CC_Minutes_2010_0809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 09, 2010 Page 17 move code enforcement from Community Development to General Fund re- sources based on permits and fees being down; but rather that the entire Commu- nity Development Department budget should be reviewed to determine if they were achieving funding and expenditure levels in the context of the entire City budget. Further discussion included employee benefits and salaries, with state mandates fora 2.5% increase for the employer to the basic fund and 3% increase for the City in the Fire and Police Funds and staff projections on the highest potential lia- bility for those increases; $62,000 in contractual obligations consisting of audit and legal contract and dispatch services for the most part, with their built-in in- creases addressed in standing contracts; minimal increases for temporary and sea- sonal employee increases compared to 2010 depending on service levels; and a 1 % proposed COLA increase for employees and full step increases. City Manager Malinen noted the need for Council direction on the current ranking and any adjustments for funding as consideration was given to any paring of pro- grams and costs to achieve a recommended levy for City- Council approval; with staff's current projects indicating a levy increase of 5.3% or an approximately $2.00 per month increase for average residential property owners. Councilmember Johnson expressed interest in individual and corporate City Council ranking of the CIP program before the next meeting before providing his opinion on the overall levy. Additional discussion included levy limit exclusions for. law enforcement needs; potential reductions through aline-by-line analysis to reduce the projected levy; perspectives and interpretations of mandatory and non-mandatory items; Neigh- borhood Enhancement Program and EAB programs not previously included in annual expenditures, whether mandated or not; defining the funds provided by the HRA for portions of the NEP and code enforcement programs; time-spent profiles recently completed by staff providing a more clear picture of the allotment to var- ious duties and categories for code enforcement and differentiating between pub- licity, initial inspections, and case work done as a result of those initial actions, as well as current complaint-generated calls and activities in the Community Devel- opment Department unrelated to the NEP program, but throughout the community on a daily basis. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if code enforcement is mandatory it should be removed from the ranking process; and further opined that a review of the entire Community Development Department may indicate that the department can no longer support its personnel in all categories or that costs could be made up some other way.