HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2016 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members James Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and Dennis
Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson,
Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam
Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, Senior Planner Michael
Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
TRUTH -IN -TAXATION PUBLIC HEARING — 6:30 p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707
Finance Director Olson stated tonight is the end of a long process that started in May. The purpose of the
public hearing tonight is to discuss the 2017 budget and tax levy and it is not to discuss property values,
which is the open book hearing held in the spring.
Olson stated residents' taxes are calculated the following way: The Hennepin County Assessor
determines a market value on people's homes through sales and site visits. Once the assessor has come
up with an estimated market value, those properties are then classified with a class tax rate. Olson
indicated he will be using the residential tax rate this evening since that affects 85 percent of the
properties in Orono. For a residential property, one percent of the first $500,000 of that property's value
is calculated into its tax capacity, with 1.25 percent being added for all value over $500,000. If a property
is worth $500,000, its tax capacity would be $5,000. Those two numbers are then taken together, which
results in the net tax capacity for a property.
To determine the City's tax capacity, all properties are added together. Olson stated the property tax levy
is what the Council will be passing tonight. The property tax levy is divided by the City's tax capacity,
which results in the City's tax capacity rate. For Orono, the proposed tax levy is $5,353,730, the City's
total tax capacity is $31,052,317, which calculates to a tax capacity rate of 17.421 percent. Olson noted
that is lower than last year's, which was approximately three-quarters of a percent higher.
Olson stated to determine someone's individual property tax, they would take the City's tax capacity
number times 17.41 percent, which results in the net property tax. Olson noted he is only talking about
city tax and that he is not talking about county or school taxes. On a residential homestead worth
$886,000, it would be one percent on the first $500,000 and 1.25 percent on the additional $386,000, for a
tax capacity of $9,825. That number would then be multiplied by the city's tax capacity rate for a net city
tax on the property of $1,693.92. Hennepin County's tax on that same property would be $4,611.64 and
the school district tax would be $3,893, which is before the recently passed levy.
Page 1 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING —RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
Olson stated those numbers reflect that the City's portion of a resident's property tax bill is very low in
comparison to the county and the school district. The City's portion is 15 percent, the school district is
30 percent, the county is 46 percent, and other smaller taxing districts make up 9 percent of a person's
total tax bill.
Olson noted the school district's portion will be slightly higher than 30 percent due to the recently passed
referendum. In regards to the state average, people are paying 27 percent to their city, 28 percent to their
school district, and 30 percent to the county they live in. Olson stated conservative budgeting in Orono
has helped keep Orono's city tax to almost half of what the average Minnesota resident pays. Orono has
the fourth smallest tax capacity in the county and is less than half of the rest of the county.
Olson stated in front of the Council tonight is approval of the final tax levy, with the total being
$5,353,730. The general fund operating levy is increasing by approximately $183,000, which will be
largely used to pay wages and benefits. The pavement management levy was increased by$401,500 to
help offset the costs to improve the roads. Debt service amount has been level for the last four years.
Olson noted starting in 2018 through 2022, the amount of funds needed to pay off the City's debt service
will decrease by $44,000 per year for the next four years, which is a result of refinancing some bonds.
Olson stated in 2023, because some other bonds will be paid off, the City's debt service will drop down to
$416,000, which is quite a decrease from the $755,000.
Olson stated the City's tax capacity is going up 8.58 percent, with approximately half of the increase
being due to the value of people's homes increasing and the other half being due to some new
developments. When compared to last year, taxable market value has increased by 8.28 percent and the
City's tax capacity has increased by 8.06 percent. As a result of the City's increased tax capacity, the
City's tax capacity rate will decrease from 17.325 percent in 2016 to 17.241 percent.
The impact of that decrease means that if someone's home valued at $250,000 did not change in value at
all, they would see a slight decrease of around $2 in taxes. On a $2 million home, the taxes would
decrease by approximately $20 per year. If the value increased by 5 percent on a $250,000 home, that
person would see a tax increase of $21.50, and on a $2 million home, the increase would be
approximately $195.
Olson noted for 2017, overall property taxes were increased by $180,000, which amounts to a 4.5
increase, but that home values were not raised very much over the past four years. The budgeted amount
for licenses decreased by 22 percent, which is related to the elimination of collection for dog licenses at
$4,000. Total government services are going up slightly by $25,000, which has to do with construction
and building permits. Public safety services charges are increasing by $61,550 or 2.7 percent, which has
to do with Orono's contract cities. Olson noted the City receives over $3.2 million as a result of police
contracts and helps with the funding of the police department. Fines and forfeitures are being decreased
slightly due to receiving less money from the state on each ticket written. The City's total investment
income is being increased to $54,500. The miscellaneous revenues category primarily relates to the golf
course and that is expected to generate approximately $279,000, for an increase of 3.6 percent.
Page 2 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
Olson displayed a graph displaying the percentage for each revenue category. Property taxes represent 52
percent of the General Fund budget, which is a very low number compared to other cities. Olson noted
many cities are up in the 70 to 80 percent range. Olson pointed out Orono receives zero dollars in Local
Government Aid from the State of Minnesota and that the City does a very good job of balancing the
budget without being overly dependent on property taxes.
Olson stated in 2017, Orono's expenditures are going up 3.6 percent or $280,000. The biggest reason for
the increase is due to union employees receiving a 2.5 percent increase in wages, which was just slightly
under $60,000. Olson stated the police department also had a couple of significant workers compensation
claims which increased the City's experience rating to 1.0 and amounted to $36,000. Another $8,000 has
been budgeted for the police department for maintaining of records. Another portion of the increase in
expenditures is a result of software vendors now requiring the City to pay for their licenses per year. Also
being budgeted is $20,000 for work on upgrading the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Olson stated the majority of the budget consists of police and fire, which amounts to 58 percent of the
budget, professional services at 4 percent, street maintenance at 7 percent, finance at 4 percent,
administration at 4 percent, building and zoning at 9 percent, and the golf course at 2 percent.
Approximately 77 percent of the overall budget consists of wages and benefits for personnel in the
various departments.
Olson noted other budgets being adopted tonight are the special revenue funds. Included in that category
are the Park Fund, the Drug Forfeiture Fund, and the TIF Fund. Special revenue funds have a primary
source of revenue that is dedicated for a specific purpose.
The water, sewer, stormwater and recycling funds are designed to account for the business type activities
of the City. These funds do not receive any property tax revenue. As part of the 2017 fee schedule, the
following rate increases were approved: water at 11 percent, sewer at 4 percent, stormwater at 10 percent,
and recycling by 10 percent. The increases in the fee schedule were approved at the November 28
Council meeting. Even after the increases, the water fund will have a small operating loss of $4,628. The
stormwater fund will show a profit. The purpose of the stormwater fund is to collect money to help pay
for expenditures in the future. There should also be a small profit in the sewer fund and the recycling
fund.
In 2012, the City adopted a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In order to keep the CIP useful, it is
updated on a yearly basis. The CIP outlines anticipated large budget expenses and provides long-term
planning for future expenses. OIson noted approving the CIP does not authorize any specific expenditure
and is merely a working document. Council approval would still be required for any expenditure.
Olson stated Staff is looking for motions to adopt the resolutions that are before the City Council tonight.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
No public comments were received.
Page 3 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6704, a Resolution Adopting the
Final 2016 Tax Levy Collectible in 2017.
McMillan noted in September she voiced her opposition to the 8 percent levy increase and that her
position is still the same today. McMillan stated in her view the 8 percent increase is too high and that
increasing the Pavement Management Fund by $401,000 should be done incrementally rather than all at
one time. McMillan noted the City Council had the ability to bond at 1 percent interest but that they
chose not to do so back in September. McMillan stated in her view increasing the levy to pay for road
improvements should be done incrementally since they have a number of citizens in Orono who live on
private roads and have to pay for their own road repairs and snow plowing. McMillan stated if the City is
going to increase the levy for pavement management, the City should increase it in smaller amounts.
McMillan indicated she is in favor of everything else for the different funds.
