HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-2015 Council Packet Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, September 28, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
The public is invited to address the City Council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is
not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Agenda
1. Consent Agenda – Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine
items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items
on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one
motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council
Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove
any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos
regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the lobby near the
sign in sheet.
Approval of Minutes
2. Regular Council Meeting of September14, 2015
Presentation
3. Orono Police Officer Oath of Office
4. Resolution Supporting the Orono Police Department
5. Mediacom Update
Planning Commission Comments – Representative
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The Council will not engage
in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the Council may refer issues to
staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home
address at the podium before speaking.
Planning Department Report
6. Fence Viewer Appeal
7. 15-3738, Kuhl Design Build o/b/o John & Cyndy Bowlsby, 1025 Spring Hill Rd, Variances –
Resolution
8. 15-3758, City of Orono & Clifford Otten, 2251 Pine Ridge Lane and City-owned Parcel PINS 34-
118-23 22 0019 (Well #3) - Lot Line Rearrangement and Rezoning
9. 15-3768, Michael and Lisa Larson, Ordinance amendment related to dog boarding and grooming in
B-1 zoning district
10. 15-3773 - Steve Elliot, 1400 Baldur Park Rd, CUP & Variance – Public Hearing – Resolution
11. 15-3775, City of Orono, Text Amendment Regarding Temporary Signs
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, September 28, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
Public Works Director/City Engineer’s Report
12. Long Lake’s Watertown Road Feasibility Report
13. Watertown Road Phase 2
14. Water Treatment System Improvements – Pay Request No. 6
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
15. Orono Police Garage - Pay Request #13
16. Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy
17. Claims/ Bills*
City Attorney's Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
10/12 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
10/19 – Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison – Dennis Walsh)
10/26 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m.
10/26 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
11/09 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
11/11 – Veterans Day City Offices Closed
11/16 – Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison – Mayor McMillan)
11/23 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m.
11/23 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
11/26-27 – Thanksgiving City Offices Closed
12/14 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
12/24-25 – Holiday City Offices Closed
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 39
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and Dennis Walsh.
Representing Staff were Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy
Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City
Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item Nos. 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, and 26 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2015
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of
August 24, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*3. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF AUGUST 24, 2015
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session
of August 24, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – REPRESENTATIVE BRUCE LEMKE
Lemke stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions.
PRESENTATION
4. 2016 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFORMATION
Finance Director Olson stated this is a preview of the preliminary 2016 Budget that will be adopted by the
Council at its next meeting in September. The final tax levy and budget will be adopted December 14,
2015, and public input is allowed at the December 14 meeting.
Olson stated the preliminary tax levy to fund the 2016 budget is $4,954,480, which is an increase of
$182,480 or 3.84 percent over last year’s levy. A new levy item being added is a pavement management
levy, which is designed to provide funding specifically for road maintenance and is the City’s first step in
providing long-term funding of city roads. The increase in the levy will not increase the overall tax rate,
which will continue to be one of the lowest tax rates in the state.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 39
4. 2016 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFORMATION (continued)
The General Fund operating levy is exactly the same as last year. The City of Orono’s tax rate has
remained fairly consistent. Since 2011, the average city in the state of Minnesota has increased their
taxes by 8.74 percentage points or slightly over $500,000 over what the City of Orono has done. From
2010 to 2015, Orono’s tax increase has been the lowest with the exception of Spring Park. Olson noted
some of the cities during that time period, such as Medina and Wayzata, have experienced tax increases
of over 20 percent.
Olson stated based on the City’s tax rate, if a residential property had no increase in value and their
property tax rate stayed the same, they would experience no increase in their taxes. If someone owned a
$250,000 house in 2014 and there was a three percent increase in the value, it would increase their
property taxes by $14 over the course of the year. On a $2 million home that increased by three percent,
this tax levy would result in an increase of $130. On the other hand, if a $250,000 home decreased in
value by three percent, their property taxes would go down by $14 per year.
