,working with the engineers&contractors on projects,researching&purchasing equipment,helping write policies, etc.) If a11 of these things were taken into account,there is enough work to keep a full-time employee busy. Comments The history of how the supervisor position evolved was documented in the June 9 memo. The current situation is a product of a very conservative approach and reluctance to hire more staff,even though the need has been documented since before the incorporation. We took an opportunity presented by the decrease in building activity to apply the expertise available among current staffrather than hiring more people. The fact that Steve has been willing and able to step up to new roles and responsibilities has been a significant benefit. He has gained significant knowledge and experience with the city and its systems that would not easily be replaced with contractual or part-time employees. At the August 9 meeting,some council members said that the city needed to pay more attention to streets and other insfrastructure,and that we are understaffed in public works. The 2011 budget had included restoring a part-time(.7 FTE)position that had been cut 2 years earlier. In March,the budget was amended to eliminate the position because Council believed there was not enough maintenance . 8/17/2011 Page 3 of 4 work to justify the position. The opinions of some members appear to now have changed. Staff continues to believe that more staffing is needed,including supervision. If Steve did not have the Building Official responsibilities, I have no doubt that he could productively spend full-time working on maintenance. The city was fortunate that when the city asked him to take on more responsibility that he had the time to do the work—which would not have been possible if building activity had been high. Making a new hire for either of the positions at the part-time level would have been difficult. The intent was that someday,by the time building acrivity returned to the level justifying a full-time position,the city might be able to hire a full-time public works superintendent/maintenance supervisor. If the Council feels that this is the rime to have a full-time Maintenance Supervisor,you can make the decision to add that position. At less than fizll-time it will be difficult to find someone who has the experience and qualifications needed to deal with the road maintenance issues the Council is concerned about as well as sewer,water,buildings, equipment,safety and other aspects of the job. It would be very difficult to adequately supervise the staff and work on the policy issues that the city is facing on a part-time basis. There will be a large learning curve. It is not a reasonable expectation to hire a new employee to do all these things without a full-time salary and full-time benefits,. If the Council wants to return the city to a contracted building inspector airangement,you can make that decision as well. I believe it will result in a drasric reduction in service to the public. I refer you to the June 9 memo (especially pages 3 to 4)for a discussion of the work that would not be performed by the contractor. Replacing that work will require more time from other contracted services(such as the planner and/or attorney) and would significantly impact my work load as administrator. This work cannot be absorbed by the existing staff,even if additional hours of support stafftime are added,as proposed in the 2012 budget. Less time will be available for other tasks;there is no way to avoid it. Budget Impacts The draft 2012 budget assumes the current staf�ing arrangements,with sma11 additions to staff in the form of an additional seasonal employee in Public Works, and expanding the hours of the Deputy Clerk in Administration. If the Council decides to accept all or part of the Mayor's proposal there will need to be significant budget changes, some of which were already described in the June 9 memo. Here are some of the changes that would be necessary: • The Administration budget for legal services should be increased as described in the June 9 memo (+$8,600.) (Since then,it should be noted,the Council decided to issue an RFP for legal services. If the City changes legal representation,a much larger increase in the legal budget should be considered because of the time it will take a new firm to become familiar with the city.) • The Planning&Building budget would need to be revised to eliminate the personal services for the Building Official (-$44,000)and replace it with contractual services(+$44,000.) Contractual services for planning would need to increase(+$15-20,000)to take over some work now done by the Building Official (zoning review of building permits,mining inspections&monitoring,etc.) � 8/17/2011 Page 4 of 4 • The Planning&Building budget would need to increase to cover unemployment benefits to our current employee,which could be up to$30,000(based on the most current information from the State of Mn.) Some unemployment compensation would almost certainly be due even if he was hired back as a contractor. � The Public Works budget for personal services would be increased to eliminate the current position(-$44,000)and add a new full-time position. Based on the League of Minnesota Cities surveys,the likely salary range for a Superintendent position is$60,000 to$72,000. The total cost with benefits would be in the range of$76,000 to $100,000 per year,depending on the starting salary and whether or not family medical benefits are requested. (The cuirent position costs about$88,000 for all salary and benefits,split between 2 departments in the 2012 draft budget.) • The Parks Budget for contractual services would need to increase to cover the cost of contracting for a water system operator, at least until an employee is trained or hired with the required license(+$2,250.) • The 201 Sewer System budget should be revised to assume that the city will continue its contract with the County. This will decrease revenue to the Public Works budget in the General Fund(by about$5,750)and increase the needed tax levy support. Because the Council decided at the August 16 meeting that staffwould not attend the training required,it is certain that city will not have staffqualified to operate the system in 2012. Even if the salaries and benefits for the new employee aze approximately equal to those of the current employee, I estimate the net impact on the 2012 General Fund budget to be about$60,000 in expenses more than proposed by staff. This is a little more than the estimated cost of eliminating the position that was provided in the June 9 memo(partly because of a higher estimate of unemployment benefits received from the state.) Recommendation I continue to strongly recommend that the Council retain the current staff. However,if the Council wants to make a change,you should make the decision as soon as possible and set a timeline for putting the new arrangements in place. Vacillating is taking up valuable time and severely impacting staffproductivity and morale. Attachments: • Mayor's Proposal(August 9,2011) • Memo dated June 9,2011 for June 14,2011 Work Session Meeting � , .-, � •� ..