Council Member Walsh stated the City Council has had their disagreement about that and that his
position is that the City should not go out and borrow money for road improvements. Walsh stated in
order for the City to be financially solvent, they should have the money in the Pavement Management
Fund rather than bonding for road improvements. Walsh stated they are incrementally increasing that
fund, which they started doing in 2015, and that they should not need to borrow money to do road
improvements.
Council Member Levang indicated she is in agreement with Mayor McMillan and that she is not
interested in approving a levy at 8.1 percent. The City had an opportunity to have a levy at 5.37 percent
and then bond for $1 million, which would have been at 1 percent. Levang stated the City could have
gotten a lot of roads done for that amount and that it would have been more fiscally responsible. Levang
noted in the last six years the levy has increased by approximately 6 percent, and to have a levy increase
of 8.1 percent in one year is not fiscally responsible.
Walsh stated the 6 percent increase, along with the 8 percent increase, averages out to approximately a
2.5 percent increase over the past six years. Walsh stated being fiscally responsible is actually getting the
roads done and that having a Pavement Management Fund with no money is a bridge to nowhere. Walsh
stated it is fiscally responsible to put money into that fund rather than taking on new debt, which ties the
hands of future Councils down the road. Walsh stated the 8.1 percent is a small increase overall and that
the City will be able to get a whole bunch of roads done without additional debt service. Walsh stated the
Council voted back in September to go in that direction and that he would hope they are able to pass the
resolution so they can move forward with the plans in place for the roads in 2017.
McMillan stated if the price of oil increases dramatically, the City will not be able to do as many roads as
they had hoped. McMillan stated bonding is another way of funding the Pavement Management Plan and
that she was looking at a different opportunity the City could have taken advantage of to get the roads
done. McMillan stated time will tell whether borrowing money at 1 percent interest might have been the
better way to go.
Page 4 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING —RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
McMillan stated increasing the Pavement Management Fund will get roads done over time but that there
is no guarantee that going that way will be any more cost efficient than bonding. McMillan noted she has
worked hard over the years at keeping the levy down. McMillan stated the Council would love to do as
many projects as possible but that they have to look at minimizing the increases since levies tend to go up
but not down. McMillan stated the Council also has to consider the fact that residents will be paying for a
school referendum. McMillan stated fiscal discipline is important and that it starts with the City Council.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, McMillan, Levang and Cornick opposed. MOTION FAILS.
Council Member Printup asked what projects would be lost with a 5 percent levy increase instead of an
8.1 percent increase.
City Administrator Loftus asked whether Fox Street would be done.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards indicated they would likely not be able to complete Fox
Street. Edwards stated with the current levy rate and the current fund balance, they would just barely be
able to pay for the Fox Street reconstruction or they could do a series of smaller street projects. Edwards
stated if the levy amount drops below the $401,000, Fox Street is probably off the table.
Printup stated the priority to focus on roads becomes less of a priority if the levy amount is reduced.
McMillan noted one percent equates approximately $50,000.
Walsh stated what the audience is seeing is the reason for the election results and that three people on the
Council are looking to handicap the citizens on the roads, which is why the citizens elected to make a
total change. Walsh stated by reducing the levy, the City will not be able to get the roads done, which is
the current three Council members outgoing shot.
Levang stated that is his opinion and that the citizens do not necessarily hold that opinion either. Levang
stated when they discussed this in September, he would not listen to them. Levang stated she stands by
what she has said previously and that there are other ways and other opportunities to improve the roads.
Levang commented she does not agree with Council Member Walsh.
Walsh commented this is what the citizens get and that this is the last shot by the three outgoing council
members.
Levang asked Council Member Walsh to stop disparaging them.
Walsh stated they are taking the funding out from underneath the new Council that was being put in place
to get the roads done.
Levang stated roads will still get done but in a different way.
Page 5 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
McMillan stated in order to reduce the levy to 5 percent, they are looking to reduce the Pavement
Management Fund by $150,000.
Olson noted the levy increase previously discussed in September was at 5.19 percent. Part of that
increase would have realized a savings on the refunding of the bonds that was factored into it, which
would have resulted in a total levy increase of $180,000 in the General Fund and $77,000 in the Debt
Service Fund.
McMillan stated she would like to see a total of $250,000 or $300,000 in the Pavement Management
Fund with the levy. McMillan stated if the City continues to experience growth, the fund will increase
each year.
Olson stated if $70,000 is added, it would increase the fund balance to approximately $250,000.
Levang stated the fund would go from $401,500 to $253.500.
Olson noted the Pavement Management Fund currently has $183,000 in it.
Levang asked how Staff would prefer the motion.
Olson recommended the Council make a motion approving the tax levy with the change in the pavement
management levy to $253,000.
City Attorney Mattick stated the pavement management levy would move from $401,000 to $253,000
even and that Staff will reflect that reduction to the overall levy in the resolution.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6704, a Resolution Adopting the
Final 2016 Tax Levy Collectible in 2017, to reduce the Pavement Management Levy to $253,000,
and to direct Staff to carry that levy forward to a total.
Walsh stated he would reiterate that this is Mayor McMillan's parting shot to Orono, which is saying that
roads are not important. Walsh stated in future conversations, they will all remember this. Walsh
commented the Mayor is throwing Fox Street under the bus as well as other future roads that would have
been done. Walsh stated in his view it is a sad way to go, but when they have three votes, they can make
those decisions. Walsh stated this is a perfect example of why the people of Orono wanted a change.
McMillan commented she has not changed her stance since September and that the City has been able to
get a number of roads done in Orono over the past six years that she has been on the Council. McMillan
stated she disagrees with Council Member Walsh but that he is entitled to his opinion.
Printup noted three months ago they had the votes for the $401,500. Printup asked what happened in the
past three months to change the vote.
Page 6 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
Levang stated there was no shift and that they proposed this same amount in September.
Printup indicated he is simply asking if he could have an explanation for the change in the vote from three
months ago. Printup stated he had the understanding the 8.1 percent levy increase was voted on 3-2 back
in September.
Walsh stated the change was Council Member Cornick.
McMillan stated for years the City Council tried to keep the City's tax rate the same, but now that the
City's tax capacity rate is increasing with the new developments and increased property values, the City's
revenues are going up. McMillan stated the City has reached a point where the home values are
appreciating and that the City's tax rate could go down. McMillan noted 17 percent is on the higher end
of what Orono historically has been and that at some point the City Council needs to get the tax rate
down. McMillan stated she has never wanted to keep the tax rate up at 17 percent unless there was some
extraordinary circumstance and that the City is now in a position where they can back off the tax rate
since the City is growing again.
Printup commented he understands that but he does not understand the reason for the change in the vote
from September.
Walsh noted even with an 8.1 percent levy increases, the City's tax capacity rate is going down and that
individual property owner's taxes are going down. Walsh stated if the Mayor is going to be fiscally
responsible, she cannot talk out of both sides of her mouth. Walsh noted they went half a million dollars
over budget on the police department garage and have spent half a million dollars on Big Island. Walsh
stated he is trying to get the roads done that people drive on and that the levy decrease will come directly
out of the road fund.
McMillan stated there is money in the Pavement Management Fund and additional money will be put into
the fund as a result of the levy. McMillan commented road improvements will get done just like they
have been done for the past few years but maybe not the roads that Council Member Walsh wanted to get
down.
Levang stated the Council has to take into consideration the fact that the City is growing and that a
number of houses are being added to the City's tax base. Levang stated that needs to be taken into
consideration when putting the City's budget together. Levang commented it is fair to all taxpayers that
the City uses the money as it is designated to be used and that it is not fair to continue to keep increasing
the tax levy. Levang stated they have attempted to keep the levy as flat as possible over the past six years
and that the plan that was presented in September does that, which is what three of the council members
would like to do. Levang stated they have a difference of opinion.
Levang stated she does not want to see her taxes go up and that the Council has no control over what
happens at the school as well as at Hennepin County. Levang stated she is committed to not increasing
city taxes and that they have to take into account the fact that everyone is going to be paying more
because of the school referendum and Hennepin County.