Olson stated as it relates to the General Fund budget, it is important to note that the property tax levy is
not increasing. The City’s total revenues are projected to increase 1.7 percent and are expected to come
from an increase in building permits. The line for total fines and forfeits is being decreased by 27 percent
due to the loss of some federal money from the Metro Drug Task Force. Olson noted there is a big
increase dollar-wise for public service charges for the cities that contract with Orono for police protection.
The City’s expenditures are increasing by 1.7 percent, which is not a very big increase. A couple of big
items that are changing are elections, which are going up 66 percent due to 2016 being an election year.
Dollar-wise it comes out to approximately $16,000. Olson noted the City will be experiencing a 12
percent increase in charges for assessing by the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office. A large portion of
the increase in the City’s expenditures has to do with the police labor contract and employees’ wages
increasing by $105,000 or 2.75 percent. Olson noted the total increase is less than the actual wage
increase being given to the police officers. In addition, street maintenance is going down by $74,000,
which is a result of moving approximately $40,000 from the General Fund into the Pavement
Management Fund.
Olson noted special projects and contingencies are showing an increase of 152 percent, which represents
the amount of money that would be available for raises and benefit increases for the nonunion employees.
At the present time none of the departments have a salary increase and that money has been added to the
contingency line. In October, when the Council discusses the compensation plan, a decision will be made
on how that money will be allocated. When discuss the compensation plan, can decide how that money
will be allocated.
Olson stated the City is required to certify its preliminary tax levy to Hennepin County by September 30.
McMillan noted the City Council will be voting on the preliminary tax levy in two weeks, and after
adoption of the preliminary levy, the levy cannot be increased. McMillan stated the levy can still be
decreased prior to adoption of the final levy at the December 8 Council meeting but it cannot be
increased.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 39
4. 2016 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFORMATION (continued)
McMillan noted no public comments will be taken tonight on the preliminary budget but that the residents
can e-mail or call City Hall with their questions or comments. Public comment on the budget and tax
levy will also be allowed at the December meeting prior to adoption of the budget.
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tom Haugan, 3585 Lyric Avenue, stated two weeks ago he wrote a letter to the Orono Police Department
entitled “My Pledge of Support to Local Law Enforcement.” Haugan indicated he has been watching the
attacks and threats on police officers across the country, including what happened outside of the
Minnesota State Fair. Haugan stated while no direct attacks have been made against Orono Police
Officers, in his view these threats and attacks have had a negative impact on police officers in
communities and cities across the nation.
Haugan stated Orono City Officials have shown strong support for the Orono Police Department, which is
great, but that tonight he would like the Orono Police Officers to hear from an ordinary citizen. Haugan
stated he would like to read his letter.
“On August 29, 2015, Sheriff David Clark of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, whom I greatly admire,
made an appearance on the Fox News television program, “Justice with Judge Jeannine.” During this
appearance, he called for every law-abiding American citizen to stand up and begin pushing back against
the war on police officers. It is his call to action, in part, that I reach out to you today.
Firstly, I want to thank you and your officers for their service to this community. Recently I attended the
Orono Police Department open house and I was very happy to see the great new facility constructed for
the force and meet and shake hands with all police officers that attended. Know this, your service to this
community is greatly appreciated, and the respect and safety of you and your officers is of paramount
concern to me. When I see news reports that unfairly and dishonestly characterize law enforcement, I am
left frustrated and with a desire to somehow defend law enforcement or somehow set the record straight
though I lack capability to really do either.
In closing, Orono is a long way from Ferguson and Baltimore, both in distance and socioeconomic and
political makeup. However, should such a threat ever exist in Orono, I want you and your officers to
know that I offer my complete and unconditional support. I am an average man of modest means, but I
will do what I can and stand proudly for our men and women in uniform.” Signed Tom Haugan, United
States Army, Airborne Infantry, Veteran and Patriotic American Citizen.
McMillan thanked Mr. Haugan for his letter in support of the police department.