�� �r , .., - - ��✓�/ As the Mayor of Scandia, I take my responsibilities to heart. I spend many hours trying to place carefu� consideration on what is important for the cities welfare. Anne I have listened to your concerns and read through your previous report that was presented at a special meeting held in the community center on June 14th. Your documented reasons why it is important for Scandia to retain a full time building inspector have been carefully weighed along with its felt importance. I also do understand and appreciate the handful of citizens that came forward and voiced their desire to keep a full time building inspector. The common theme that was spoken is about how our building inspector was always available for their needs and helped them trouble shoot issues. In the short term these are all good attributes, but in the long term and what is good for the city is not always the same. Since our special meeting took place in June, I have continued to listen to citizens of our community that do not agree with the position of building inspector remaining as it is when very little building is going on in our city. For example: we have a fleet of vehicles that need repair once in awhile. These repairs may at times require serious trouble shooting to repair them, or it could be as simple as an oil change. We take what troubled vehicle it is, to the qualified service person to address the issue and then be on our way. In the case of our John Deere tractor when something breaks down their mechanic comes to us or they take it to their shop. When fire trucks need service they come to us as needed or it is taken to them. This vehicle repair or service needs are similar to the needs of current activity levels in construction in our city. We don't pay to have a full time heavy duty mechanic on staff for the times when we may need them. The same is true for our current building trend. We don't require a full time inspector for times when we may need them to inspect. To the tax payer, the city is not utilizing it funds to its fullest potential. I have waited patiently for this time to be upon us to discuss next year's budget before recommending the following ideas and changes. Council it was through the forethought of Anne tackling the Electrical Inspector needs of this city that put it over the top for me and to bring this forward at this time. If one inspector position for the city can be under contract then it is my belief that one more inspectors position for the city can be under contract as well. I am in no way telling you what you must do; I am standing before you, representing the voices of those concerned citizens that also wish to be heard. To those that wish to judge me or this council in a negative way for what I have brought forth is your right. But negative insinuations will be considered counterproductive in bringing forth change that could result in positive affect for Scandia. Change isn't a bad thing when carefully considered and we as an elected body have the responsibility to look at all alternatives for everything we do in this budget process. I expect us to take ownership of what we decide and not rubber stamp anything until we are satisfied we have done all we can. So the following are my suggestions to consider for change and or implementation during our budget discussions. Please keep in mind that this list is not limited, but open as we work our way through the process. Building Inspector: . Position will become a contracted position • 70/30 percentage with a ceiling of 70k then 30/70 percent • The contracted position will be provided with expected rules of conduct to follow for the city. . There will be established and published inspector times available for city inspections and hours available to the public. • Individual rnust be qualified as per city requirements to include state and county professional certificates and licenses. • The contract should include a termination clause that could be terminated by the contractor or the city in writing to take affect either in 30 or more days. � Animal Control: • Washington County animal control • Dangerous dogs will be reported to the city for proper handling of city code enforcement as outlined in the ClTY OF SCANDiA ORDINANCE NO. 120 Public Works Supervisor: • This position will be changed to become a separate and part time position. � Individual will provide direction in the morning as required to the crew as to what tasks need to be done with any guidance required. • They will also be responsible for maintenance and preventative maintenance oversight. • They will be within 20 minutes response to the maintenance building • They will have heavy equipment experience and CDL for back up • Will have knowledge and experience in road maintenance. • Will be qualified for septic system oversight and testing. • The job position will work 25 to 30 hours per week, which will be on a flex schedule. Code Enforcement: • We will add or authorize more hours for our new office employee to take on code enforcement notifications or follow-up, or to take on other responsibilities as the administrator deems necessary to take on the code enforcement personally. c If verifications need to be confirmed before actions, utilize the maintenance personnel if it is on their route of other work, if determination cannot wait, then notify our police officer for verification. • For first notification of code infractions, a phone call will be used • Second will be a letter from the city • Third notification will be police action. • All actions taken and notifications will be logged into a data base for tracking all code enforcement issues. I now invite the council to decide during this budget process what is good for Scandia. �� �� � :�� \ /, x��.:> � r � ` �� �f� ..^'� � ,�«.� ���� EJ � �������� Memo , To: Mayor and City Council �-om: Anne Huriburt,City Administrator Date: June 9,2011 for June 14,2011 Work Session Meeting Re: Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor Position Purpose of tlus Report: At the May 10 Council meeting, Council member Schneider made a recommendation to eliminate or reduce the full-time position of Building OfficiaU Public Works Supervisor. The reason given was that the downturn in construction and building permit activity has reduced the workload and that the revenue no longer justifies the expense. This report will provide infonnation for the Council's discussion,including: • the history of the Building Official position; • how it has evolved into the Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor position; • building inspection work load; • costs and revenues associated with the position; and • impacts of reducing or eliminating the position. Summary and Conclusions: Based on the information that follows,my conclusions are: � The creation of the Building Official posidon shortly after the incorporation of the city was a well-founded decision based on the economic situation of the time. • It has met the original goals to improve building-code related services to the public as well as to provide local planning and zoning administrarion necessitated by the incorporation. • The building downturn allowed the city time to address a chaotic situation with public works staffing. Expanding the position to include the Maintenance Supervisor duties is helping to improve management of those funcrions and to address critical issues with the ciTy's infrastructure. