11/05/2007 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 5, 2007 APPROVED 136 Zoning Ord. Amendment — Unsewered Residential Lot Requirement — Community 137 Development Director Grochala reviewed the proposed ordinance. The council had 138 directed staff to modify the amendment so that it would apply only to reverse mortgages, 139 however, the city attorney ruled against that suggestion. Staff has added some new 140 language that has been reviewed by the City Attorney including language that requires 141 that a structure remain on the lot to be divided. Also the city needs to receive written 142 verification of the requirements from the mortgage company. A recorded covenant must 143 be recorded restricting the owner from selling the portions separately, except in the event 144 that there is a foreclosure situation. 145 It was recommended that the proposed process should be checked with the financiers to 146 ensure this will accomplish what the city wants. 147 The council concurred that the process (referral of the ordinance to Planning and Zoning) 148 should continue. 149 2008 Budget — Finance Director Rolek noted that the council has had continuing 150 discussion about whether or not to include a change to in-house engineering services in 151 the 2008 budget. The council has not indicated a need for any additional information but 152 that their discussion of the issue would continue. 153 Since the council has a difference of opinion regarding moving on a change to in-house 154 engineering staff, a council member suggested that the decision be delayed (no in-house 155 services in 2008) but with a direction to include in the goals for 2008 a thorough analysis 156 for a discussion about inclusion in the 2009 budget. 157 Director Rolek explained that the impact to the 2008 budget of retaining the contracted 158 engineering services is negative $85,500. It is proposed that be covered by general fund 159 reserve. 160 One council member recalled (in writing) information distributed in 2003 that indicated a 161 higher amount that included an additional support position. Also the TKDA contract was 162 shown with a not -to -exceed amount. 163 Director Grochala recalled that the 2003 figures considered the community development 164 budget only and didn't take into consideration storm water, sewer and water costs that are 165 charged out. There was no pavement management or as extensive a surface water 166 management program in 2003. The support staff position has already been added so that 167 is no longer a part. 168 When asked if it would be possible for TKDA to offer a not -to -exceed cost for the 2008 169 funding year, staff indicated that would be a difficult proposal since the costs are mostly 170 reactive, dependent on work that comes forward. 171 City Engineer Studenski announced that it could be possible to get a not -to -exceed but 172 the specifics would have to be designated. 173 It was recommended by a council member that if funding for a support staff person is 174 included in one scenario, it should be included in both so that the numbers are true. 175 There was general concurrence with putting off the decision for change but also general 176 concern about the use of general fund reserve (savings) to cover the $85,500 budget 177 deficit. Could the proposed budget be further reduced to cover the deficit?