Printup stated he appreciates Mr. Haugan’s courage to read his letter publicly and that it encouraged him
to propose a resolution of support for the police.
McMillan stated it should be on the agenda in two weeks.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 39
PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued)
Fire Chief Van Eyll, Long Lake Fire Department, stated he would like to thank the City of Orono and the
City Clerk for doing a wonderful job with getting the permits ready for the Centennial.
Van Eyll stated he would like to invite everyone to the Centennial, which is scheduled for Saturday,
September 19. The parade starts at noon, with the festivities ending at the fire station.
McMillan noted the event starts at noon on Saturday and goes until the fireworks in the evening.
Van Eyll stated the last band scheduled to play is Lost Highway and that the fireworks will occur shortly
after dusk.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
5. #15-3733 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY, LLC, ON BEHALF OF JAMES AND
KATHLYN WYMAN, 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6535
James Wyman, Applicant, was present.
City Planner Curtis stated the Wyman’s plan to construct a two-story garage addition on the west side of
the existing home at a conforming setback. The new driveway extension to access the new garage
requires a setback variance from the wetland. The driveway is proposed to be constructed as close as 12
feet from the wetland where a 35-foot setback is required.
At the August meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application,
including public comments. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to recommend approval of the
setback variance with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with all of the permitting requirements of the MCWD, specifically
the wetland, erosion control, and floodplain alteration rules.
2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement on
the City Council agenda.
3. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to address the existing
and proposed improvements within the sewer easement. A draft agreement will be provided to
you prior to the City Council meeting for review.
Staff recommends approval of the wetland setback to construct the driveway. Staff further recommends
the proposed grading plan be revised to provide stormwater volume mitigation on the northwest corner of
the proposed driveway improvements. Curtis noted the applicant has provided a revised plan today which
seems to address the comments of the City Engineer.
Council Member Cornick asked if there was an after-the-fact charge.
Curtis stated it is not an after-the-fact fee and that it is the standard fee.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 39
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
5. #15-3733 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY, LLC, ON BEHALF OF JAMES AND
KATHLYN WYMAN, 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6535
(continued)
McMillan asked if the City has seen any stormwater mitigation.
Curtis stated it is basically showing that they will provide an equal volume swale to provide mitigation
and that they have submitted the calculations requested by the City Engineer.
Council Member Levang asked if Mr. Wyman has reached an agreement with Mr. Jackley, his neighbor.
James Wyman, Applicant, stated he spoke to Mr. Jackley on Thursday and that he indicated he received
the information from Ms. Curtis. After reviewing the information, Mr. Jackley stated he was in support
of the project and thanked him for addressing his concerns about drainage.
Levang stated she wanted to get that on the record because there was a prior question in an earlier
meeting that was raised.
Council Member Walsh stated at the Planning Commission meeting there were water issues discussed
and that last year there were a number of water problems throughout the City. Walsh stated it appears
that there were no prior issues before last year. Walsh asked whether that has been resolved to both
parties’ satisfaction.
Wyman indicated that is correct.
Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6535 , a Resolution Granting a
Variance from Municipal Code Section 78-1605, for the property located at 1185 Ferndale Road
West. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
6. #15-3738 KUHL DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CYNDY BOWLSBY,
1025 SPRING HILL ROAD, VARIANCES, AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 6519
Curtis stated in June of this year, the Council approved lake setback variances in order to permit
construction of additions on the lake side of the home within the 10-foot setback from Long Lake and
lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. A variance to permit construction of a pool within the 75-foot
setback and ahead of the average lakeshore setback was denied.
