Kiffi Summa, LWV Observer
All councilors were present.
There were three items on this Work Session Agenda; all scheduled for 30 minutes of discussion.
1. Review Draft Land Development Code: Downtown and Highway Commercial Districts
2. Enterprise Revenue Study
3. Review of Information from Budget Forum
Item #1 - This review of the Land development Code draft covered the regulations for the C1-B Downtown Commercial District, and the C2-B Highway Commercial Districts. The Council had previously been asked to comment on the C1-B Downtown draft regulations and now these were brought back for confirmation/ further comment by the Council.
Six of the Planning Commissioners were present for this discussion. Alice Thomas of the PC said that this meeting was to ensure that the Council was all "on board" with the PC's understanding of guiding policy, primarily derived from the City's Comprehensive Plan.
This newly configured Downtown District now includes the commercial area just west of the historic downtown and across Highway 3 , as well as the area to the immediate south of the core downtown,i.e., what used to be referred to as "downtown fringe".
Although these areas are all named as one district now, there are some differing standards for the two types: the historic core, and the bordering areas.
Although the bordering areas are encouraged to follow a zero lot line model, with no parking in front of buildings, there are more requirements for parking to be provided, as opposed to the historic core where there is no requirement for each building to provide parking.
There was quite a bit of discussion on the stringency of the requirements as to set backs, etc., and the idea of a two-step approval process in order to allow for more design flexibility was revived. For instance , if the project can conform to all the stated requirements for the district, then it is a quicker, more easily approved process for the builder; if a more complex, 'creative' design is wanted, then a slightly more complicated review process will be necessary.
The Council next reviewed and commented on the proposed regulations for the C2-B Highway district which is everything south of the river bridge at approximately 6th Street, south along Highway 3 to County Road 1/Dundas.
There was a long discussion of the regulations and how they restricted, or did not restrict, commercial highway development; and what balance to strike with the Council's ultimate goal, which is how to relate the highway development in an integrated way, to the rest of the community.
The previous day, some commercial property owners/ developers had met with representatives of the Chamber, City Staff, Council and Planning Commission to comment on these proposed Highway regulations. Brian O'Connell, Community Development Director, reported that there was a degree of frustration expressed by the developers. Their concerns centered most heavily on building placement, setbacks, parking etc. The builders felt strongly that they were knowledgeable about how to be successful in fulfilling the prevailing market needs, and should be allowed more discretion in their development choices.
A Planning Commissioner commented that he felt the PC was in a very hard place; that the Council was closer to the position of the Chamber/developers than to the Planning Commission, and yet they (PC) are tasked with fulfilling the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
The resolve was agreed to lie in the same sort of two-step approval process, as was agreed to for the C1-B District, i.e., to provide flexibility where 'needed'.
This discussion ended at 8:55.
*** NOTE: The issue of adhering to the ordinance regulations, or providing "flexibility" through a two-step review process is bound to be problematic, considered arbitrary by some, but seems to be the only practical solution for the time being.
Item #2 - The Enterprise Revenue Study was presented by Katy Gehler, City Engineer and centered on 4 scenarios for revising the rates for water usage. It is very important that the city's fixed costs of water delivery to households and businesses be covered more thoroughly by the base rate charges. The Enterprise Funds must not only cover the day to day delivery of water, but must build a revenue reserve for the rebuilding of water infrastructure delivery and treatment.
The rate structure is based upon a base volume of water being included with the account charge, with price tiers for additional levels of water usage.
The Council was being asked for comment on which of the four scenarios to implement, a timeline, and some guidance for future escalation of rates.
Issues discussed were the problem of escalating rates at a bad economic time, and the need for building reserves for water plant improvements which will be needed by 2020. Some improvements will be mandated by legislation requiring improved water treatment and discharge.
It was decided that the presented scenario #2 will be implemented early in 2011, with the goal of building adequate reserves toward the predicted infrastructure replacement time.
Scenario #2 will increase the base residential rate from $4.00 to $12.93, with a tiered volume usage charge to figure any additional charges. The base charge will cover the initial 500 Cubic Feet of water consumption; it is estimated that 35% of residential users fall into that category.
This discussion ended at 9:35.
Item #3 - The review of the previous evening's Public Budget Forum took only about 15 minutes of the Council's time, as they hit some highlights of citizen comments, focusing on the need to continue making additional cuts, having a plan for a scenario if Local Government Aid was NOT withdrawn to the level expected, and the importance of volunteerism.
*** NOTE: There was not a large attendance at the Budget hearing which may have been somewhat frustrating for the Mayor who had expressed the need to hear from a "broader/ deeper" representation of resident's opinions. This may have resulted in the return of the idea of a city wide survey, which the Mayor and Councilor Denison support, and which some Councilors find too expensive for the quality of information gained by such a process.
The one area of citizen comment not noted in the Council's discussion was the request for large salaries of inactive departments (Economic Development, Community Development) to be curtailed for the time being, until the activities of those departments are once again needed.
Additional Item Added - Kathleen McBride, City Finance Director, asked to add a discussion of the Tax Levy rate to be set in early September. Previously it has been suggested/recommended that the levy be set to its highest limit, a 6.5% increase, in the preliminary September budget presentation, as the state allows it to be reduced for the final December presentation, but does not allow an increase after the preliminary rate setting.
The Council's practice has often been to set the rate high in September and then work to reduce it as further information comes in throughout the fall.
Ms. Mc Bride presented a strong case for following a different procedure this year, setting a more acceptable goal of a 3.5% increase in September, and made the case for that being adequate through the cautious use of reserves, as well as some cost savings through planned reorganization of City Hall Operations.
The council agreed, acknowledging that some of the reserve fund dollars come from slightly "over-levied" tax amounts which allowed those reserve funds to accumulate; i.e. tax payer's dollars previously paid being used to keep the tax levy increase lower this year.
The meeting closed after Councilor Buckheit noted that the Council needed guidelines as to what were were appropriate fund balances to keep; when those balances should be used, and under what circumstances.
Adjourned at 10:20 PM.
Comments
Kiffi- once again, thank you for this clear and comprehensive report. Another marathon meeting - in spite of the optimistic goal of 30 min/topic.
Did they talk at all about how they were going to process the comments at the budget forum?
And, I didn't quite understand what you mean by "inactive departments." Has the reorganization Joel Walinski proposed become operational and does that create inactive departments?
Jane: It is the contention of some citizens who spoke at the budget hearing, and at previous open mic comments about budget , or reorganization, that the Economic Development and Community Development departments have had no activity, or at least very little work, for the last year or more since the "economic downturn".
Therefor they suggest eliminating those two jobs and letting the depts be run by the second tier of employees who do most of the processing work, permits etc.
These are jobs that are pushing 125-140K with benefits, and there's a quarter million$$. That suggestion goes along with repeated requests from citizens to look at contracting out the Human Resources position to the Hospital, which has a large Human Resources dept, and dropping the IT director; now not filling the IT position as that employee is leaving and moving to a county job.
These suggestions have been made by various people... not only what are sometimes referred to as the "usual suspects"... and yet the council never addresses the concept of losing some of the highly paid dept heads.
Understandably, it is difficult for them to talk about terminating positions, but even in Joel Walinski's reorganizational chart it was emphasized that no dept heads would lose their jobs.
Although it has repeatedly been said that the next round of cuts would have to involve service cuts to the residents, in actuality almost all of the cuts of significance to this point, have resulted in cuts to service; the Library is the hardest hit of all.
Hope that 'fleshed out' explanation makes it a bit more clear.