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 2 of 11 • About half of Steve Thorp's time is now spent on Building Code related work,and the other half in other duties. Building permit fee revenue more than covers that portion of his time spent on building code work. • It may be desirable to alter the budget to more accurately show how Steve's time is divided among multiple departments. • Reducing or eliminating the position will not save money,as the city would incur significant costs to hire consultants and will potentially lose opportunities for additional revenues. The city rnay also be at risk for greater expenses in the future. • Scandia has made only modest additions to staff since the incorporation of the city. Reducing or eliminating any position will severely affect the city's ability to function and would result in major reductions in service to the public. History of the Building Official Position: Enforcement of the state building code is required for all towns and cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. The Township hired its first contractual Building Official in 1999,when Washington County ceased providing the service. The conh-act was held by A1 Goodman through 2001 and Jon Ludwig through 2005. Following Ludwig's retirement,the service was provided by Jim Schneider,who had been working as a subcontractor for Ludwig,by an informal arrangement under the same terms as Ludwig's contract until July 2007 when Steve T'horp was hired as the Building and Code Enforcement Official. The contract Building Official was paid based on a share of the building peimit fees(70%)and plan check fees(100%)collected by the city. Ludwig's contract also provided for office space,telephone and clerical support. They were not employees and were free to accept other work,even full-time employment elsewhere(in the case of Schneider.) They were not required to report the number of hours they worked and were free to employ subcontractors or employees of their own if needed to perform the service. In the early part of the last decade,during the peak of new home construction in the Township,payments to the contract Building Official were as much as$134,397 in a single year (2005.) The contractors' responsibilities were limited to enforcement of the building code. About 2004 to 2005,the Township began planning for a change to the City fo�n of government. Studies prepared by Springsted, Inc.to analyze the potential incorporation noted that the township would lose services valued at about$80,000 from Washington County in the area of planning and zoning administration. Their report stated that the new city could combine the zoning administration and building official responsibilities into a single full-time position. The report also said it would likely be necessary to increase at least one of two existing part-time receptionist positions(then working a total of about 40 hours per week)to a full-time posidon,to provide enough support for the planning,zoning and building inspection work. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 3 of 1] In early 2006,long-time Town Clerk Dolores Peterson retired and the Town Boazd, anticipating the incorporation of the city later that year,decided to hire an Administrator to provide overall management for the town/city government. By the time I began the position in September 2006 one of the part-time support staff had also retired,and one of the two full-time maintenance workers retired shortly thereafter. Anticipating filling these vacancies and the Building Official position, personnel policies were written,job descriptions were developed for all city positions and benefits and salary rates were set. T'he City hired several new staff inembers in quick succession: an office Assistant in May 2007, a full-time maintenance worker in June 2007 (Mike Egella�aut), and the Building/Code Enforcement Official in July 2007 (Steve Thorp.) The job description for the Building/Code Enforcement Official incorporated all the duties of the contract position plus: � Monitoring construction sites and developments for compliance with erosion control measures,tree preservarion,conservation easements,azchitectural control and other standards • Monitoring conditions of approval,development ageements and financial guarantees for a11 zoning permits, subdivisions and mining permits • Receive,investigate and document complaints regarding property maintenance,construction and other land use acrivities • Coordinate enforcement actions. • Other duties as assigned. The goals for bringing the position in-house included: • Improved service to the public. An employee would be available at the city office during regular hours to meet with citizens about their projects,answer phone calls and perform inspections. Simple permits could be issued immediately. • Better enforcement of building code and existing local ordinances. Over the years it had been reported to Board members that the contract inspectors performed cursory inspections or none at all. Building permits were sometimes issued without due regard for local zoning requirements. An employee would be more accountable to the Board/ Council. They would provide information on and enforce local ordinances (such as property maintenance requirements) that are not part of the building code. • Better enforcement and monitoring of development approvals. Conditions on CUPs, variances and other approvals require follow-through. New subdivisions require monitoring to ensure all improvements are completed to city standards. Costly errors had been made and more oversight was needed. (For example, an inadequate financial guarantee cost the city over$20,000 to complete a street when the developer defaulted.) • New regulations needed enforcement. The city assumed full responsibility for regulation of mining, shoreland and floodplains and all other land use matters. Mining regulations, for example, require on-going monitoring and enforcement and coordination 6/9/11 for 6/14/]1 Work Sessian Page 4 of 1] with other agencies. The new position would replace at least some of the services formerly provided by the County. • Streamlining permitting processes. With staff available to review and/or issue permits, the burden for the Council to act as the zoning administrator could be reduced. Having staff available to process administrative permits and answer questions would save time and cost, and reduce the reliance on consultants. Evolution of the Position to Maintenance Supervisor: In October of 2006, as the Town was preparing to make the transition to the City form of government, a long term maintenance worker(Brian Jemelka) retired, leaving the city with 1 full-time maintenance worker(John Morrison) and a 3/5 (24 hour/wk)part time maintenance worker. Hiring a replacement was delayed due to a large severance payment (not possible under new policies) creating an opportunity to evaluate the staffing in that area. Maintenance work had been primarily focused on roads and reacting to immediate needs, with very little planning for future needs. T'he 2 full-time employees functioned almost completely independently of each other and rarely spoke. There was no lead worker or anyone in charge. With a new hire imminent, who would need training and work direction, it was decided a supervisor was needed and John Momson was promoted in March of 2007. He was expected to plan and coordinate all maintenance work and give input for the CIP and budget. Over approximately the