Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,July 20,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> City began blacklisting contractors or subdividers prior to a legitimate court ruling affirming that. He also <br /> said the language talks about"if the subdivider shall have violated."He might be the subdivider today as <br /> Kirchner Construction, LLC, and he has issues and tomorrow he is Commissioner Kirchner Construction, <br /> LLC, which is a completely new entity and subdivider and,therefore,there is legal dispute that drags on <br /> for another 2-4 years. He understands the spirit of it and that Gettman is trying to do good for the <br /> community, but there are other protections and avenues in place. <br /> Gettman stated he has been a lawyer for 30 years in Minnesota and is second in charge of the National <br /> Guard for legal issues. He is one of the Commissioners for one of the state agencies. He is more than <br /> familiar with the law and regs. What he is saying is that the State does not have anything,the Feds do not <br /> have anything;the City is it. That is why he put the Mayor on the spot about the teeth. He said he agrees <br /> that what exists in the language does not do it. If it is going to have more teeth, great. If it is not,the <br /> Planning Commission can get rid of it because it won't do anything anyway. The point is, how is the City <br /> protecting its consumers. He noted that when he asks a cop to get on the stand after 41/2 years, he hopes <br /> he/she has all the notes from back then. He knows they don't and that is why they have the discussions <br /> beforehand. It comes down to, Orono won't tell its citizens if somebody lost their license in Wisconsin <br /> because they don't have to. If the City does not want to protect its citizens,take out the language. If the <br /> City wants to protect them, it has to be more than the present language. <br /> Ressler said he does not know if the City has the financial firepower to add that. It sounds like it is an <br /> issue that needs to go higher than the City of Orono. <br /> Gettman stated that it has to start somewhere. If the Commissioners are saying they don't want to let <br /> citizens in Orono know about the Wisconsin contractor that lost their license, it is good to go. Consumer <br /> protection laws suck. They don't do anything at the federal agency. If you call the federal agency,they <br /> thank the caller and say they have recorded the information. You might get an Assistant Attorney General <br /> to take your case at the State level.A lot of this work happens at the County/City level. If the rule isn't <br /> even there, it comes down to who is going to protect the local consumer. He said he agrees that, as-is, it <br /> should be taken out. He wanted to make sure the Commissioners knew why he was pushing it. <br /> Kirchner said if the language is going to be included, it needs some more teeth and expanded upon. <br /> Barnhart noted the Council's information will include that the Planning Commission supported striking <br /> the language with Gettman opposed. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind this is not for the <br /> general contractor; it is for the subdivider who violated the rules for this property. Part of the challenge is: <br /> year one,they violate the ordinance/rule/law;that same year they get approval of the preliminary plat. <br /> Year two,they get the final plat and start construction and it is working its way through the court system. <br /> Year three,the private/public improvements are done and the City is issuing building permits. It is four <br /> years past the offense; it has worked its way through the court and found that there is a violation. <br /> Meanwhile, the City issued a building permit to a new property owner. The rub is,the person being <br /> punished is not necessarily the Applicant. The person being punished is the buyer. He stated that is part of <br /> the challenge the City has. He said it is fair to provide comment to the Council that the Commission had <br /> some discussion on the issue and as it is written the Commissioners generally felt that it needed more <br /> teeth, but as written it should be removed unless there is more work done. He stated he would include that <br /> information in the memo. He commented the City Attorney can help the Council understand the issue <br /> more fully than he can. <br /> Page 10 of 19 <br />