My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2006/02/13
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
Agenda Packets - 2006/02/13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:28 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 4:53:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/13/2006
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/13/2006
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
381
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council January 23, 2006 <br />Regular Meeting Page 28 <br /> <br />that staff works hard to satisfy the City’s goals and implement the vision of the Council. 1 <br />Director Ericson stated that staff is excited that there is a great year ahead, and it was beneficial 2 <br />to look back to 2005 to see what has been accomplished and how far the City has come. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Director Ericson stated that one of the biggest things done in the department is to look at, review, 5 <br />and address building permits. He reported the department looks at building plans and works out 6 <br />in the field inspecting building permits. He stated that the budgeted expectation was not met in 7 <br />either 2004 or 2005. He explained that in 2003, the permit value of the building activity was 8 <br />$12.3 million. In 2004, it decreased to $9.4 million. In 2005, Director Ericson stated that the 9 <br />City planned for a decrease as there is not always that big project. Director Ericson reported that 10 <br />in 2005, the permit value of the building activity was $7.9 million. He stated staff had somewhat 11 <br />anticipated there would be a huge project in 2005; however, the permits for Medtronic will come 12 <br />in 2006, and because of this, staff anticipates a banner year for permit revenue in 2006. In fact, it 13 <br />is expected to be higher than any year before. He stated there was a shortfall for permit revenue 14 <br />in 2005. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Director Ericson reported that the Department looks at every expenditure and determines if it is 17 <br />something critical. He stated a firm look was taken on expenditures, and this will be addressed 18 <br />later in his report. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Director Ericson stated that at the end of 2005, revenue was down approximately $12,000 for the 21 <br />department, which included not only building permit fees, but other permit fees such as plan 22 <br />check fees, zoning permits, mechanical permits, plumbing, contractors’ licenses, housing 23 <br />inspections, apartment licenses and all the planning activity that goes along with that. He 24 <br />reported that 100% of the shortfall can be attributed to the building permit valuation decrease. 25 <br />He stated this does not mean the department was less busy and pointed out there was a 10% 26 <br />increase in number of permits. He explained the value associated with the permits was just not 27 <br />as high. Director Ericson reported that in 2006, the department will be supremely busy along 28 <br />with bringing in the revenues to support it. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Director Ericson explained that regarding expenditures, the City’s Community Development 31 <br />Department does not have a large budget, and that any expenditure that goes unspent or a 32 <br />vacancy in the Department makes a large impact. He reported that the Department came in under 33 <br />budget on expenditures, so the revenue shortfall was covered. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Director Ericson stated that the financials for 2005 have not been finalized. He explained that 36 <br />the personnel total did not include the last payroll in the year, so rather than being $33,000 under, 37 <br />it actually was $22,000 under budget. He explained this was due to the Planning Associate 38 <br />vacancy for three months in addition to other minor things. Director Erickson stated that total 39 <br />expenditures were $34,000 under budget from what was anticipated. He stressed that all 40 <br />departments work hard to not spend unnecessarily and do not look at bottom line on December 41 <br />15 to see what can be spent for the rest of year. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Director Ericson reviewed the activity of the Planning Commission, and stated there were 36 44 <br />planning applications, which is slightly more than typical. He added the Commission also 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.