Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Staffing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council favors admin support for code enforcement, questions costs to expand ADU water‑meter crew
Summary
During budget study, council members backed adding an administrative assistant to the code‑enforcement division to free officers for field work; they expressed concern about a proposed water division crew and heavy equipment purchase to speed ADU meter installs because user fees currently do not fully cover the start‑up costs.
At a June 11 study session on the proposed fiscal 2025–26 budget, staff presented three cost options the council had requested: (1) an additional code‑enforcement officer and a clerical (administrative) assistant, (2) a new ADU water‑meter installation crew, and (3) potential revenue ideas not yet in the budget.
Staff said the fully burdened cost of an additional code‑enforcement officer is about $97,400; an administrative assistant would be $94,295. The public‑works water division estimated that accelerating the current ADU meter backlog would require a four‑person crew (foreman, equipment operator, two water technicians) plus heavy equipment, with a total first‑year cost (staff + equipment) of roughly $872,000. Staff estimated additional meter‑installation fees could be increased and cover some — but not all — costs.
During discussion, several councilmembers said an administrative assistant would produce the greatest immediate benefit: clerical work, phone intake and case logging now absorb officer time and reduce field hours. Councilmembers expressed support for adding the administrative position in next year’s budget, and staff said a current vacancy for a code officer is in process of being filled.
Council discussion on the ADU meter crew was more cautious. Staff said the water division currently installs one to two ADU services per week and that the current waitlist of about 45 requests could take up to nine months under the existing cadence. The proposed crew would reduce the waiting time to about three to four months but would carry about $500,000 in equipment up front and $370,000 in annual staff costs. Staff also said with current fees the crew would recover roughly half of its annual costs and that a new fee schedule could raise charges to reflect true costs (staff suggested fees could rise to about $11,000 per meter installation under a revised schedule).
Council consensus at the study session: approve an administrative assistant in the budget, and defer approval of the ADU meter crew and heavy‑equipment purchase pending more analysis of fee changes and alternatives, including the option for property owners to hire contractors for their ADU meter work. Several councilmembers asked staff to return with further analysis of true cost recovery, alternative contractor models and whether overtime arrangements could temporarily ease the backlog without a new crew and equipment purchase.
Councilmember Mark Wynne urged staff to analyze the broader trade‑offs — unpaid time taken from other water‑system work when field crews are diverted to meter installs — and to provide a clearer estimate of total fiscal exposure before committing to equipment purchases.
No appropriation was approved at the June 11 study session; staff will return with a recommendation for the formal budget adoption meeting on June 25.
