CC_Minutes_2010_0816 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 16, 2010 Page 14 Further discussion included the clarification of twelve (12) full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the Community Development Department. In response to Councilmember Ihlan, Councilmember Roe observed that it wasn't automatic that the levy would increase by $165,000 due to taking the code en- forcement function under levy support; but that it made sense to look at other levy-supported items to offset that increase; and advised that he had considered nuisance code enforcement costs as more in line as alevy-supported activity than just with this year's discussion, since it made sense that the community at large benefited from that activity. However, Councilmember Roe noted that, if there were not a lot of code inspections, it didn't make sense to have staff to support it, and that it needed further review. Mayor Klausing observed that the other functions supported code. enforcement and questioned whether it was prudent to peel off a popular piece of the picture to save other functions; but did note the community's general support for improved code enforcement, and the need to alleviate that burden from the Community De- velopment Department budget and allocation of staff time and resources for their other functions, with each function requiring additional review to determine addi- tional savings. Mayor Klausing opined that it made sense to support code en- forcement functions by the community at large, more in line with who benefits, and reducing the burden on a department experiencing other challenges beyond code enforcement. Councilmember Pust sought clarification from staff on Attachment B (department totals -middle column) and corresponding income column for comparison and projections shown at the bottom; with Mr. Miller responding that they were avail- able for comparison, with the exception of the Community Development Depart- ment, assuming that the City Council adopted the proposed 2011 fee schedule dic- tated by the proposed revenue, with those discussions, such as water/sewer rate increases to support those functions, to be brought forward in November for City Council consideration for 2011 revenues. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller advised that the only enterprise fund generating additional profits for allocation elsewhere was the License Cen- ter, with other funds restricted to their specific use and fund. Relating to Community Development operations, Mr. Miller observed that much of their planning and economic development efforts may not come to fruition for years, while staff was still required to incur their time and related costs in assist- ing proposed development; noting the cycle type nature of that function that had historically been accounted for and sustained. Mr. Miller clarified that staff was not just sitting and waiting for something to happen, but were actively engaged in providing a service to the general public and interested developers. Mr. Miller requested City Council consideration of shifting code enforcement activities to the