next year, it became apparent that even if he had the skills and abilities, John would not have enough time to step up to the new role. With only 2 and 3/5 FTE workers, all of their time was needed to keep up with the basic maintenance tasks. He wasn't able to give meaningful input for the pavement management plan,budget or CIP as was hoped. Meanwhile, the list of maintenance concerns was growing. Some notable examples: • The Community Center well became contaminated, and subsequently the Uptown Water System was found to be out of compliance with Heath Department guidelines. Deferred maintenance had to be corrected and a new program of compliance inspection and testing initiated. • Maintenance issues with the Uptown sewer system were becoming frequent,highlighting years of neglect and lack of planning for the future. • Major deficiencies in safety training and reporting requirements were identified, and mock OSHA inspections generated a long list of corrections to buildings and equipment. • LMCIT loss control inspections required corrections and regular inspection programs for various facilities, such as playgrounds. Without maintenance staff to take the lead, Steve was the logical choice to work on these and 6/9/l 1 for 6/14/1 l Work Session Page 5 of 11 other projects in areas where he had some experience and expertis�part of the "other duties as assigned" in the job description. On July 1, 2008, John Morrison went out on a medical leave that lasted until early spring of 2009. We did not know whether or when he might return. The 3/5 part-time maintenance worker decided to retire that fall, leaving the city with only 1 worker with winter-season experience. Steve took the lead to help hire, train and coordinate the temporary hires necessary to ensure basic snowplowing services. Steve gave direction to the team and we made it through the winter, partly because he did some snow removal himself to fill the gaps. In the Spring of 2009, still unsure of John's ability to supervise employees, we decided not to immediately fill the vacant 3/5 part-time position and to use seasonal labor for the summer months, with Steve continuing to provide work direction. Steve continued to work on many projects that ideally should have been taken on by the public works staff, had they the time and ability to do so. These included developing plans for the salt storage structure, coming into compliance with the uptown water system issues, and working with the County Health Department on sewer issues. Other projects included demolition of the former Rasmussen home, coordinating building maintenance and repairs, organizing required training , applying for grants, managing small construction projects (such as the Lilleskogen Weir) and many other items not strictly within his job description. John Morrison finally retired for medical reasons in June of 2010. (John passed away the following October.) The HR Committee and Council met, and found that with only 2 full-time staff inembers there would never be time for one for one of them to be a supervisor. Because Steve Thorp was already taking on a large share of the work, the Council approved a revised job description adding the primary objective to "provide oversight and work direction for maintenance personnel and contractors to ensure that all city infrastructure (including roads, drainage systems, sewer and water) and facilities (including parks and public buildings) are operated and maintained in good condition." The new job description was approved in June of 2010. It was noted that this might be a temporary arrangement. If building and development should increase, the combination of those duties with supervision of maintenance functions would be too much for one person. The work load would need to be monitored and re-evaluated as necessary. Jeff Anderson was hired in September, 2010, restoring the full-time maintenance staff to 2 people. Jeff,Mike and Steve are working well as a team, and together have addressed a number of issues such as snowplowing, providing input for pavement management and a major equipment purchase, and undertaken projects that would have been difficult over the time when the staffing was uncertain or short-handed due to John's illness. 6/9/l 1 for 6/l4/11 Work Session Page 6 of 11 Steve Thorp spends approximately half of his time on activities other than what was in his original job description. Most of that time is on activities that were not being done by anyone else in the past. We expect that more time will be spent on maintenance issues in the near future. We are just starting to identify problems with drainage ways, and the need to adopt federally- mandated policies for sign maintenance, for a couple of examples. Depending on the outcome of the Uptown Sewer Study, staff may acquire more day-to-day responsibilities for maintenance of that system. The city is already spending over$30,000 per year for contractual services for management of the 201 Community Sewer System. There may be an opportunity to reduce costs overall by bringing some sewer maintenance expertise in-house. We may want to add maintenance staff in the future. Because the blended position of Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor is new, and it was seen as potentially a temporary arrangement,the 2010 budget was not amended nor was the 2011 budget prepared to show the costs (salary,benefits, etc.)of the position split among the departments affected. The position is still accounted for completely within the Planning/Building budget in the General Fund. While the accounting would be a bit more complicated, it may make sense to split this position in proportion to time spent across all the affected budgets, to more accurately portray how the city spends its money for various functions. Building Inspection Work Load: How much staff does it take to administer the Building Code? The number and type of permits matters, as does the level of service the community wishes to provide. It can be done with an absolute minimum level of effort or it can be done with a greater goal of service to the public, to help them do the job right and recognizing the importance of proper construction to public safety. In 2001, two years after the Township took over responsibility for building inspection, Inspector A1 Goodman wrote to the New Scandia Town Board that "the building inspection volume for New Scandia has turned out to be much more than I anticipated, and the only way to do it justice, and keep my saniry.... is to deal with it on a full time basis. " The total number of permits was 136 and 133 in 1999 and 2000, respectively, with 28 and 21 new single family home permits. The total revenue in those years ($91,551 in 1999 and $77,574 in 2000)would have supported a full-time employee. (See attached table and chart of permits and fees.) For the next several years the "boom"continued. During the 7-year period from 1999 through 2005 an average of 30 new home permits, and an average of 160 permits of all types, were issued each year. T'he housing market crashed in 2006, and in the 5-year period of 2006 though 2010 the average number of new homes per year fell to less than 9. However, the average number of all types of permits during that same period was 173, more than during the boom years. This 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 7 of 11 was