The property owners are now requesting the approval be amended slightly. They are now proposing to
eliminate the previously proposed larger additions on the west end of the home and construct a smaller
addition in its place. Another 125 square foot addition is also proposed which fills in a jog in the lakeside
of the home to accommodate a kitchen bump out. The pool has been relocated to be completely beyond
all required setbacks.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 39
6. #15-3738 KUHL DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CYNDY BOWLSBY,
1025 SPRING HILL ROAD, VARIANCES, AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. 6519 (continued)
Curtis illustrated the proposed changes to the plan on the overhead.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances amending Resolution No. 6519. A notice for this
application was published in the local newspaper and the City Council should hold a public hearing and
then make a decision on the requested variances. If the City Council would prefer the Planning
Commission review the changes, the application could be tabled to their September 21 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
Walsh stated he is glad the applicants have relocated the pool behind the required setbacks and that he
does not have any issues with the proposed changes.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to direct Staff to draft a resolution granting the lake setback
variances and to amend Resolution No. 6519. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536
Senior Planner Gaffron noted at the August 10 meeting, the City Council reviewed this proposed
subdivision involving two tax parcels to create a new private road and seven new 2-acre building lots.
The Council also heard from the residents of Kintyre Lane who indicated the lack of knowledge about the
possibility of their private road being extended has raised a variety of concerns which they needed more
time to consider. The Council voted 5-0 to direct Staff to draft a resolution for preliminary plat approval
and to bring it back before the Council in 30 days to allow the Kintyre Lane residents’ time to consider
their options.
Gaffron stated the road design has been reviewed with Staff and the City Engineer. The applicants have
revised their plans and are now proposing to use surmountable curbs to control runoff. The road width
from back-of-curb to back-of-curb will be 30 feet, meeting the City’s requirement for a road serving more
than ten homes. The applicant has indicated they will continue to refine the road design to incorporate a
rural section where possible.
The Council determined that the combined road length of just over 1,500 feet was a variance that could be
granted, especially since the fire chief indicated the size of the homes would likely require installation of
fire suppression sprinklers. In addition, the Council felt that a connecting road corridor to Stubbs Bay
Road was not necessary.
Staff has not heard from the Kintyre residents as to their desire for the fut ure of the existing cul-de-sac but
they are here tonight to discuss that.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 39
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536 (continued)
Any future plan to revise or eliminate it would require City approval. The City Engineer is reviewing the
latest plans and will ensure an appropriate transition between the existing cul-de-sac and the new road
extension.
Also discussed at the last Council meeting was the septic setbacks, and the Council felt that the 50-foot
setback from the wetlands would be acceptable and a variance to the wetland ordinance would be granted
to allow some mound systems to encroach within portions of the 75-foot wetland buffers required by the
MCWD.
The developer has proposed a revised grading plan that includes future grading to establish individual
pads to establish “new existing grades” for house placement on all seven lots. The proposed pad grading
is intended to occur at the time individual building permits are issued. The applicant has been advised
that final plat drawings must indicate the demarcation between the road and drainage improvements and
the future building pad grading. The portion of the proposed grading plan that depicts future grading to
create individual building pads will be considered as establishing "new existing grades” for house
placement on all seven lots. The proposed pad grading will occur at the time individual building permits
are issued.
The Council generally indicated they were acceptable of the proposed landscaping plan that omits the
regular spacing of trees along the private road in favor of adding trees along the south border of the site as
a buffer to the existing Kintyre development.
The Council also indicated they found the lot width variances for Lots 4, 5, and 6 acceptable.
The existing septic system was also an issue that was discussed at the last Council meeting. The
Applicant had noted that the immediate disposition of the existing house on Lot 5 has not been
determined. The septic mound serving that house will end up being partly within Lot 5 and party within
Lot 4. The Council suggested that a limited-term temporary easement with specific triggers to require
removal of the system should be considered.
