07-06-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 6,2010 APPROVED L 181 Mr. Rolek added that this year's budget is on target so that is good news. He answered 182 some questions regarding employee health care costs and heard that the council is 183 interested in receiving more background information in that area. 184 185 A council member recommended that the road maintenance budget remain fully funded. 186 The council concurred that they may hold some special sessions in August for budget 187 discussion. A council member expressed concern about any department that is going 188 over their budget. 189 190 Regarding the estimate for upcoming property valuations, Mr. Rolek suggested that he 191 has been informed it is in the area of an 8.9$%decrease. There was discussion about 192 looking at both the tax rate and the levy amount during budget consideration. 193 194 7. Comprehensive Plan—Community Development Director Grochala presented 195 proposed text changes to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan document based on the June 196 council discussion and directions. The changes proposed would 1) add to the land use 197 plan a statement within the growth management policy that establishes an annual average 198 of 230 new residential dwelling units per year; and 2) add to the housing plan a statement 199 that acknowledges the Metropolitan Council's affordability goals but does not commit to 200 providing funding for housing. Based on the council's request, Mr. Grochala also 201 reviewed the tools available to the city in the Plan to deny approval of new development. 202 The council recognized that it would be difficult for the city to say straight out that there 203 will be no affordable housing goal especially because that would limit senior housing 204 possibilities. 205 206 Staff feels that the proposed changes can be presented to the Metropolitan Council and 207 will not meet with opposition. Staff will return in August with an update on the process. 208 209 8. Liquor Ordinance Requirements—City Clerk Bartell recalled that the council has 210 requested a review of the city's charges for background investigation fees related to the 211 issuance of liquor licenses. She noted that the staff report contains some historical data 212 from the recent past as the council has considered this matter twice within the last year 213 and a half She presented information on what is currently in the city's fee schedule, 214 noting that regular liquor licenses are the only license for which the city charges a 215 background fee. Captain Strege of the Police Department confirmed that the 216 department's cost in doing this type of background check is in line with the fee charged. 217 Also, the department does the same work for an initial check as for a renewal. The 218 department does not receive any revenue from the fee however and would recommend 219 continuing the practice of the check with or without the fee. 220 221 The question being does the council wish to continue the city's practice of charging a fee 222 for annual background investigations of liquor license applicants, discussion ensued. A 223 council member noted that he had polled some area communities about their practices 224 and fees (hand out). He found that only Lino Lakes and the City of Columbus charge a 225 fee for a background check on a renewal. He found generally that cities include the cost 5