fueled partly by a large number of permits to repair storm damage in 2008,but indicates that small projects have continued even as new home construction slowed. Not all permits are created equal when it comes to the level of effort and staff time required. Steve and I have both have many years of experience with building code administration in small communities as well as some of the largest in the state, and we agree in the following observations: • New homes and businesses generate the highest permit fees because of their value;but the staff time needed for plan reviews and inspections often cost less than the fees generated because of the expertise of the professional architects, engineers and contractors working on the project. � Homeowner projects generate minimal peimit fees; in fact fees are generally kept low to encourage compliance with permit requirements. The time it takes to educate and advise on do-it-your-self projects can be wildly out of proportion to the permit fee collected. But this is a service often highly valued by the citizen and important to ensure building safety. Steve often finds himself in lengthy, unscheduled conversations with residents about their projects. Another source of data on building inspection deparhnents is ISO (Insurance Offices, Inc.)which evaluates building code enforcement in thousands of jurisdictions around the country. They apply ratings that can result in insurance discounts for new structures in communities with good enforcement of building codes (they also rate fire deparhnents.) ISO evaluated Scandia this spring. A copy of the full report has been provided to the Council separately from this memo. The report includes some benchmarking data that communities can use to compare their staffing levels with data collected from over 14,000 code enforcement departments across the nation. Scandia ranked lower than the benchmarks for plan reviews; not unexpected because of the very small number in 2010 (many minor permits do not require plan reviews.) However, Scandia exceeded the benchmarks for annual workload per inspector compared to communities of similar populations, issuing similar numbers of permits and conducting a similar number of inspections. This report does not appear to find Scandia to be overstaffed. It is my opinion that the current workload for the Building Inspection functions requires at least a half-time position. This does not include the local code enforcement and additional planning and zoning duties, or any of the other work not previously performed by contracted inspectors. As will be described in the following pages, revenues are sufficient to cover this service. Building Code Enforcement Costs and Revenues: The following table shows the total cost of the position as projected for 2011, compared to the actual revenue from 2010, the last full year available. The first column shows the entire cost; the 6/9/11 for 6/14/I 1 Work Session Page8of11 second column shows half the cost because as discussed above, approximately half of Steve's time is spent on activities other than Building Code enforcement. For the portion of Steve's time spent on Building Code Enforcement, revenue is estimated to exceed the cost of the position by $12,356. Cost of Stafl Position 100% 50% Personal Services: Salary 70,000 35,000 PERA-Employer Contribution 5,075 2,538 FICA-Employer Contribution 4,340 2,170 Medicare-Employer Contribution 1,015 508 Life Insurance 220 110 Health(Insurance&HSA) 6,312 3,156 Disability Insurance 380 190 Workers Comp Insurance Premium 735 368 Subtotal $88,077 $44,039 Other Expenses: Materials&Supplies(exc.Fuel) 700 350 Fuel 40 20 Employee Training 500 250 Telephone 700 350 Dues and Subscriptions 250 125 Vehicle Replacement 1408 704 Subtotal $3,598 $1,799 Total,All Expenses(2011) $91,675 $45,838 2010 Revenue,Less State Surcharge $58,193 $58,193 Net Ezpense after Revenue 533,482 -$12,356 Impacts of Reducing or Eliminating the Position Could the City save money by reducing this position to part-time, or eliminating it entirely? Reducing the position to part-time would require eliminating all of the duties not strictly related to building code enforcement; essentially reducing the service to what was in place when contractual services were used. This would eliminate supervising public works and all of the special projects now done by Steve. Any time available to work on code enforcement issues and deal with planning and zoning requests would be gone. I would expect we would lose our current employee. Hiring a part-time employee with no benefits would be difficult, so we would likely have to return to a contractual arrangement. 6/9/11 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page 9 of 11 The table below shows the estimated annual cost to eliminate the position and replace only part of what Steve does with contractual services. There would also be a one-time cost up to $22,500 for unemployment compensation. Cost to Eliminate Position Annual Expense: Assumptions: Building OfficiaU Contractual $44,073 '70%permit fees, 100%plan check Water System Operator Contractual $2,252 EcoCheck proposal; assumes no service calls Planning $23,088 $111/hr,4 hrs/week X 52 weeks Engineering $12,960 $135/hr, 12 hrs/mo X 12 months Legal,Prosecutor $8,640 $120/hr,6 hrs/mo Total Expenses $91,013 2010 Revenue,Less State Surcharge $58,193 Net Expense after Revenue $32,820 I consider this a very conservative estimate of the cost to replace Steve's services. It does NOT include any costs to replace the value he provides as maintenance supervisor. A few notes about the assumptions: • The cost for contractual Building Official services is based on the old Township contract. Some communities pay higher-80% of permit fees is common. I would estimate that returning to a contract inspector may also increase the burden on support staff, as the inspector would be less available to take calls. No estimate is given for any such impact. • Steve is the only staff inember with the required license to operate the Uptown water system. Services would have to be secured immediately, or the city would face a$10,000 fine for violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I have not included any costs for an operator for the Uptown Sewer System. We will not know until after the current engineering study is completed, but it is likely we will need to increase the monitoring and maintenance program. The 2 maintenance workers do not have the time to absorb this work. • The additional cost for planning services is based on estimates of non-reimbursable planning fees paid to TKDA by other clients who do not have staff in-house to answer zoning inquiries (such as Stillwater Township and Newport.) • Extra engineering services would be needed for review of certain non-building permits (such as utility permits) now handled by Steve, inspecting mining operations, etc. The hourly rate is an average of the typical rates charged, so could be higher. • More legal services would be necessary to follow up on code issues (such as investigating and following up on animal complaints) and on ordinance and resolution preparation. 