Page 7 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. 2017 BUDGET HEARING — RESOLUTION NOS. 6704, 6705, 6706, 6707 (continued)
Levang stated they are looking at it in a more global way and that most people would like to see their
taxes go down, which is what they are attempting to do.
Walsh stated the budgets in the past have been a hope and a prayer. Walsh stated when there are zero
dollars in the road budget, that is a hope and a prayer to get roads done. Walsh noted 2015 was the first
year that money went into the road budget because he made sure that happened. Walsh stated in 2016 he
advocated for more money being allocated towards roads. Walsh stated the Council has been schooled
in the past by the Public Works Director that they need $800,000 a year to keep up with all the road
projects but that they now want to decrease the Pavement Management Fund to $250,000. Walsh stated
borrowing money is not the way to get stuff done in the budget.
Levang stated she would call the question.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Walsh and Printup Opposed.
Printup asked why Council Member Cornick has had a change in opinion since September. Printup stated
he hopes he is not out of line in asking Council Member Cornick for his change in opinion on the matter.
Cornick stated Council Member Printup is out of line on it and that he has no comment on it other than
that Council Member Levang said it all. Cornick stated he is not going to point fingers at anyone and that
he has voted the way he wants to vote.
Mattick stated for purposes of clarification, his understanding of the motion is that the Pavement
Management Levy will go from $401,500 to $253,000, which is a reduction of $148,500. Mattick noted
all other aspects of the resolution will remain the same. If the $148,500 is removed, the levy amount goes
from $5,353,730 to $5,205,230.
McMillan stated that is correct.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6705, a Resolution Adopting the
Final 2017 General Fund Budget. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6706, a Resolution Adopting the
2017 Special Revenue Funds Budgets and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6707 , a Resolution
Adopting the 2017 Enterprise Funds Budgets. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Page 8 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 5 through 17 and Item Nos, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 3lwere added to the Consent
Agenda.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*3. NOVEMBER 28, 2016, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the November 28, 2016, Orono City Council minutes
as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*4. NOVEMBER 28, 2016, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the November 28, 2016, minutes of the Orono City
Council Work Session as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
*5. 2017 PUBLIC WORKS PLAN
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the 2017 Public Works Plan and associated engineer
proposals. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*6. PROCUREMENT TO REPLACE TRACTOR (351) AND TORO BROOM (352)
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the replacement of the 1985 John Deere Tractor #351
and the 1991 Toro lawnmower and Broom No. 352 with a 2017 John Deere Model 3046R Utility
Tractor including front mounted broom, mid mount mower, and two-stage snow blower by
Minnesota Equipment for $42,635.10. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*7. LURTON OFF LEASH PARK FENCE — PAY REQUEST NO.2 — FINAL
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 2 to Northern Specialties, Inc., in the
amount of $46,914.00. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 9 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
*8. WATERTOWN ROAD AND STUBBS PAY ROAD REHABILITATION — PAY
REQUEST NO.4 — FINAL CORRECTED
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 4 - Final Corrected to Bituminous
Roadways in the amount of $43,462.83 for the Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road
rehabilitation project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*9. 2016 ROAD MAINTENANCE (Hunter and Tamarack) — PAY REQUEST NO. 1— FINAL
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 1— Final in the amount of
$109,789.51 to Omann Brothers for the maintenance project on Hunter and Tamarack Drives.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*10. 2017 PARK MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH SENTENCE TO SERVE (STS)
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the contract with Hennepin County Sentence to Serve
for park maintenance not to exceed $6,779.20. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*11. UTILITY SYSTEM SCADA UPGRADE
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the proposal from In -Control for $29,900 to upgrade
the SCADA hardware, software, communications and upgrade the North Well House Control
Panel. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the proposal from Quality Flow for $2,500 per lift
station to install M800 monitors on 20 lift stations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT, CONTINUED
Edwards reported on the following activities completed by the Public Works Department:
• Switched gears from fall activities to winter activities
• Tree removal at Bohns Point and Cygnet
• Drainage investigation and repair on Long Lake Boulevard
• Snow removal
• Cleaned ditch line on Lydiard Avenue
• Hydrant repair on Crystal Bay Road
• Site development underway for Well No. 4
• Lift Station No. 2 backup generator installation underway
• Drainage improvement on Crystal Bay/Arbor Street
• Installation of the fence is complete and the well will be completed in next couple of weeks at
Lurton Park
• Five building permit grading/site plans have been reviewed
Page 10 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
*12. DISPOSAL OF FORFEITED VEHICLES
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to dispose of the 2006 Pontiac Montana, VIN
#1GMDV33L66D238295; the 1998 Dodge passenger car, VIN # 1B4HS28Y6WFI25347; and the
2004 Mercury passenger car, VIN # 2MEFM74W64X622954, through the Auto Auction. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*13. REQUEST TO HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to hire William Carstens as a full-time police officer, effective
January 4, 2017. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT — REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE LEMKE
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708
Senior Planner Gaffron stated on September 14, 2015, the City Council adopted a resolution granting
preliminary plat approval for a 7 -lot plat of the properties located at 200-350 Stubbs Bay Road. Since
that time the developer has submitted a variety of documents. The applicants have completed the
agreement with the neighborhood to the south. In that agreement the applicants are proposing to extend
the private road from the end of Kintyre Lane near the end of Watertown Road. In addition, the
development agreement will require that all access for road construction be from Stubbs Bay Road.
Further, the little wobble in one section of the road has been removed in order to straighten it out and the
developer will be moving a house and some trees in there. The City Council is also looking at a septic
system agreement for the septic system located on Lots 4 and 5 where the septic system is currently
located over a lot line.
Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing to grade building pads into certain lots, creating new
engineered grades to establish existing ground levels for individual building purposes.
The private road in Outlot B is subject to private easement and maintenance covenants as well as an
underlying access easement to the City. An easement for public access is not being granted, which makes
this truly a private road. Staff and the City Attorney feel there is minimal, if any risk, to not requiring an
underlying public easement when certain conditions exist. Those conditions exist in this situation and
include the following:
The private road being created does not have the potential to be extended to serve adjacent
undeveloped properties.
2. The developer has established covenants that require homeowner maintenance of the private road
yet allow the City to provide for maintenance if the homeowners do not do so, and to assess the
homeowners for that work.
Page 11 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
The resolution now includes language that addresses the existing accessory buildings on Outlot A. The
resolution states that "Outlot A is created for potential future development and no principal residence
structure may be constructed on Outlot A unless or until it is converted into a lot via a platting process.
The two accessory buildings proposed to remain on Outlot A shall be considered as non -conforming upon
removal of the existing principal residence structure on Outlot A. These two accessory buildings are
allowed to remain as is. However, no new accessory buildings shall be constructed on Outlot A until
such time that I is combined with a parcel that contains a principal structure or it is converted to lot status
via a future platting process and a new principal structure on Outlot A is constructed."
Discussion at the September 12 meeting did not reach a solid conclusion regarding the future use of the
driveway in Outlot A, Tamarack Hill, as a secondary access for Lots 5 and 6, which both abut Outlot A.
The developer initially suggested a scenario as follows:
The back driveway would be used as -is for construction of homes on Lots 5 and 6 until such time
that the fmal lift of asphalt is placed on the Kintyre extension at which time driveways from the
new cul-de-sac for Lots 5 and 6 would have to be installed within 60 days and construction access
to Outlot A would cease.
2. After that, the developer has proposed that the back driveway be retained as a permanent
secondary access for both Lots 5 and 6 and notes that the new lot line between 5 and 6 is centered
on the back driveway so it could serve both. The developer feels it would be difficult to access
the small barn on Lot 5 without the back driveway.
As noted in the September 16 memo, there are a number of reasons Staff suggested that the back
driveway should not become a permanent secondary access and should be abandoned. Those reasons are
outlined in Staffs report. The developer has indicated that while he intends to build a new home to live
in on Lot 5 or Lot 6, at this time no decision has been made as to which lot. The developer would prefer
that any covenants addressing permanent secondary access be transferable, which is also addressed in the
development contract.
