05/20/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Admin~rator Schroeder stated that during the interviewing process, Boardmember Sharp posed the qu~tio~ of how many members the Board could have. He didn't take it to mean that an additional m~mbor would be appointed immediately, he understood the question to mean "get an answer and ponder the ~dea". Boardmemb~r Sharp stated he had inquired about the structure of the Fire Board because he wanted to knjow where it originated. Councilmeral~er Peterson stated this Board was started to keep a good working relationship between the p-ire Fighters and the C~ty Council and keeps the lines of communication open. Boardmemb~r, Sharp stated a board such as this one has its place; however, he questioned its credibility aSlt s~ms to sometimes "go in circles". He stated he would like to see the non-Fire Department~mentbers have more input with regard to where they would like to see the Fire Department ~o, etc. City AdmiqistratOr Schroeder stated that the non-Fire Department members are relatively uninformed ~md do not have the knowledge to tell the Fire Department what to do. He suggested the Departml~nt slfow the Board their plans and goals and the Board will offer opinions on them. Boardmemb~ Sharp stated his impression is that the Department only comes to the Board with regard to me,ney issues. City Admini~i~tmt°r Schroeder reported that all operational departments are putting together plans. A five-year t~lan, for example, is a step ladder to where the department is going. Boardmemb.~r Kapler stated he believes it's the Fire Department's responsibility to forward facts and the Boaifl~s rasponsibility to keep an open mind and make decisions with a consensus. Case #2: Discussion regarding Fire Inspector Position City Admini~at°r Schroeder summarized his phone conversations regarding fire inspections. The State inspeqts daY cares (the first time, then no more after that) and hotels, motels and schools. The State i~ects restaurants on complaint and the County inspects them as related to health regulations. [l~he general comments received regarding other inspections were: shy away from day care inspect.tons, inspections are labor intensive and they require significant training, the fees don't cover expenses, ~w construction plan review for commercial/industrial should be done and public education for fire/safety should be done regardless of inspection program. Regarding liability, the comments Wore no liability for lack of program and may be liability if adopt UFC or inspection program anqt theri don't inspect or don't catch everything. He suggested, based on his telephone conversatio6si that the first area would be to plan review for new construction !commercial) and do inspections ~il/the~ building permit stage and also get computerization of what s "up and running". He felt the [~ools, day cares and restaurants would be in the second phase of inspecting. Mr. Schroeder fie¢o_mmended meeting with the City of Anoka, for budget purposes, after defining limits and sliatifiaation of any program precedent to budget discussions for the 1993 fiscal years. Fire Chief 0tiffin stated it would cost between $200 and $400 for an individual to be trained to the Inspection I[ leval and he would like to have about two people trained in that field. He suggested a non-enforc ,egtl nOn-committal inspection pre-plan which would pose as a service to people and educate the .~r~ H/~ stated that, based on Mr. Schroeder's information, the UFC could be referenced without having to:adopt it and thought that might be better than adopting the Code. Boardmeml~er Kapler expressed a concern that with more industry there will be more hazardous materials arid th~ Fire Department should become more knowledgeable in that area. He also Fire Board/May 20, 1992 Page 2 of 3