08:26The discussion around ordinance codification was a key focus, with the board comparing proposals from American Legal and MUN Code. American Legal proposed an upfront cost of $14,500 with an additional setup fee of $795 and a recurring annual fee of $595, which would increase by 2% each year. On the other hand, MUN Code offered a lower upfront cost of $12,450 but with a higher annual fee of $2,200. The board members were particularly concerned about the long-term financial impact on taxpayers, considering the balance between upfront costs and recurring fees.

15:00Communication and customer service emerged as critical factors influencing the board’s decision. MUN Code was described as having better communication, making interactions smoother compared to American Legal, which was noted for being more challenging in terms of engagement. While some board members acknowledged that American Legal is widely used by other cities without major issues, the communication difficulties experienced in initial interactions raised concerns about potential future challenges.

10:54A board member emphasized a cautious approach to the decision. They remarked that while the costs might seem substantial, when divided among the city’s households, the impact would not be significant. This perspective was echoed by another member, who advocated for investing in a system that would improve operational efficiency and user experience.

42:07The board also discussed the status of the city’s code committee, which is working on various ordinances, including updates to the animal ordinance and trailer parking regulations. A previous public meeting had generated significant attendance regarding the RV ordinance. Additionally, there was an ongoing effort to modernize the ordinances, such as removing gendered language, ensuring clarity, and aiding enforcement by the police chief.

19:16Ultimately, the board moved to recommend contracting with MUN Code, emphasizing the selection of minimum required services initially, with the possibility of building a budget for additional services in the future. The motion was seconded and passed without dissenting votes.

29:58Beyond codification, the board received a quarterly update on safe bill permitting, covering the issuance of around a hundred permits from April to June. These included deck permits and re-roofs, with inspections conducted by Safe Built, a contracted entity. A commercial permit for Comcast, valued at $200,000, was highlighted for an addition to their building. There was also discussion of an apartment building development facing delays due to unsubmitted plans, with concerns about the developer using demolition as a negotiation tactic. However, it was clarified that the city bears no financial liability as the property is owned by the developer.

36:10A potential sewer project was also on the agenda, with updates indicating that the city is still in the planning stages. Efforts to secure congressional spending aim to obtain approximately $12 million to supplement existing funds. Although the city was not included in the state bonding bill this year, future funding remains a possibility. The board acknowledged that the project timeline is lengthy, but the city is adequately equipped to manage its needs in the meantime.

39:07Additionally, the board addressed recruitment efforts for new planning commission members. Despite attempts to engage the community, interest has been low. A suggestion was made to explore whether compensation might attract more interest, as it has had a positive impact at the county level.

Concerns were raised about compliance with building regulations, particularly regarding a large barn constructed by a local resident. Questions about adherence to height restrictions and the monitoring of permits underscored the importance of enforcement, especially given the departure of the previous inspector. The board acknowledged the need for clarity on who is responsible for ensuring compliance and tracking adherence to building codes.