Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE � • • <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � <br /> Monday,Apri18,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> � *8. #13-3597 JUSTIN McCOY ON BEHALF OF ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS-685 OLD <br /> CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—RESOLUTION NO.6214 <br /> Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6214,a Resolution Granting a <br /> Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Section 78-418,for the property located at 685 Old Crystal Bay <br /> Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT <br /> *9. BOUNDARY SIGN COST ESTIMATE <br /> Levang moved,Anderson seconded,to approve the purchase and installation of 22 new Orono <br /> signs. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 10. STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT—LETTER OF SUPPORT <br /> Struve stated there is current legislation that is moving through the Minnesota Legislature which would <br /> allow cities such as Orono to establish street improvement districts. Essentially this would allow cities to <br /> collect fees from property owners within those districts to pay for street projects and/or maintenance. <br /> Staff feels this would give the current and future Councils opporlunities for potential funding sources to <br /> fund some of these projects, and Staff would ask for a letter of support to be sent to the local legislators. <br /> McMillan noted she recently attended the monthly mayors meeting and that the League of Minnesota <br /> Cities and Metro Cities were in attendance to provide an update on this issue. The League of Minnesota <br /> Cities has been lobbying for 12 years in an attempt to get this bill through. The legislation has been pared <br /> down slightly in the last couple of weeks in the sense that this would only now apply to seal coating, mill <br /> and overlay or reclamation. The bill as it is now will not be for reconstruction projects and more for <br /> maintenance. <br /> Mattick stated his office has been asked to look and comment on the proposed legislation and that was <br /> one of the concessions made. When a reconstruction project is done or maintenance is completed, certain <br /> expenses are associated with that and many cities use special assessments to help offset the costs. Since it <br /> is difficult to prove that that property receives those specific benefits,this legislation would take those <br /> projects out of the special assessment process but would still allow the city to receive money from the <br /> properties that are receiving benefit from the project. <br /> Printup asked if any discussion was had as to whether these fees would be tax deductible. <br /> Mattick stated they typically are not but that it was not specifically discussed. Technically an assessment <br /> is not something you should be able to deduct. Mattick noted this would not be a tax but would be a fee. <br /> Printup noted one of the talking points says it could be deducted. <br /> Mattick stated if it is treated like a tax, it could be deducted, but that a fee could not be deducted. <br /> Levang noted the City is looking at being flexible going into the future. Levang noted the City has not <br /> made a formal decision to do this if the legislation is passed. <br /> Loftus stated it would simply be a tool to use and not a commitment by the Council to use this. <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br />