Staff would offer the following scenarios with regard to temporary use of Outlot A during new home
construction for remodeling of the existing home on Lot 5:
1. In the event that a new home is proposed on Lot 5 or Lot 6 prior to completion of the new road
and cul-de-sac to a usable status, a building permit can be issued for Lot 5 or Lot 6 using the
back driveway for access until such time that usable status of the road and cul-de-sac is reached.
2. In the event that such a building permit is approved for Lot 5 or Lot 6, a permit for construction
on the opposite lot will not be issued. The intent being that no more than one home may be
constructed using the back driveway,
Page 12 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763/16-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
3. Per the applicant's suggestion, Primary Connections; i.e., driveways from the new cul-de-sac for
Lots 5 and 6 must be established within 60 days after the new road and cul-de-sac reach usable
status.
4. Upon completion of those new driveways, all construction access to Lots 5 and 6 shall be via
those new driveways and a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued for either home until
covenants are in place limiting use of the back driveway to just one of the two lots.
Based on the above points, it would appear there are three basic scenarios to consider for permanent use
of Outlot A:
Scenario 1: Both Lots 5 and 6 are allowed to use Outlot A as a permanent secondary access. The Council
should determine whether an upgrade of Outlot A to private road status is required. If so, this potentially
requires changes to the plat of Kintyre Preserve.
Scenario 2: Only one of the two new lots is allowed to use Outlot A as a permanent secondary access.
This requires establishment of covenants and perhaps other physical barriers to ensure compliance.
Scenario 3: Neither of Lots 5 or 6 is allowed to use Outlot A as a permanent secondary access. If this is
the case, then the driveway in Outlot A and the creek crossing should be eliminated and vegetation
restored.
Staff would recommend that temporary use of Outlot A be per the Staff recommended scenario described
above. Staff recommends that the Council review the various options for future permanent use of
Tamarack Outlot A and make a decision on which scenario to require. The Development Contract will be
modified to reflect Council's action. Additional minor revisions to the Development Contract are
anticipated.
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution, subject to the plat not being filed until such time
all required documents have been finalized, and authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute
the development contract for Kintyre Preserve upon final approval by the City Attorney. The Council
should also determine which scenario should be required for the permanent use of Outlot A.
Christopher Hunt, Attorney -at -Law, noted they met with Mr. Gaffon last week and one issue that was
discussed in great detail was the amount of land that is being covered by the Development Agreement.
The developer is opposed to including Outlot A since it will not be developed and the requirements in the
development agreement do not apply to Outlot A. Hunt stated their thought was that if the developer
eventually conveys its rights in this development contract to a third party, they would lose control over
the development and that could limit how Outlot A could be used. Hunt noted someone would have to
replat that land if they were going to develop it.
Page 13 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
Hunt stated the one thing that is not covered is situations where someone is not actually constructing new
lots. Hunt stated lots of other activities would potentially be prohibited if there is a default on the
development contract. If the Bollises were to apply for a permit or something like that, a City Staff
member would ensure that the development contract has been filed against the property. If there is a
default on the contract, Staff would deny it. Hunt stated he foresees several issues with having the entire
property being subject to the Development Contract.
Hunt stated he understands it is the City's policy to include all of the land being replatted to be included
in the development contract and that there is nothing legally prohibiting the City from doing that. Hunt
stated he would argue that there is also nothing legally prohibiting the City from not including all of the
land that will be subject to the plat and that they would respectfully request that the City consider leaving
Outlot A out of the contract.
The second issue discussed with Staff was the platting of the property and having a public dedication for
Stubbs Bay Road. Currently there is just an easement that benefits the public. In connection with this
plat and the road being publicly dedicated, some portion of the land will be lost. As a result, Hunt stated
they had requested the City consider a credit for future development of Outlot A for that portion of land
that will be lost.
Walsh stated there are still covenants on Outlot A that would be part of this and that they would need to
also remove any language that is applicable to that piece of property. Walsh asked if they are proposing
taking out Outlot A from the development contract and then have no requirements on it.
Hunt noted Outlot A would need to be replatted if it were ever developed and that he sees very little
downside for the City if Outlot A were removed from the development contract. Hunt stated there is
downfall, however, for the contractor if there is a default on the contract.
Walsh asked what issues the City should ensure are still attached to Outlot A.
Mattick stated through the normal course of business, the City has a development contract that covers all
the lots that are part of the development. Outlot A is part of this development. Mattick stated in terms of
what is included in the development contract, the developer is not doing anything in Outlot A and the City
does not gain a lot outside of the dedication of Stubbs Bay. Mattick indicated Staff is okay with leaving
Outlot A out of the development contract but that it is not typically the way the City does it. Currently
City Code says that someone cannot develop on an outlot and the developer would need to come back to
the City for approval.
Walsh stated as far as the credit for the land associated with the dedication of Stubbs Bay Road, the City
has not traditionally done that.
Hunt stated they would like that as a credit since once the road is publicly dedicated, the lots become
smaller.
Page 14 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLISICHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
Levang asked what needs to be done differently in the resolution.
Mattick stated the development contract is drafted to accommodate the developer's request concerning
Outlot A but the copy before the City Council tonight is not final. As far as Stubbs Bay, Staff did not
accommodate that request in the resolution. Typically when the City requires a developer to dedicate a
road, they are required to take the land that remains and conform to the criteria. Mattick stated if the
Council is inclined to require the dedication, which the City is allowed to do, the developer is asking that
they be given credit for that land.
Gaffron stated the City has not done that before and every plat that has been done has taken 33 feet of
right-of-way from the center line. Gaffron stated he cannot point to a situation where the City has given
somebody some credit towards future buildability for the road width that has been dedicated and that he
would recommend against honoring that request.
Levang asked why the City is taking that land if the outlot is not being developed at this time.
Gaffron stated it is part of the platting process and that City Code says when there is a plat, the City
should be taking the additional right-of-way needed to accommodate existing and future needed roads. In
this case, the extension of Stubbs Bay Road does not yet exist and the property boundaries do go
approximately to the center line. Gaffron stated 33 feet is typical for this type of road in the City and that
he would estimate approximately two-thirds of the 33 feet is actually roadway, shoulder, and ditch.
Gaffron stated it is not typical for the City to give credit for the dedicated road.
Christopher Bollis, Applicant, asked if the dedicated portion could be an easement.
Mattick stated when the land is dedicated on the plat, it comes in as an easement and the underlying
property owner would still own that. If the City ever vacates the easement, the land would go back to the
underlying property owner.
McMillan asked for the applicant's thoughts regarding the road access to Stubbs Bay.
Bollis stated they are asking for either Lot 5 or Lot 6 to have continued access to the secondary driveway
and that City Code allows two driveways off of an outlot. Bollis indicated they have drafted a declaration
that could be recorded against Lot 5 or Lot 6 prohibiting the owner of one of those lots from using that
access.
Mattick stated his understanding of the meeting with Staff is that the applicant is basically asking for the
status quo to remain. Mattick stated the applicant does have the right to use the existing home and the
existing access and that the applicant did not want to lose that secondary access as a result of the
development. Mattick noted the applicant's original request was for that access to remain for Lots 5 and
6, which Staff did not support.
Page 15 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
Mattick stated in return the applicant proposed that Lot 5 retain access over Outlot A, but on a permanent
basis Outlot 6 cannot. In the event that Lot 5 is sold and the applicant retains Lot 6, he would be able to
transfer that access to Lot 6 as long as something is recorded against Lot 5 prohibiting access.
Levang noted that would be Scenario 2.
Gaffron noted the proposed lot line splits the existing driveway in half. Gafrron stated whichever lot ends
up with the access, they will be driving over a portion of the other lot unless the driveway is moved.
Mattick stated the applicant controls both lots at this time but that he will need to tidy that up with the
declaration.
McMillan asked if there is room on Lot 6 for a septic field.
Gaffron stated the lot line could be moved by approximately 20 feet without having an impact on the
septic field.
Levang stated otherwise it could be an easement.
Bollis stated that is one option. Bollis stated if the driveway moves one way or the other, depending on
which lot has the access, there would not be a need for an easement.