6/9/]1 for 6/14/11 Work Session Page l0 of l 1 I believe these estimates to be very conservative. To the extent that elimination of the position requires the Administrator or some other staff to absorb Steve's non-building related duties, the additional consultant costs could be significantly higher. Consultant costs can be exorbitant compared to the cost of staff, and some stafftime is required to provide proper oversight. (Salaries and benefits for the Administrator total $50 per hour, significantly less than any of our consultants) It would be very difficult to measure,but the city may also lose opportunities for additional revenue. It would be difficult to apply for grants (such as the ones recently received from the Health Department and the SHIP program) without staffresources. Without staffto investigate, it will also be much more difficult to explore cost savings or shop for less expensive services and materials. The city also risks potentially greater costs in the future if certain work Steve does is eliminated. For example, Steve helps keep the city's safety training and inspections programs on track. A single OSHA inspection could result in a major fine. And, failure to follow up on a minor road or drainage issue today can result in a much costly repair in the future. Springsted's incorporation study documented the need to replace services lost from the County, and suggested that staff could be hired to handle planning and zoning matters along with increasing support staff. What wasn't known at the time were all of the deficiencies that would need to be conected to bring management of the local government into compliance with basic requirements of all cities. It also wasn't known how much deferred maintenance Scandia was facing and the significant policy issues that the new city government would be dealing with. There still may be feelings in the community that"things were just fine in the township days." However,many things needed to change, and that level of staffing would clearly be inadequate today. Only two new positions have been added since 2005: Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor and the City Administrator(which replaced the Clerk, many duties of which were absorbed by Deputy Clerk.) This is only about 1.25 FTE (full time equivalent positions) of added staff time. Both positions are spread very thin and deal with a very lazge array of issues. Eliminating a position would reduce the staf�ing level to about what it was before the incorporation of the city; or less,when you consider that the 3/5 maintenance job was not fully replaced. Eliminating any position would severely impact the city's ability to function. Comparing Scandia's overall staffing level to that of other communities is beyond the scope of this report. A survey was conducted in 2010 to compare the number of public works employees and snow removal equipment and practices across a number of communities. This showed Scandia to have a very small number of employees compared to other cities,particularly when comparing the miles of roads to be maintained. Based on our knowledge of staffing in other 6/9/I 1 for 6/14/1 I Work Session Page I 1 of 1] communities, we believe Scandia is extremely lean and has been very conservative about hiring staff for all purposes. Attachments: 1. New Scandia Township/City of Scandia Building Peimits, 1999-2010 2. Position Description,Building and Code Enforcement Official(March 20,2007) 3. Position Description,Building Official/Maintenance Supervisor(June 15,2010) 4. Survey of Public Works Staffing&Equipment for Snow Removal,2010 New Scandia Township/City of Scandia Building Permits, 1999-2010 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Number of Permits by Year Single Family New 28 21 31 33 33 30 35 15 7 5 8 8 AllPermits 136 133 162 161 193 158 180 128 129 268 189 154 Valuation $7,235,236 $5,939,288 $9,413,280 $10,090,979 $14,838,291 $13,000,251 $16,049,295 $7,823,607 $4,524,821 $4,597,134 $3,145,364 $3,971,068 Fees(excluding State Surcharge) Permit Fee 58,746 47,452 72,390 80,001 110,700 94,574 114,817 59,963 31,623 37,620 29,013 37,942 Penalty 154 125 0 287 350 0 1,018 71 0 0 533 378 Other 475 1,325 125 425 475 400 350 1,625 250 5,036 4,057 2,359 Plan Review Fee 32,176 28,673 41,979 47,489 66,195 67,895 68,268 35,458 16,537 13,221 9,097 17,514 Total Pertnit Fees $91,551 $77,574 $114,493 $128,202 $177,720 $162,870 $184,452 $97,117 $48,410 $55,877 $42,700 $58,193 Cost of Contract Services $69,181 $57,951 $84,109 $103,777 $125,183 $116,737 $134,397 $76,498 $31,448 Township/City Share $22,370 $19,623 $30,384 $24,425 $52,537 $46,132 $50,055 $20,619 $16,962 $55,877 $42,700 $58,193 ,. _ _. �- -- ------_.-- -. .--- - ---__ __ _ _ ______... .--__ -----_ _--- --------------------- -� � Permits by Year, 1999-2010 Permit Fees by Year, 1999-2010 ; ; 300 �------------- --- - -- -____ .. ___._ _ - --- �; szoo,000 --- --- i , , � ' „ � Siso,000 ----- --------_------- --------- � � iso � -------------'- -- ----- ' I i � $160,000 _._-- .._ . ._..------ - - ------------------ ' � " I .' I $140.000 ._.___ _ --- ----- --------------- � 200 ;------------------------------- � `------ i $120,000 - - ------ - ------ -- � � ;-------- -T-- -- � ^ ' 150 ------_�_�_- _�- $100,000 --.__-----• -------------- � � �Single Family I, ■Cost of Contrect � � ' $80,000 � - - - New Services i 100 i- - - - - -- -- - - �All Permits $60,000 * � Township/City ' i i $40,000 r Share I � 50 t- - -,- - - � � ' $20,000 �_ - - I ! 0 L� -� -��-- `--- ---_tl'-' --�---�'.--"�`---';--'"�.. j $0 _. __ __ __.. - -- -- _ __ i 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1999 2000 20012002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 i i I , i , '- -------- --- � � Approved by City Council, March 20, 2007 City of Scandia, Minnesota POSITION DESCRIPTION TITLE: BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL STATUS: Full-time (40-hours/week) regular position Normal working hours per personnel policy FLSA Exempt REPORTS TO: City Administrator City Council PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Administer and enforce codes and regulations relating to building construction, remodeling, zoning, subdivision, land development and property maintenance. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: 1. Serve as the Building Official as defined by the Minnesota state building codes, including but not limited to reviewing and approving building construction plans, Issuing permits, conducting inspections, issuing correction and stop work orders, issuing certificates of occupancy, maintaining records, and recommending fee schedules. 2. Serve as the primary contact for the public regarding the Building Code and local codes and ordinances, including providing advice to applicants on approval processes and permitting requirements, and receiving and rev'rewing application materials. 3. Explain, interpret and provide guidance on all applicable codes to architects, engineers, contractors, developers, residents and others as necessary. 4. Coordinate application review and permit issuance with other governmental agencies (state, county, watersheds, and adjacent municipalities), city staff and consultants. 5. Provide technical advice and recommendations to staff, advisory bodies and the City Council as requested. 6. Monitor construction sites and developments for compliance with erosion control measures, tree preservation, conservation easements, architectural controls and other performance standards, as applicable. 7. Monitor conditions of approval, development agreements and financial guarantees for all zoning permits, subdivisions and mining permits. 