Local Video
|
| OSHA: Buy land for a liquor store, or else |
By: SUZANNE ROOK, Senior Reporter
|
Posted: Friday, September 12, 2008 10:32 pm
|
 Email  Print
|
The days of foot-dragging and hand-wringing about a new liquor store appear to be over for the city council.
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration has given the city a little more than six months to pick a new liquor store site or make $125,000 in repairs to its Fifth Street store, built in 1957.
Human Resources Director Elizabeth Wheeler, in a Sept. 10 memo to city councilors, reported that OSHA wants Northfield to have a deed to a site, approved building plans and a “firm date to break ground” by March 31. If not, Wheeler wrote, OSHA requires an interior stairway be widened and an electrical panel be made accessible.
OSHA inspectors, during a routine inspection in June, found the stairway, with a conveyor system that runs along it, too narrow. The electrical panel, which sits above the conveyor, is difficult to access, inspectors said, and could cause serious problems if power needs to be shut off quickly.
| View the letter to city councilors from Human Resources Director Elizabeth Wheeler here. |
Former City Administrator Al Roder had said it will be difficult to remedy the violations.The building old and there is little room to expand on its current site. And, the conveyor is the most expedient way for products to be moved from underground storage to the sales floor.
The city is working on finding a new site. In August the council agreed to ask developers and downtown property owners submit proposals for the sale of their property and/or for a development of a site.
Interim City Administrator Joel Walinski said he expects the Request For Proposals to go out next week.
The request asks that proposals include specific costs. Parcels must be able to accommodate a store with a 7,000-square-foot minimum footprint on the main level, easily allow deliveries, located near a major city artery and be visible from the street.
Walinski expects proposals will be returned, scored and presented to the council sometime in December.
Wheeler, in her letter, said OSHA reduced its initial fines to the city, from $4,500 to $2,025 because the city quickly abated four other violations: incomplete medical records, an insufficient eye wash at the city pool and missing floor covers at the wastewater treatment plant.
— Suzanne Rook can be reached at srook@northfieldnews.com or 645-1113.
|
|
|
|
Story Comment Guidelines:
Registered members who identify themselves by name are authorized to automatically post comments to stories. Readers who wish to remain anonymous submit comments to a pending queue, where they will be reviewed for approval within 24 hours of their submission. To determine the author of a comment, click on the user name.
Those who identify themselves will be given broader boundaries to express their opinion. Only those anonymous comments that contribute to the conversation in a thoughtful, respectful, civil manner will be approved. The decision to approve or reject a comment is a subjective one and is ours alone. Authors of rejected comments will receive an email response.
If you would like to report abuse click here to notify us.
|
|
| Show Comments | Hide Comments
|
|
| Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
|
|
Top Jobs | Top Homes | Top Cars
09 Jetta
09 white Jetta asking $16,000
less than 48,000 miles
|
|
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
MySpace
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo!
The city has a history of inviting OSHA in to "cite" facilities they want fixed. Maybe the News can do a data request on the HR director's correspondence to see if she invited OSHA in to have them condemn the building.
Wow, I was unaware of this history. Can you tell us more?
Hello fellow Northfielders and friends,
For full disclosure, I am a reporter in Northfield working on RepJNorthfield.org. I am in some ways competing with the Northfield News, but our product is fairly different. News staffers and I have also discussed collaborating, but our relationship has not developed much in the two months I've been here.
My primary question after reading this story is, can we hear more information about the option to make $125,000 in repairs to the current location? This story makes it seem like that isn't really an option, but I'm not sure I completely understand why.
bonnieobremski, the option to make the repairs has been reported a number of times before, in editorials, blogs and stories in our paper and on this site.
Here are some:
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=45423
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=45498
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=45569
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=45658
Note that since these were published, the cost of the repairs has increased.
I think basically the question is repair the old building and continue to get as much revenue out of it as possible while putting into it as little money as possible and hope the revenue stream doesn't decline, or invest a whole bunch of money on a new site and gamble that the increased revenue will make the venture worthwhile.
Suzanne Rook also did a fairly in-depth piece some time ago on other communities in the area that have rolled the dice on repairing vs. building a new store.
Hope that helps.
Southfielder25,
Thanks for your suggestion. We did indeed do a public information request for correspondence relating to the inspections.
We also spoke back in June (before any of our stories published) with James Honnerman, the OSHA/Mn Dept. of Labor & Industry spokesman, who said the inspection was random and not based on any complaint.
southfielder25,
The results of public information request came back and there are no documents indicating any correspondence between the city and OSHA prior to its random inspection of the liquor store. Of course that could mean it was all done via phone, but between not finding any documents and the comments of the OSHA spokesman, who said there was no complaint, it doesn't look like the city invited OSHA in in this case.