McMillan askcd if the applicant has discussed this with the neighbor.
Bollis indicated he has but that they are not in agreement.
Walsh commented he has a problem with the City being an enforcement agent on the access road and that
he would be more comfortable if the line is moved either completely to the left: or right so it is very clear.
Levang noted Scenario 2 says that this requires establishment of covenants and perhaps also physical
barriers to ensure compliance. Levang stated she is assuming physical barriers means some sort of barrier
prohibiting it from being used.
Gaffron stated it could be a physical barrier or moving of the lot line. Gaffron indicated his preference
would be that the lot line move.
Mattick noted there is also language included in the resolution that allows the City to assess any costs
they may incur in enforcing that.
Walsh stated he would still prefer the lot line be moved or Scenario 3.
Page 16 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. ##15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLISICHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
Levang indicated she is comfortable with Scenario 2,
Tom Fleming, 300 Stubbs Bay Road, stated he and his wife support the temporary use of the driveway for
construction but that they expect the road to be upgraded to handle construction equipment. Fleming
stated he does not support the permanent use by Lots 5 and 6 of the access road but that he can understand
the desire of the applicant to retain that for both lots. Fleming stated by combining Lot 2, Tamarack Hill,
and then re -platting it, all lots would have access to the main road and that he does not really understand
the need for the secondary access. Fleming stated in his view having the additional driveway is in the
spirit of single-family home development in the City.
Fleming stated as it concerns the physical barrier, whether it is a physical barrier or a relocation of the lot
line, in his view there needs to be something there because it will probably cause an issue down the road.
Fleming stated to his understanding, if they look at the current declaration of covenants for his property,
he is not covered adequately. Fleming noted the covenants are proposed to be part of Kintyre Preserve
and that he is not part of that. Fleming stated in his view a new declaration between the two of them
would help define it further and should be a requirement of the agreement.
Levang asked if it is the responsibility of the City to create a declaration between Mr. Bollis and
Mr. Fleming.
Mattick stated the applicant has the right to use the road predevelopment and that there has been
discussions the long-term use of the road. Mattick stated the amount of land that can use that road is
being shrunk, and the idea expressed in the discussion was to achieve a status quo scenario. Mattick
stated he understands there is an extra lot being created that could potentially use that road and that Staff
attempted to address the enforcement issue by giving the City the ability to assess any enforcement costs
that may be necessary against the property owner.
Fleming stated he would go back to the City's own ordinance. Fleming stated with this new plat, the City
is basically saying this is allowable provided that appropriate easements exist between the parties that
share the driveway. Fleming stated if you look through the declaration that is currently in place, it is
clearly something that anticipates something to happen for that to be used as a primary access. Fleming
stated that changes the use of the access road, it changes who can use it, and it changes the transferability
of it. Fleming stated as a result, the covenant he has in place is not appropriate.
Mattick noted there is one home using it now and there will be one home using it after.
Fleming stated the agreement basically talks about the driveway being used as a primary access and that it
does not define what a secondary access actually is. Fleming stated if someone were to purchase his
property and look at the declaration, they would not really understand it since it is something that is
contemplated in the future and does not represent what it is being used for currently.
Page 17 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
Mattick concurred the declaration does contemplate it becoming a primary access. Mattick stated from an
intensive use standpoint, the neighbors can object to something when it becomes a more intense use.
Mattick noted the primary access to those lots will not be through that access road but will be through the
cul-de-sac. At this point there will still only be one lot that has secondary access. Mattick stated it
appears the more logical way to go is through the cul-de-sac, which would lessen the traffic on that
secondary access.
Fleming commented he is attempting to look into the future and anticipate what might happen. Fleming
stated right now they are discussing the plat of Kintyre Preserve and allowing the secondary access.
Fleming stated in his view he does not believe a secondary access is that common. Fleming stated he may
experience problems selling his property depending on what that secondary access is used for and that he
is attempting to define that.
McMillan asked if there is a problem with the lot line between Lots 5 and 6 appearing to allow access to
the secondary access for both lots.
Mattick stated from a practical standpoint, it likely will, but that from a recorded standpoint it will be
clarified which lot has access to it.
Bollis stated an easy solution is to move the driveway to whatever lot will have the access and that he
does not want to have a problem with it in the future.
Gaffron noted relocating the driveway may raise some issues with the Watershed District and that Staff
has not reviewed what those impacts of relocating the driveway will be.
Bollis stated there is a culvert under the driveway and that they could move it beyond the ditch or
wetland. Bollis stated in his view there is room to move the driveway by five feet.
Gaffron stated that might be possible but that he has not looked at that. Gaffron stated he just wanted to
let the applicant know that that is a potential issue.
Walsh stated the City does not know if the driveway can be moved at this point and that they will have to
come back and show the City that they can move the road.
Mattick stated the time period has already been extended once and the application should be approved or
denied tonight unless an extension is given from the applicant.
Printup stated he is fine with moving the driveway.
Bollis stated in his view they can move the majority of the driveway and that it can be made so the lot not
being allowed to use it would not have easy access to it. Bollis stated moving the lot line at this point
would create a number of problems with lot sizes.
Page 18 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLISICHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
McMillan stated the reason for the driveway is going away with the development and that she is
concerned about the driveway becoming a problem down the road. McMillan stated currently it is an
access to a home but that the whole area will have a whole new access. The original intent of the
driveway will be going away with the cul-de-sac and the extension of Kintyre. McMillan stated as a
result she is concerned about keeping the secondary access.
Bollis asked if there is any specific code prohibiting a secondary access.
Gaffron stated one of the things Staff was asked to look at by the applicant was an access to two public
roads. Staff has acknowledged that the access to Tamarack Outlot A, partly owned by Lots 5 and 6, is not
actually a public road but abuts a public road. Gaffron stated it becomes an interpretation by virtue of
having a private driveway in addition to a public road since a property is only supposed to have one
access to a public road. Gaffron noted that language is not part of the zoning code but is part of the road
standards. Gaffron stated Staff can concede that it does not abut a public road, but the concept of having
two access points to serve one lot is functionally the same as having a secondary access to another road.
Mattick stated Staff tried to figure out a way to govern status quo. If that access is blocked, then the City
will have a property that the applicant owns or has a right to that he would not be allowed to use anymore.
Mattick stated prohibiting the secondary access might be advantageous for the neighbor, but the idea was
that the City would allow the applicant to keep what he currently has.
Levang stated it does not seem reasonable for the City to take that away since the applicant currently
owns two-thirds of that road.
Fleming stated he understands that rationale but that the outlot is not developable. Fleming indicated he
is trying to deal with the future uncertainties and that the need for that driveway should cease to exist
since it was originally put there for a specific reason which is now going away.
Levang asked if the City needs to demand or require a covenant for the secondary access.
Mattick stated they are talking about doing covenants outside of the subdivision that are between two
private property owners.
Fleming stated as he looks down the road, he is unsure he will be able to explain how it works, and that it
also becomes a question of whether there should be a secondary access.
Mattick stated the document will state that that lot has a certain number of rights concerning the
secondary access.
Page 19 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
14. #15-3763116-3860 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS/CHRISTOPHER AND RACHEL
BOLLIS, 200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH -FINAL PLAT APPROVAL — RESOLUTION
NO. 6708 (continued)
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve temporary use as recommended by Staff in their
report dated December 8, 2010, and to approve Scenario 2 for the permanent use of Outlot A.
Walsh stated he would support that with the condition that the actual covenants and physical barriers are
taken care of correctly.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6708, a Resolution Approving the
Plat of Kintyre Preserve, File No. 15-3763116-3860. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to authorize the Mayor and the City Administrator to execute
the Development Contract subject to final approval by the City Attorney. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*15. #16-3847 SHADYWOOD VILLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT—
RESOLUTION NO. 6709
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6709, a Resolution Granting
Approval of Amendment No. 6 of the Orono 2008-2030 Community Management Plan: 2525, 25351)
and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*16. #16-3879 SCENIC SIGN CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF LUNDS REAL ESTATE
HOLDINGS, LLC, 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE — RESOLUTION NO. 6710
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6710 a Resolution Granting
Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468, for Property Located at 3333
Shoreline Drive, File No. 16-3879. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*17. #16-3880 EVERLAST ENTERPRISES, INC., 230 TONKA AVENUE — VARIANCE —
RESOLUTION NO. 6711
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6711, a Resolution Approving
Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305, for the property located at 230 Tonka
Avenue, File No. 16-3880. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
18. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE, LOTS
1-7, BLOCK 1, AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6712
Gaffron stated the applicant is making application for average lakeshore setback variances for Lots 1
through 7 of Mooney Lake Preserve. The variances are to exempt the properties from the average
lakeshore regulations.
