My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/26/2012 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
11/26/2012 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2015 3:16:09 PM
Creation date
2/19/2015 3:16:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,November 26,2012 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br /> *8. REPLACE TAPE BACKUP DRIVE <br /> Franchot moved,Printup seconded,to approve the purchase of a new tape backup device from <br /> LOGIS in the amount of$7,190.94 with additional setup estimated to be$500. VOTE: Ayes 4, <br /> Nays 0. <br /> 9. 2013 FEE SCHEDULE <br /> Rahn stated he has some issues with fees that appear to be duplicative or that the City does not typically <br /> collect. As it relates to riprap,Page 3,Rahn noted the MCWD covers every different soil type and type of <br /> stone with regard to retaining walls and that he is not sure why Orono has that in their code. Rahn stated <br /> the most concerning element deals with unusual riprap and that he is unsure what is related to unusual <br /> riprap. <br /> McMillan indicated she also is not sure what is included with unusual riprap. <br /> Rahn stated his point is that the City does not need to re-enforce what the Watershed District is doing and <br /> that the fee should be removed from Orono's fee schedule. <br /> Rahn stated as it relates to appeals of administrative decisions,that fee should also be removed. Rahn <br /> asked if the City charged the person that appeared before the City Council approximately a month and a <br /> half ago. <br /> Curtis stated the City did not charge her because she appeared during the public comment section. <br /> Rahn stated it was quite obvious that she was appealing a Staff decision. <br /> Gaffron stated the appropriate method would have been for the City Council to direct her to file a formal <br /> appeal. <br /> Rahn stated he does not agree with the fee for an administrative appeal and that it is not right to charge a <br /> resident a fee simply because they disagree with Staff. <br /> McMillan asked what the process is for an administrative appeal. <br /> Franchot asked what the rationale is behind that fee. <br /> Gaffron stated in the normal appeal process, Staff would expect someone to file a written appeal and then <br /> Staff would do a written report. Gaffron indicated there will be some staff time involved with an <br /> administrative appeal,which is what the fee would cover. <br /> Loftus stated sometimes when there is the potential for an appeal, it often will include a review by the <br /> City Attorney. Loftus noted the fee helps to ensure that the City is not inundated with appeals. <br /> Rahn asked how many administrative appeals have been heard in the past five years. <br /> Gaffron indicated there have been a few but that he does not have an exact number. <br /> �.. ... .....------- ----------- ---------- —---- - Page 7 of 12 ---------- -------- - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.