8. Receive, investigate and document complaints regarding property maintenance, construction and other land-use activities. Page 1 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 9. Coordinate enforcement actions with city staff(administrator, attorney, engineer, police department) and other agencies. Testify in criminal and civil matters as needed. 10.Prepare reports regarding permitting, inspection and enforcement functions. 11.Develop and maintain application forms, checklists and other materials to inform the public about code requirements and procedures. 12.Perform other duties as assigned. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: 1. Thorough knowledge of building, plumbing, accessibility, mechanical and general construction codes. 2. Knowledge of applicable federal, state and local laws. 3. Considerable knowledge of building design, construction and contracting practices, including carpentry, concrete and cement and plumbing; knowledge of zoning and subdivision regulations, inspection methods and enforcement. 4. Ability to develop and maintain an accurate understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations and othe� city codes. 5. Skill in evaluating the quality and value of construction and remodeling projects. 6. Mathematical skills as applied to building construction principles. 7. Skill in handling customer complaints and general information requests regarding codes through phone and/or personal contacts. 8. Basic skill level with personal computers and Microsoft Word and Excel spreadsheet software. Ability to learn and use other software as required. 9. Ability to develop and maintain effective working relationships with a wide variety of City personnel and the general public. 10.Ability to occasionally attend meetings or perform inspection activities on weekday evenings and/or weekends. 11.Ability to deal discreetly with confidential information. 12.Ability to prioritize work responsibilities and effectively utilize time. 13.Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: 1. Ensures that all permits issued meet requirements of state and local codes and ordinances. 2. Permits are issued and inspections are performed in a timely manner. 3. Requirements of state laws and local ordinances and policies are met. 4. Records are accurate, current and efficiently maintained with information readily available, and reported in a timely manner. 5. Preparation of required and requested materials and reports is timely, thorough, and complete. 6. Public contacts are courteous and businesslike and the information provided is accurate and timely. Page 2 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 7. Develops a positive relationship with residents, contractors and others. 8. Performs assigned tasks with minimum direct supervision. 9. Keeps supervisor informed of all significant matters he/she must know to perform his/her responsibilities effectively. 10.Expenditures are within budgetary limits. IVIINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Completion of formal recognized course work in building inspection technology and administration or equivalent. 2. Certification as a Building Official by State of Minnesota is required. 3. Certification as Building Inspector and Plans Examiner by I.C.C. or equivalent credentials is desirable. 4. Must be capable of safely performing physical actions necessary to conduct inspections at, above or below ground level of construction sites. 5. Four years of responsible experience in construction inspection, preferably in a municipal government setting, or equivalent education and training. 6. Valid Minnesota Class "D" driver's license. SUPERVISION OF OTHERS: 1. Some direction may be provided to office support personnel. Page 3 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 Approved by City Council, June 15, 2010 City of Scandia, Minnesota POSITION DESCRIPTION TITLE: BUILDING OFFICIAL/ MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR STATUS: Full-time (40-hours/week) regular position Normal working hours per personnel policy FLSA Exempt REPORTS TO: City Administrator City Council PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: Administer and enforce codes and regulations relating to building construction, remodeling, zoning, subdivision, land development and property maintenance. Provide oversight and work direction for maintenance personnel and contractors to ensure that all city infrastructure (including roads, drainage systems, sewer and water) and facilities (including parks and public buildings) are operated and maintained in good condition. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS: 1. Serve as the Building Official as defined by the Minnesota state building codes, including but not limited to reviewing and approving building construction plans, Issuing permits, conducting inspections, issuing correction and stop work orders, issuing certificates of occupancy, maintaining records, and recommending fee schedules. 2. Serve as the primary contact for the public regarding the Building Code and local codes and ordinances, including providing advice to applicants on approval processes and permitting requirements, and receiving and reviewing application materials. 3. Explain, interpret and provide guidance on all applicable codes to architects, engineers, contractors, developers, residents and others as necessary. 4. Coordinate application review and permit issuance with other governmental agencies (state, county, watersheds, and adjacent municipalities), city staff and consultants. 5. Provide technical advice and recommendations to staff, advisory bodies and the City Council as requested. 6. Monitor construction sites and developments for compliance with erosion control measures, tree preservation, conservation easements, architectural controls and other performance standards, as applicable. 7. Monitor conditions of approval, development agreements and financial guarantees for all zoning permits, subdivisions and mining permits. Page 1 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 8. Receive, investigate and document complaints regarding property maintenance, construction and other land-use activities. 9. Coordinate enforcement actions with city staff (administrator, attorney, engineer, police department) and other agencies. Testify in criminal and civil matters as needed. 10.Prepare reports regarding permitting, inspection and enforcement functions. 11.Develop and maintain application forms, checklists and other materials to inform the public about code requirements and procedures. 12.Coordinate and schedule activities of maintenance personnel and contractors. 13.Provide information on maintenance and equipment needs for annual budget and capital improvement plans. 14.Coordinate safety meetings and training, and oversee inspections of facilities and equipment. 15.Provide feedback and participate in performance reviews of public works staff. 16.Perform other duties as assigned. KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES: 1. Thorough knowledge of building, plumbing, accessibility, mechanical and general construction codes. 2. Knowledge of applicable federal, state and local laws. 3. Considerable knowledge of building design, construction and contracting practices, including carpentry, concrete and cement and plumbing; knowledge of zoning and subdivision regulations, inspection methods and enforcement. 