Page 20 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
18. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE, LOTS
1-7, BLOCK 1, AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6712 (continued)
Gaffron stated this development has seven lots that abut Mooney Lake. Tree preservation easements were
entered into and the property has steep slopes and both natural and manmade wetlands. Two of the lots
have been purchased by the property owner to the east with the intent not to develop them.
As part of the preliminary plat process, Staff looked at a variety of situations where the proposed houses
might go. The developer also suggested that the proposed building pads are the most likely locations for
a house on each lot given the topography and other factors.
In terms of the average lakeshore setback, Staff did not really look at that in terms of the preliminary plat
since it is uncommon for the City to have new lakeshore subdivisions that create multiple lakeshore lots.
In this situation, one of the potential builders came in and asked what would happen if somebody on Lot 5
or 7 decides to move the house back and that they cannot meet the setback on Lot 6. Staff then took a
look at each of the properties and established an average setback line to determine how the setback would
impact each of the lots.
As it relates to Lot 1, the average setback line is defined by the point of the house on the two adjacent lots
closest to the lake. The neighboring house is in the City of Plymouth. The house on Lot 1 will not have
an issue if they construct on the proposed location. To build any closer to the lake would be problematic
given the steep slope heading down to the lake. Lot 1 in its proposed location will be more than 200 feet
from the lake.
With regard to Lot 2, the proposed house site is just below the top of a steep slope about 30 feet above the
lake and 200 feet from the shoreline. Placing the house any further lakeward would start to encroach on
the average setback lie and would require extensive grading or filling of the slope. Septic sites are also a
limiting factor. It is not likely that this house would move nearer the lake, but if it did, there could be a
slight impact on lake views enjoyed by Lots 1 or 3.
The proposed house location for Lot 3 is about 150 feet from Mooney Lake and is quite restricted due to
the wetland in the southwesterly half of the lot as well as by septic site locations. If the home on Lot 3
was pushed up against the 100 -foot lakeshore setback line, there would be no impact on the adjacent lots'
views of the lake.
The proposed house location on Lot 4 is very near the road and approximately 400 feet from Mooney
Lake. The relative distance between the homes and the shape of the lakeshore in this area means that no
lake views enjoyed by Lots 3 or 5 will be affected. Although it is not likely, moving the house as far
forward as possible toward the lake would not impact the neighbor's views unless the house on Lot 3 is
moved far westward.
On Lot 5, the possible house locations are very restricted by a wetland, a stormwater pond, topography,
and septic sites. Moving the house eastward would require a different grading plan and potentially impact
the wetland pond. The house could not move substantially westward, but angling it differently could
negatively impact the average setback line for Lot 6. It would have minimal, if any, impact on adjacent
homes' lake views.
Page 21 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
18. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE, LOTS
1-7, BLOCK 1, AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6712 (continued)
The proposed house location for Lot 6 is approximately 130 feet from Mooney Lake and lies westerly of
the previously existing home on this site. If the home on Lot 7 moves west, the average lakeshore setback
encroachment for Lot 6 will increase. There would be no impact on the neighbors' lake views even if the
home moves forward.
With regard to Lot 7, the proposed house location is about 150 feet from Mooney Lake and sits on a
terrace just above a 15-20 percent steep slope. If the home on Lot 6 moves lakeward, that reduces the
average Lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 7. Moving the house on Lot 7 westward increases the
average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 6 but has no view impacts.
The Planning Commission reviewed this application and voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the average
lakeshore setback variance for each of the seven Mooney Lake Preserve lakeshore lots. The Planning
Commission also made the following additional recommendations:
1. Review of the average setback by Staff at the time of building permit issuance shall be by "the
appropriate City Staff' rather than the Community Development Director.
2. The average lakeshore setback variance should apply only to the original homes to be constructed
on the lots and not to any future replacement homes.
Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variances as proposed, subject to the
Planning Commission's first recommended condition but not the second condition. The permanent status
of these variances is appropriate given that this is a new subdivision for which initial home construction
might not take place within the normal one year allotted time frame for use of a variance.
Levang asked if this variance will be triggered at the time of building permit.
Gaffron indicated it will be and that Staff will monitor it. Gaffron stated it would also be filed on the
chain of title. Gaffron stated if something does not go as anticipated, it would need to be brought forward
as a variance.
McMillan noted there is not a lot of leeway on some of the lots for the building pads.
George Stickney, Applicant, stated a lot of these proposed building pads are 400 to 500 feet away from
the lake, and that if someone is a little closer, it would not be that readily noticeable. Stickney stated the
owners will also have to adhere to other covenants and restrictions and that there is not a lot of leeway on
the septic sites.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6712 a Resolution Granting a
Variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-128 and 78-1279(6) for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7, Block 1, Mooney Lake Preserve, File No. 16-3877. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 22 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
*19. #16-3882 JON RESSLER — 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE — RESOLUTION
NO. 6713
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6713, a Resolution Granting
Variances from Orono Municipal Code Section 78-1279, for the property located at 3683 North
Shore Drive, File No. 16-3882. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL
City Planner Curtis stated the applicants are appealing a decision by the Zoning Board of Appeals who
reviewed on November 21" the decision by Staff regarding the pergola constructed on their property.
During the process of filing the building permits for the new home, an as -built survey was submitted by
the builder and reviewed by Staff.
Upon review, it became evident that a pergola was constructed over a retaining wall within two feet of the
property line. The pergola is approximately seven feet tall. It was not noted on the approved building
permit plan. The ordinance allows a fence to be constructed on the property line provided that the fence
does not exceed six feet or provides for certain architectural features of a house to encroach into the
required setbacks. These encroachments do include ornamental features provided they do not extend
more than two feet into the required yard.
The applicants feel that Subsection 1 within the non -encroachment section of the code should apply. The
pergola is not attached to the house but it does encroach further than two feet into the required yard.
Should the Council determine the detached pergola and improvement should be allowed to encroach into
the required setback, a variance would be required to permit it in its current location.
At their November meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the appeal as the Zoning Board of
Appeals. Following the discussion with Staff and the applicant's representative, the Planning
Commission voted 6-0 to deny the appeal_
The property owners have requested the City Council review their appeal request. The City Council
should review the application and make a decision regarding the appeal and direct Staff to draft the
appropriate findings.
Pia Schutt, Applicant, stated it is difficult for them to understand why this pergola is being considered a
fence. Schutt stated the pergola is very attractive and that it was part of their landscape plan.
Jeff Schutt stated the comment was made that it was not approved per the landscape plan. Schutt stated
the landscape plan was approved in the middle of June and the cross members of the arbor structure were
shown on the lot line. Schutt stated they are kind of confused as to how it was approved and then now not
approved.
Pia Schutt stated the reason they added it is because they ended up spending quite a bit of money on
landscaping due to a French drain that was required along the lot line. Schutt stated that French drain,
which is made up of a lot of stones, took away from the appearance of that side of the house and that this
is a very simple structure that was intended to add some greenery to that area.
Page 23 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
20. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL (continued)
Schutt stated they just moved in at the end of August and that they plan to add the greenery in the spring.
Schutt stated the structure provides kind of a definition to the left-hand side of the house.
Jeff Schutt stated the retaining wall is one part of the French drain and that the drain actually sits above
the retaining wall and consists of river rock. Schutt stated the French drain did not look nice on their
property or the neighbor's property and that they have submitted a letter in support of the pergola from
the neighbor.