Staff recommends that an easement be prepared with the following conditions:
1. The easement shall expire and the system shall be removed, upon any one of the following
occurrences:
a. At such time that Lots 4 and 5 become separately owned;
b. At such time that a permit for home construction is issued for Lot 4;
c. At such time that a permit for home demolition or new home construction is issued for
Lot 5;
d. At such time that a permit for expansion of the existing home on Lot 5 is issued;
e. At such time that the existing system is found to be non-compliance and ordered to be
replaced;
2. Regardless whether any of the above has occurred, the easement shall expire and the system shall
be removed no later than two years after the date of filing of the plat with Hennepin County.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 39
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536 (continued)
Mr. MacKinnon has granted the required access easement for Outlot D and it has been recorded with
Hennepin County. It is Staff’s understanding the applicant and the Kintyre HOA are close to finalizing a
cost share agreement regarding maintenance of Kintyre Lane. Gaffron noted the neighbors’ attorney has
written and submitted a letter to the City that will likely be discussed tonight.
Orono’s Community Management Plan has no current plans for parks that specifically require dedication
of park land from this property. The CMP further indicates that a future trail is proposed along Stubbs
Bay Road, connecting from a conceptual trail along the south side of the railroad corridor down to the
shore of Stubbs Bay. It is unknown at this time whether that trail will ever be completed, but a 10-foot
trail easement along the west boundary of Outlot A would normally be required. The applicant has stated
in his view the easement is not necessary and Staff is in agreement with that.
Staff has prepared a resolution for preliminary plat approval incorporating general and specific conditions
of approval for Council consideration.
Walsh stated in regards to the septic system on Lots 4 and 5, there are no penalties if that system is not
removed as required and that in his view the resolution should contain language that provides some type
of sanctions, such as not issuing any building permits until it has been taken care of.
City Attorney Mattick stated Staff can draft something to include some type of sanction.
Gaffron stated he likes the deal of restricting the building permits until it is taken care of.
McMillan stated she was thinking of going in the other direction and removing the two-year limit since
both properties are owned by the same party.
Walsh stated he is not worried about removing the two-year limit but that he would like some type of
penalty in there.
Gaffron stated Staff can remove the two-year limit and include a sanction or penalty.
Levang asked if road construction traffic will be off of Stubbs Bay Road rather than Kintyre.
Gaffron stated the language in the resolution states that “materials and equipment for the construction of
the extension of Kintyre Lane shall be accessed through Outlot A of Kintyre Preserve to Stubbs Bay Road
and shall not use the portion of existing Kintyre Lane for road construction access.”
McMillan noted that is just for the road construction and does not apply to construction of the homes.
Levang stated she would like to know what the applicant feels about that.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Eric Miller, 195 Kintyre Lane, stated following the last Council meeting, they hired an attorney to look
into the facts and timelines associated with both the development, the content of relevant and recorded
documents, and what was disclosed and was not disclosed when they purchased their property.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 39
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536 (continued)
The goal was to understand the situation and whatever rights they have or what rights may have been
violated during that process. Miller stated they all made very large investment decisions based on the
information that was shared and they wanted to understand the situation.
Miller stated he and his wife, as well as Kristine Knorp, were sold lots at the end of a small cul-de-sac,
which is what they paid for, what they were sold, and what they want. The property owners at 125
Kintyre, even though they are not parties to the letter, also object to the road extension as well. After
reviewing the situation, Miller stated in their view they have some legal basis for their request, which has
been outlined in the letter that was submitted to the City. Miller stated since the road itself is owned by
the property owners and not the homeowners association, any easement to provide access to the road
would require their approval and at this point they are not inclined to provide it.
Miller stated the unfortunate thing is that this has an impact on the Bollis’ but that they need to defend
their rights. Miller stated they would ask the City develop a solution to provide access to the property
that does not require an extension of their road.
Walsh asked if they have consulted with an engineer regarding the safety of the road.
Kristin Knorp, 180 Kintyre Lane, indicated they are still working on that component.
Mattick stated as he understands it, the attorney’s objection is that members of Kintyre own an interest in
Outlot C, which terminates in the cul-de-sac. Mattick stated he does not dispute that since the documents
say that, but noted the documents also say that there is a public easement that has been recorded over the
outlot. Mattick stated the residents’ attorney acknowledges in his letter that there is a public easement
over that area for road purposes. Mattick stated as a result of the recorded public easement, no further
permission is needed to construct the road since permission was granted before they purchased their
properties.
