Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 8, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />   Page 16 of 21   <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 /> <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 /> <br />PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT <br /> <br />*9. BOUNDARY SIGN COST ESTIMATE <br /> <br />Levang moved, Anderson seconded, to approve the purchase and installation of 22 new Orono <br />signs. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br />10. STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT – LETTER OF SUPPORT <br /> <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 opportunities 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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Printup asked if any discussion was had as to whether these fees would be tax deductible. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />Loftus stated it would simply be a tool to use and not a commitment by the Council to use this. <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 04/22/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 04/08/2013 <br />[Page 16 of 21]