4. Ability to develop and maintain an accurate understanding of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinances, Subdivision Regulations and other city codes. 5. Skill in evaluating the quality and value of construction and remodeling projects. 6. Mathematical skills as applied to building construction principles. 7. Skill in handling customer complaints and general information requests regarding codes through phone and/or personal contacts. 8. Basic skill level with personal computers and Microsoft Word and Excel spreadsheet software. Ability to learn and use other software as required. 9. Ability to develop and maintain effective working relationships with a wide variety of City personnel and the general public. 10.Ability to occasionally attend meetings or perform inspection activities or respond to emergencies on weekday evenings and/or weekends. 11.General knowledge of road construction and maintenance practices. 12.Knowledge of subsurface sewage treatment systems and small water systems. 13.Ability to deal discreetly with confidential information. 14.Ability to plan, prioritize and coordinate work responsibilities and effectively utilize time, equipment, materials and personnel. 15.Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing. Page 2 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: 1. Ensures that all permits issued meet requirements of state and local codes and ordinances. 2. Permits are issued and inspections are performed in a timely manner. 3. Requirements of state laws and local ordinances and policies are met. 4. Records are accurate, current and efficiently maintained with information readily available, and reported in a timely manner. 5. Preparation of required and requested materials and reports is timely, thorough, and complete. 6. Public contacts are courteous and businesslike and the information provided is accurate and timely. 7. Develops a positive relationship with residents, contractors and others. 8. Performs assigned tasks with minimum direct supervision. 9. Infrastructure and facilities are maintained according to adopted policies. 10.Maintenance workers perform as a team to accomplish objectives 11.Equipment and labor are utilized appropriately, effectively and safely. 12.Keeps supervisor informed of all significant matters he/she must know to perform his/her responsibilities effectively. 13.Expenditures are within budgetary limits. MININfUIVI QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Completion of formal recognized course work in building inspection technology and administration or equivalent. 2. Certification as a Building Official by State of Minnesota is required. 3. Certification as Building Inspector and Plans Examiner by I.C.C. or equivalent credentials is desirable. 4. Must be capable of safely performing physical actions necessary to conduct inspections at, above or below ground level of construction sites. 5. Four years of responsible experience in construction inspection, preferably in a municipal government setting, or equivalent education and training. 6. Supervisor or lead worker experience is desirable. 7. Valid Minnesota Class E Water Supply system Operator certi�cate is required. 8. Valid Minnesota Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Inspector certification is desirable. 9. Valid Minnesota Class "D" driver's license. SUPERVISION OF OTHERS: 1. Maintenance Worker, Full-Time (2) � 2. Maintenance Worker(s), Seasonal 3. Some direction may be provided to office support personnel. Page 3 of 3 Printed 6/5/2011 Survey of Public Works Staffing&Equipment for SnoHr Removal,2010 City Pop. Road Miles Number of PW Employees Equipment Circle Pines 5,211 17 5 2-single axle dump trucks w/plow&wings;two-l-ton pickups w/boss V plows Lindstrom 4,600 27 3 FT, 2 FT in summer mow parks 2 single axle plow,front reversible plow w/wing;CAT front end loader w/reversible plow&wing;small bobcat/skid steer w/broom&blade;2 pickups-no plows; 1-ton truck w/plow-not used much anymore 1984 Stewartville 5,842 28 7 FT, 1-PT 1 loader w/12'plow;one-4 wheel drive tractor w/12'plow; 2 skid loaders;3 trucks w/plows&wings;1-ton truck w/plow Arden Hills 9,796 31 8 FT,no PT in winter 2 single axle dump trucks w/plow,wing&sanders; 1 tractor loader w/plow&wing;4 one ton dumps w/front plows&sanders;2 pickups with V plows;several smaller tractors w/attachments for trails&sidewalks Annandafe 3,005 32 4 FT, 2 PT on call 2 single axle plow trucks;one loader plow;a leased farm tractor w/plow St. Paul Park 5,293 32 7 FT 1-JD front end loader; 1-tandem dump w/12'two-way plow, 12'side wing under body blade,stainless steel sander; 1-single axle dump w/12'two-way plow, 10'side wing � under body blade,stainless steel sander; 2-single axle dump w/1-way plow w/10'side I wing,stainless steel sander,1-ton dump w/Boss Power V plow and 400 gal. liquid de- I� icer sprayer;two-3/4-ton pickup w/Boss Power V plows;1-Cat skid steer w/quick attach boom-blower; 1-JD 1145 4x4 tractor w/blower Glencoe 5,760 33 3 FT,2 park guys,haul out downtown two 1-ton pickups for alleys&parking lots;grader w/wing;single dump to sand snow,clear airport runway 2 guys-2 behind grader;2 single axle dump trucks; loader w/reversible plow&a wing,blows hrs., 15 mi.walking paths(8 guys=8 downtown snow into trucks hrs) Blue Earth 3,395 35 4-FT,3 to 7 PT 2-tandems;2-single axle truck plows;544 JD plow;2 graders, 1 w/a wing, 1 w/a snow gate Jordan 5,418 35 6 FT,4 PT 4-single axle dump trucks w/12'plows,wings&sanders; 1-single axle dump truck w/11'plow&sander;2-544H Deere loaders w/12'plows; 1-5210 JD tractor w/7' blower, broom,&9'plow; 1-1445 JD tractor w/plow,broom, blower for trails& sidewalks; 1-Bobcat Toolcat w/plow,broom,&blower for trails&sidewalks Victoria 6,665 41 8 FT, 2PT summer 3—Dump trucks with front plows&wings and sanders;Five 1-ton pickups with plows; 1—Front end loader with plow&wing;1—Road grader with wing( used as back up or for winging back);1—Bobcat Afton 2,899 SO 6 3 dump trucks;2 pickups;one ton pickup;4 have sanders \\SERVER\SharedDocs\Departments\Public Works\Salt Shed\Cities Page 1 Survey of Public Works Staffing&Equipment for Snow Removal,2010 City Pop. Road Miles Number of PW Employees Equipment Dayton 5,019 50 3 FT,2 PT 2 tandem trucks;2 front end loaders; 1 grader;2 pickup trucks Orono 7,896 50 7 FT Front End Loader;Grader; 8 Snow Plows Columbus 4,115 54 3 1-tandom w/plow wing&sander; 1-single axle w/plow wing&sander; 1-ton w/plow& Boss V-plow;3/4 ton pickup w/Box V-plow;Cat grader w/12'plow in front,or can mount plow on JD 444J loader Chisago City 4,718 60 4 FT 1-tandem dump w/plow,wing&belly blade;2-single axle dumps w/plows&wings;2- pickup trucks w/blades;Bobcat w/snow blower&broom Minnetrista 6,189 60 9 FT 4 tandem trucks;1 single axle; 1 loader;4 one-tons Hermantown 9,318 73 2 FT,1 PT 3 plow trucks;grader Scandia 4,167 90 2 FT,3 on call 2 plow trucks w/wings-single axle; i-ton pickup w/piow;3/4 pickup w/plow;grader Elk River 23,888 150 8-FT,5 on call tandem&single axle trucks; 1-grader;i-ton;front end loaders Ham Lake 15,148 157 7-FT,6 on call 4-1-tons w/plows;S-single axle trucks w/plows and wings; 1-tandem w/wing&plow; 1 loader w/plow&wing. \\SERVER\SharedDocs\Departments\Public Works\Salt Shed\Cities Page 2 .