12/03/2007 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 DRAFT 137 Zoning Ord. Amendment — Unsewered Residential Lot Requirement — Community 138 Development Director Grochala reviewed the proposed ordinance. The council had 139 directed staff to modify the amendment so that it would apply only to reverse mortgages, 140 however, the city attorney ruled against that suggestion. Staff has added some new 141 language that has been reviewed by the City Attorney including language that requires 142 that a structure remain on the lot to be divided. Also the city needs to receive written 143 verification of the requirements from the mortgage company. A recorded covenant must 144 be recorded restricting the owner from selling the portions separately, except in the event 145 that there is a foreclosure situation. 146 It was recommended that the proposed process should be checked with the financiers to 147 ensure this will accomplish what the city wants. 148 The council concurred that the process (referral of the ordinance to Planning and Zoning) 149 should continue. 150 2008 Budget — Finance Director Rolek noted that the council has had continuing 151 discussion about whether or not to include a change to in -house engineering services in 152 the 2008 budget. The council has not indicated a need for any additional information but 153 that their discussion of the issue would continue. 154 Since the council has a difference of opinion regarding moving on a change to in -house 155 engineering staff, a council member suggested that the decision be delayed (no in -house 156 services in 2008) but with a direction to include in the goals for 2008 a thorough analysis 157 for a discussion about inclusion in the 2009 budget. 158 Director Rolek explained that the impact to the 2008 budget of retaining the contracted 159 engineering services is negative $85,500. It is proposed that be covered by general fund 160 reserve. 161 One council member recalled (in writing) information distributed in 2003 that indicated a 162 higher amount that included an additional support position. Also the TKDA contract was 163 shown with a not -to- exceed amount. 164 Director Grochala recalled that the 2003 figures considered the community development 165 budget only and didn't take into consideration storm water, sewer and water costs that are 166 charged out. There was no pavement management or as extensive a surface water 167 management program in 2003. The support staff position has already been added so that 168 is no longer a part. 169 When asked if it would be possible for TKDA to offer a not -to- exceed cost for the 2008 170 funding year, staff indicated that would be a difficult proposal since the costs are mostly 171 reactive, dependent on work that comes forward. 172 City Engineer Studenski announced that it could be possible to get a not -to- exceed but 173 the specifics would have to be designated. 174 It was recommended by a council member that if funding for a support staff person is 175 included in one scenario, it should be included in both so that the numbers are true. 176 There was general concurrence with putting off the decision for change but also general 177 concern about the use of general fund reserve (savings) to cover the $85,500 budget 178 deficit. Could the proposed budget be further reduced to cover the deficit?