Laserfiche WebLink
<br />violation with 60 days to correct. The Planning department recognizes that <br />sometimes an extension will be needed, as long as the resident comes forward and <br />works with the City. Mr. Walker’s staff resource includes five building inspectors, <br />five property maintenance inspectors and two environmental inspectors. <br /> <br />Another topic was the status of the long range plan, the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. <br />This plan is the key policy document for all major decisions that Council makes <br />regarding future land use, redevelopment issues, and economic development <br />issues. The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance are the policy <br />documents that Council has adopted. The last Comprehensive Plan was done in <br />1999, which then was the first one done in over 30 years. The Planning & <br />Development department is presently working on more detailed neighborhood <br />plans. Each ward will see approximately three neighborhood plans. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot asked about the funding for funding for those in need of monetary <br />assistance to make improvements that they were cited on or to take care of <br />hazardous trees. Mr. Walker said that it was previously allocated by the City <br />Manager but the amount did not cover all the needs. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci verified that all permits issued by the City included: occupancy permits, <br />construction permits, arborist permits, forestry permits, electrical permits, plumbing <br />permits. mechanical permits and building permits. She wanted to know if the <br />permits were revenue generating and covered cost. Mr. Walker said that it covered <br />about 30 percent of cost. She wanted to be sure she understood that even if you <br />did your own remodeling, you would still need to get a permit. He said it would <br />require a permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Price said that his phone calls from his constituents have increased concerning <br />home improvement assistance. He said that the City needs to be aggressive in <br />finding money to replace the fund that assists people in need. <br /> <br />4. Park Program & Fee Adjustments <br />The Park Commission did not supply a recommendation due to a lack of a quorum <br />at their last meeting, however, the City Manager and the Parks’ Director <br />recommended approval in order to maintain the quality of services and their <br />financial viability. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot moved to adopt the fee adjustment, seconded by Ms. Ricci. <br /> <br />Ms. Ricci said that she knew the fees would have to increase to go with cost <br />increases, but her concern was with the format in which the information was <br />provided to the Council. She requested that in the future the information provided <br />show the revenue generated in each individualized area, the expense incurred in <br />each individualized area and any proposed capital expenditures necessary, so it will <br />allow us to analyze these fees. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot said she would approve the fee increase this year but she did not <br />understand why in 2005 and 2006, huge recovery costs were listed and then the <br />revised budget showed half of what was first quoted. She requested more <br />discussion on recovery costs in the future. <br /> 3 <br /> <br />