Pia Schutt stated the neighbor agrees that architecturally it fits with the home. Schutt stated the structure
would not look proper if it was cut down to six feet and that they are looking for the City Council to agree
that it does not seem to meet the idea of a fence. Schutt stated it also does not meet the other attachment
to the house, which makes it a unique structure.
Jeff Schutt stated they honestly believed it was in their plans and approved the whole time.
McMillan asked if the height of the structure was called out on the plan.
Pia Schutt indicated it was not.
Curtis stated typically when a pergola or arbor type structure is included in the plans, an elevation view is
provided. Curtis stated it was not noted on the plan that it would be anything more than a landscaping
element so Staff could have missed it.
McMillan stated it would have been hard to know without an elevation view.
Printup asked what the process would be for an after -the -fact variance rather than looking at it as a fence
Curtis stated Staff is not looking at it as a fence but merely tried to find a section of the code where it
would fit so it could be defined. Curtis indicated the applicants could apply for a variance as the structure
is right now or Staff could be directed to bring back a code amendment if the Council feels the situation is
ambiguous.
Pia Schutt stated they were hoping they would not have to go through the variance process since it is
costly and time consuming. Schutt stated they would prefer to have the City Council simply approve it.
Mattick stated the code applies equally to all residents and that one option is a variance. A variance
would allow something to be located within the side yard. Mattick stated the Council cannot approve
something simply because it looks nice and that this is an appeal of a determination by Staff.
Levang commented it puts the Council in a tough spot. Levang stated the structure might look
appropriate architecturally but that the City Attorney is saying the Council cannot approve something
based on the fact that it looks nice.
Pia Schutt asked what it would take to address the fact that it is not a fence.
Page 24 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
20. #16-3884 .TEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL (continued)
Levang stated Staff is not calling it a fence.
Pia Schutt stated those are the restrictions that they are being told they need to comply with.
Curtis stated technically it is an accessory structure that requires a 10 -foot setback. Because of its design
and lineal nature, Staff looked at the fence standards since they allow something to be located closer to
the property line, but the structure exceeds the height restriction.
Jeff Schutt stated the question he would have is on the plan approval process. Schutt asked whether the
fact that there was perhaps an error somehow made in the inspection or development of the plan comes
into play at all.
Mattick stated Staff does not have the authority to approve something that only the Council can approve
even if an error was made. Mattick stated it may seem unfair, but they cannot rely on the fact that �i
mistake was made.
Jeff Schutt asked how much a variance would cost.
Curtis stated the variance fee would be $700 and an after -the -fact variance fee would be double that.
Curtis noted Staff does not have the authority to waive the fee but that the Council could waive the after -
the -fact portion of the fee.
Cornick noted that would not guarantee the variance would be approved.
Pia Schutt asked if an amendment could be added to the code.
Mattick stated they could petition the City Council to amend the code and ask that pergolas be added to
the encroachment list. Mattick stated that also does not mean it would ultimately be approved. Mattick
stated he does not like the exercise of calling the pergola a fence but that it was an attempt by Staff to find
a code that would be applicable. Mattick noted they would need to show a practical difficulty in order to
get a variance.
Jeff Schutt asked whether the difficulty could be that they were not notified until the final inspection and
that the structure already exists in that location and their plan was approved.
Mattick stated he understands why that would seem like a practical difficulty but that
Comick asked if the City is asking them to lower the height.
Curtis stated that was one of the options suggested.
Jeff Schutt stated aesthetically, with the neighbor's house being a lot higher than their house, it would
result in the pergola losing the impact they were looking for.
Page 25 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
20. 016-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT — 2750 CASCO POINT ROAD — APPEAL (continued)
Printup commented he would be tempted to go with an encroachment agreement.
Mattick stated an encroachment agreement is for something that would encroach into the City's right-of-
way.
Barnhart stated to his understanding the City Attorney was talking about modifying the section of the
code from a building element. Barnhart stated perhaps some language could be added or reviewed to
address this situation, which might be a little cleaner than the variance process.
Levang commented that would take a considerable amount of time since it would need to be researched,
go before the Planning Commission, etc. Levang stated in her view there is not a practical difficulty for a
variance and that one option would be to lower the height of the structure to meet the fence requirement
and the second option would be to petition the City to amend the Code to allow for this type of accessory
structure by the property line. Levang asked whether the best option would be to table the matter.
Barnhart stated Staff would prefer the Council act on the appeal tonight.
Pia Schutt stated they were under the understanding that they had the opportunity to appeal and the
Council had the opportunity to review the facts and possibly approve it.
Levang stated she was thinking about tabling it so they could decide which option they might want to
pursue but that she is being told that a decision by the Council should be made tonight.
Walsh commented people should not get too confident that the Council will change the code simply
because it is asked.
Jeff Schutt stated that is understood.
Printup moved, Cornick seconded, to deny the appeal by Jeff and Pia Schutt, 2750 Casco Point
Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:58 p.m. to 9:06 p.m.)
21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES
Curtis stated the owners are planning to redevelop the property. A number of variances are required in
order to rebuild the home and detached garage. The new home and garage will be constructed to conform
to the City's floodplain regulations, which require the lowest floor of the structure to be no lower than the
regulatory flood protection elevation of 932.5 feet. The applicant's proposal contemplates cutting and
filling within the property in order to elevate the proposed home and garage to meet the low floor
requirements of the City's floodplain regulations.
Page 26 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES
(continued)
The 10 -foot side setback can be met. However, because of the 75 -foot setback requirement, there is not
sufficient room on the side of the home to fully comply with the 15 -foot perimeter fill requirement of the
floodplain regulations. The owners are rebuilding a nonconforming portion of the new home within the
channel's 75 -foot setback, which is almost an in-kind replacement. No variance is required for that
portion of the home.
The applicants also propose to reconstruct the existing nonconforming detached garage in its current
location. The existing detached garage is nonconforming with regard to setbacks as well as size.
However, the new garage is proposed to be slightly smaller than the existing one. The increase in the side
wall height constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming building and a variance is required.
In addition, because the applicants are required to elevate the floor of the garage to meet the City's
floodplain regulations and propose to raise the side wall height to accommodate a taller door for better
access into the garage, setback variances are required. The peak height will be increased by 3.5 feet.
The garage is located 43 feet from the ordinary high water level where a 75 -foot setback is required and
24 feet from the rear property line where a 30 -foot setback is required. Lot width and area variances are
considered a formality but must be approved according to City Code 78-72.
The Planning Commission has not reviewed this application. The owners are requesting that the City
Council hold the public hearing for all of the variances due to timing issues. According to Code Section
78-192, the Council may waive reference of a variance application to the Planning Commission but a
unanimous vote by the City Council is required. If the Council votes to waive the Planning
Commission's review, Staff recommends the public hearing be open this evening to receive any public
comments and then direct Staff as appropriate.
Staff also recommends the public hearing be tabled so it can be continued to the January 9`s Council
meeting to allow for additional public notice given the holidays.
Planning Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties. In Staff s opinion, the variances are
supported by practical difficulties inherent to the property.
Printup asked when this matter would come back to the City Council if the Planning Commission were to
hear this application.
Curtis indicated it would be February.
Printup stated he is concerned about removing the review by the Planning Commission but that it does
appear to be a fairly straight forward application.
McMillan commented it is difficult this time of year since there is no December Planning Commission
meeting.
Page 27 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6.30 o'clock p.m.
21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES
(continued)
Curtis noted Staff felt the variances being requested were not controversial but that a public hearing is
required regardless.
Hans Bergh, Applicant, stated one of the reasons they are here is because they learned about the extra
variance just recently. Bergh indicated they have sold their current house and that their builder is ready to
go on the new house. Bergh stated Staff suggested that this might be a way to keep the project on
schedule.
Barnhart stated Staff has worked with the applicant over the course of the past several months and the
applicant has taken great pains to reduce the number of variances. Barnhart stated the grading variance
was necessary and the change in height is relatively minor. Barnhart stated ideally the application would
go through the Planning Commission process but that it would impact the timing of the project, which is
why Staff is supporting the variance requests.
