Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 4 <br />exists in the area and he wonders if a similar design could be a consideration. Mr. 134 <br />Ruhland explained that his vision is individuality even with a row home development. 135 <br /> 136 <br />Mayor Rafferty remarked that he has worked to be in tune with some of the facts – nearby 137 <br />Raven’s Hollow is a PUD and it fits; that’s the kind of development that would be more 138 <br />acceptable for the neighbors he believes. He has historically tried to avoid anything less 139 <br />than fifty foot lots. 140 <br /> 141 <br />Councilmember Stoesz asked if a private drive would help this development; the council 142 <br />also discussed the cul-de-sac element. Planner Larsen explained that staff is actually 143 <br />looking at some changes to the cul-de-sac ordinance (updating). 144 <br /> 145 <br />Mr. Ruhland suggested that there will be information forthcoming, after they relook at the 146 <br />project. 147 <br /> 148 <br />3. Advisory Board Appointment – Environmental Board – Administrator Cotton 149 <br />reviewed the written report. There are two openings however they do not expire at the 150 <br />same time and one term expires at the end of this year. She noted two applicants 151 <br />remaining from the last round of appointments and that those two applicants were 152 <br />interviewed already. Beyond that, one new application has been received and that person 153 <br />has not been interviewed. She reviewed options presented by staff. 154 <br /> 155 <br />The council will interview all candidates prior to an upcoming council meeting 156 <br />(September 13th or 27th). Terms may be changed to realignment and make them 157 <br />appropriately scattered. 158 <br /> 159 <br />4. Livable Communities Act Participation – Community Development Director 160 <br />Grochala reviewed his staff report that outlines participation requirements and benefits. 161 <br />Some grant eligibility is based on participation in this program. There are more upsides 162 <br />than downsides. The City has been a participant since 1996 and dropped off last year 163 <br />because the Comp Plan wasn’t done. 164 <br /> 165 <br />The council concurred that the matter will move forward to the council. 166 <br /> 167 <br />5. 2022 Draft Budget and Tax Levy – Finance Director Lynch noted Page 2 of the 168 <br />annual budget as it shows changes from the council’s first discussion to tonight. Staff 169 <br />has brought the budget down to a 41.0 tax rate as requested by the council. Changes that 170 <br />would bring the budget to that level are noted; some are changes in funding source (to 171 <br />reserves). She noted attachments relating to recreation program funding ($52,000) that 172 <br />would bring the tax rate to 41.209 and an explanation of the phase in for a new fire duty 173 <br />crew. Ms. Lynch did note that updated tax capacity numbers have not been received from 174 <br />the county and that could mean some change to the numbers. 175 <br /> 176 <br />Administrator Cotton noted areas that could fluctuate due to estimates such as health 177 <br />insurance rates. 178