Budget talks focus on raised fee Budget talks focus on raised fee (June 04, 2004)

Move to reduce housing inspectors also draws protest

By Corey Pride

Safety inspections and reducing the number of building inspectors took center stage Tuesday as the city council conducted its final hearing on next year's budget before it is officially passed next week.

The council wants to increase fees for "serious violators" of housing safety codes. Currently, inspections to check health and safety conditions of housing complexes and other buildings occur every two or three years, depending on size. After the inspection is complete, a report is sent to property owners specifying violations. Serious violations include faulty batteries in smoke detectors, rodents infesting the property and water damage, among other things.

Fire Marshal Gary Leinweber said 57 percent of property owners in the city have fallen into the serious violators category in the past four years.

Vice Mayor Matt Neely expressed outrage.

"That number of serious violators is frankly appalling. I would support the highest (fee) rate for serious violators," he said.

The current fees charged to serious violators range from $6.25 per unit to $18.75 per unit, depending on size. One of the proposed fee hikes would increase fees for serious violations to a maximum of $22 per unit.

Also in the myriad of alternative plans is the idea of making inspections every four years, although Council member Nick Galiotto was apprehensive about that strategy.

"If we inspect and find serious violations, we don't get back to that person for four years. Four years is a long time," he said.

In the past three years, the city has eliminated 61 positions in an attempt to save on expenditures in a time when the city's revenues are decreasing. In the 2004-2005 proposed budget there is a plan to eliminate one of Mountain View's two building inspector positions. The plan drew the ire of some in the audience.

AFL-CIO Union Representative Danielle Sanderson said reducing the number of inspectors will just cause more violations of building codes to slip through the cracks.

"It's disturbing that you want to cut one inspector," Sanderson told the city council. "People don't complain about violations even when there is a reason to do so. It would not be safe for residents who are afraid of landlords."

Mountain View Building Inspector Richard Ames addressed the workload issue.

"Someone has to do the work," he said "Restructuring will happen after folks are gone. I just want the council to keep that in mind."

Leinweber agreed with Ames.

"If we are going from two inspectors to one something has to give," he said.

Ames suggested the council dip into reserve funds instead of dropping a building inspector position.

"This is a very good fiscally-run city. The question on reserves is why do you have them, and what are you going to use them for," he said.

E-mail Corey Pride at cpride@mv-voice.com

E-mail a friend a link to this story.