Printup stated the application looks fine but that he does not want to give the impression that the Council
is not following the normal procedure.
Bergh stated they started the plan and then sold their house. Bergh indicated they did make modifications
to move the structure further away from the setbacks and attempted to work with Staff as best as they
could to achieve a plan that was as compliant as possible. Berge stated this is an unusual situation and
unusual circumstances and that they would like to get going on the building.
Walsh stated he has the same concerns as Council Member Printup since the City has a normal process
that it follows and that it would only delay it 30 days from January 9. Walsh commented he knows that
everybody would like to expedite the process if they could but that the Planning Commission serves a
valuable function regardless if it appears to be a straight forward application.
Barnhart stated the clause in the code is intended to address situations when there is a lag in meetings and
that there would still be an opportunity for the public to comment on the application.
McMillan asked if it would be reported for January 9.
Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated the additional posting would be for people who are out of town
given the holidays.
Walsh asked if the Council does open the public hearing, whether they would be making any resolutions
tonight.
Curtis indicated the Council would direct Staff to draft a resolution and then reopen the public hearing on
January 9th.
Walsh commented he is cognizant of the fact that there is only one meeting this month.
Page 28 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
21. #16-3885 HANS AND SHARON BERGH — 2800 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCES
(continued)
Printup stated he can be reasonable and expedite the process.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to waive the review by the Planning Commission and to hold the
public hearing tonight but to continue the public hearing to January 9. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Walsh stated the only thing that caught his attention was the patio being in the 0-75 foot zone.
Bergh stated they worked hard to bring it back as much as possible and that it is less than the neighbor's
deck, which is the closest point the neighbor has to the lake.
Curtis stated the corner of the patio needs to be moved out of the 0-75 foot setback.
Levang asked if it is a 16 -foot wide deck.
Bergh indicated it is.
Levang stated even with moving the corner of the patio out of the setback, they would still have a nice
size deck.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting lot width,
lot area, lake setback, rear setback, garage size, and floodplain rill setback variances for the
property located at 2800 Shadywood Road, with the condition that the deck be moved out of the
0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
22. ONLINE PERMITTING UPDATE
Barnhart stated Staff is in the process of reviewing the City's online permitting software to see whether it
needs to be updated in order to accommodate the City's new goals. The current software does not do
everything Staff would like it to do and it does not allow the applicant to track their application.
Barnhart stated this is the Council's opportunity to say whether they would like to stay with Permit Works
or move to a more comprehensive system in order to accommodate online permitting. Barnhart stated his
next step after tonight would be to convene a small committee and visit with RT Vision and Citizens
Serve to get a better understanding of what they can do in order to meet some of the City's online
permitting goals.
Page 29 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
22. ONLINE PERMITTING UPDATE (continued)
Walsh stated if the City is going to do it, he would like to do it right and not halfu ay. Walsh stated he
would like Staff to spend a little more time to be as comprehensive as possible to handle all the stuff that
goes on in Orono.
Printup indicated he is in agreement.
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
*23. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER LIAISON SCHEDULE 2017
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
MAYORICOUNCIL REPORT
Walsh reported he has been meeting with a lot of people and organizing some committees for the
upcoming year. Walsh commented he is looking forward to 2017.
Cornick stated he has nothing to report.
Levang stated she has nothing to report.
Printup wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
McMillan reported the Lake Association for Long Lake held a forum last week to discuss water quality
and carp behavior in lakes. McMillan stated in her view the presentation on carp was pretty unique and
fascinating. McMillan stated over 50 people were in attendance.
McMillan thanked Ron Olson and the finance department for their efforts involved with the City
receiving another AAA rating. McMillan also thanked Adam Edwards and the Public Works Department
for completing Watertown Road along with other road projects, the water system upgrades, and a number
of improvements to the golf course.
McMillan thanked the Planning and Building Department for handling another busy year of permits.
McMillan commented there are a number of good housing improvements being built in Orono that Staff
has been involved in as well as reviewing the ordinances. McMillan stated she appreciates Staff taking on
that extra work and that she wishes them good luck with the Comprehensive Plan update. McMillan
stated a number of people research the City's Comprehensive Plan and use it when presenting their
applications and that she hopes the citizens are involved with the review.
McMillan stated the Orono Police Department also had a good year in the sense that it was a difficult year
for policing nationwide. McMillan stated the Orono Police Department does an excellent job at reaching
out to the community and that she has received a number of compliments from the citizens.
Page 30 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued)
McMillan noted she received a letter from Superintendent Borg thanking the Orono Police Department
for their commitment to the community and their continued support to the school by dedicating a school
resource officer.
McMillan stated she would also like to thank the Administration Department for their work this past year
and that they had another busy year in addition to coordinating the election process. The Administration
Department also placed more emphasis on customer service and reached out to the citizens to find out
what is working and is not working, which is an ongoing, evolving process. McMillan stated she would
like to thank City Administrator Jessica Loftus for monitoring how things are going in the City and
developing good relationships amongst staff members and other agencies.
McMillan noted she did receive a letter today from Jessica Loftus, which reads as follows: "Dear
Mayor McMillan and City Council: Please accept this letter as notice of my resignation from my position
as City Administration with six weeks' notice effective February 1, 2017. It has been my honor to work
for the City of Orono over the past six and a half years. I would like to thank you for having me as part of
your team. I will do my best to ensure a smooth transition and I wish you and all of the Staff continued
success. I look forward to staying in touch with you so please call or e-mail me anytime. Sincerely,
Jessica Loftus.
McMillan stated the City Council will need to make a motion to accept the letter of resignation.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to accept the letter of resignation from City Administrator
Jessica Loftus. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Cornick Opposed.
Cornick indicated he only voted against Jessica Loftus's resignation in the hopes that she would stay.
McMillan stated she appreciates the work that Jessica has done.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
24. RESOLUTIONS OF RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBERS LILI TOD
MCMILLAN, LIZZ LEVANG, JIM CORNICK, JR. — RESOLUTION NOS. 6701, 6702, 6703
Loftus presented plaques to Mayor McMillan, Council Member Levang, and Council Member Levang in
recognition of their years of service.
Loftus presented one of Orono's city limits sign to Mayor McMillan. Loftus noted that Mayor McMillan
played a huge part in designing the new City logo and sign.
Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6701, a Resolution of Appreciation
to Lili Tod McMillan for 25 years of Distinguished Service; to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6702, a
Resolution of Appreciation to Lizz Levang for six years of dedicated service; and to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 6703, a Resolution of Appreciation to Jim Cornick, Jr., for two years of
service. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 31 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
*25. 2017 NON-UNION EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT — RESOLUTION
NO. 6714
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to establish the 2017 non-union employee compensation
adjustments and to adopt RESOLUTION NO., a Resolution Approving Pay Plan Adjustments for
Non -Union City Employees for 2017. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*26. UNION CONTRACTS
a. Police Officers Labor Agreement for 2017-2019
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Orono and
Law Enforcement Labor Services (Local No. 40), Patrol Officers 2017-2019.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
b. Police Sergeants Labor Agreement for 2017-2019
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Orono and
Law Enforcement Labor Services (Local No. 168), Police Sergeants 2017-2019. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
*27. CITY CLERK RETIREMENT
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the City Clerk position for advertisement. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*28. 2017 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL
Orono Liquor, Inc., d/b/a Narrows Saloon
3380 Shoreline Drive
Orono, MN 55392
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the above -listed license. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*29. LIQUOR VIOLATION
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Acknowledgement of Violation and Sanction.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*30. AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE FUNDS
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse city funds in
payment of claims received for the December 26, 2016, City Council meeting which has been
canceled, and that such paid claims be presented for formal approval at the January 9, 2017, City
Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Page 32 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO TRUTH -IN -TAXATION MEETING
and the
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
*31. DONATION GARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT — RENEWAL
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the renewal of the Donation Garden license
agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*32. CLAIMSBILLS
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Mattick stated he had nothing to report.
/:� 11Ill rl 11,10h01 D1zi Y
Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:39 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
►4 YI I Dyl l0
Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Page 33 of 33