Mattick stated the mistake is to the north of the cul-de-sac where another separate outlot was created and
for which no easement was recorded. Mattick stated Mr. MacKinnon and his original investment group
continues to own that outlot and was not part of the sale. The City has been provided with a public
easement over that outlot for roadway purposes. Mattick stated the documents are of record and they
state that there is a public easement for road construction without the need for any future permission.
Miller stated he would request the City Attorney talk with his attorney on that issue and that his viewpoint
is different than that.
Mattick indicated he can provide his business card to Mr. Miller. Mattick stated he cannot speak to the
representations that were made to the residents at the time of purchase.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m.
Christopher Bollis, Applicant, stated they felt it would be better to have the construction traffic coming
off of the existing driveway at 200 Stubbs Bay rather than having heavy equipment going down the road
and they are okay with that.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 39
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536 (continued)
McMillan asked whether Mr. Bollis has any comments about the septic triggers.
Bollis stated they are fine with the triggers and like the suggestion to remove the two-year limit. Bollis
stated if Lot 5 is owned by the same person as Lot 4 and they decided to construct a house in the location
of the house on Lot 5 and not build a house on Lot 4, the current language would require that septic to
disappear when it may never have to disappear.
McMillan asked how old the system is.
Bollis stated it is his belief the system was updated five years ago. Bollis stated he is fine with the other
language to eliminate it.
McMillan asked where the language regarding the trail is in the resolution.
Gaffron indicated the language regarding the trail is Item No. 16 on Page 4 of 11. The language talks
about no land for a public park is required and the Community Management Plan indicates the desire for a
future trail along Stubbs Bay Road, connecting from a conceptual trail along the south side of the
Burlington Northern railroad corridor down to the shore of Stubbs Bay. Whether this trail will ever be
completed is unknown but, however, for potential future trail needs a 10-foot trail easement along the
west boundary of Outlot A will be required.
Gaffron stated he would strike the last two sentences of that paragraph after public roads.
Levang indicated she is fine with that.
McMillan asked whether the Council had any other thoughts on the septic issue.
Walsh stated he does not have a problem with removing the two-year time frame or the language
referencing ownership of both lots by one party. Walsh stated he would still like some type of sanction in
the event it does not get done.
Gaffron indicated Staff will draft some language that will address that.
Walsh stated not issuing a permit is probably the most painful.
Walsh stated he would like to make the point that the City is not the litigator if there are issues between
property owners. Walsh stated this weekend he attended his daughter’s gymnastics party and that he lives
at the end of a cul-de-sac. Walsh stated if he had the understanding that that was what he bought, he
would not be very happy if it was proposed that the cul-de-sac now become a through road. Walsh stated
it puts the Council in an unenviable position of trying to resolve the issue, but it also underscores a future
issue for the Council to discuss, which is how important is it to have public roads versus private roads.
Walsh stated if they were public roads, it would be documented very well and the City probably would
not have these issues.
McMillan asked whether the Council should see this application back in two weeks.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 39
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536 (continued)
Gaffron indicated Staff can revise the resolution based on Council direction tonight and that it would be
up to the Council on whether they would like to see the resolution again.
Mattick stated if there is a motion to approve the resolution tonight, it should include direction to Staff to
strike the language that was previously discussed and adding an enforcement mechanism regarding the
septic site. Mattick noted this is a preliminary plat approval and that the Council will see it again at the
time of final plat.
It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed forward with the resolution.
Bollis asked if they will be striking the language under 2D on Page 10.
Gaffron noted that relates to an agreement with regard to road maintenance.
Mattick stated there is no direction from the Council to strike that at this point and that it is his
understanding the applicant is close to reaching an agreement.
Christopher Huntley, Attorney-at-Law, stated he represents the applicant. Huntley stated he concurs with
everything the City Attorney has said regarding the easement and that no additional rights need to be
granted. Huntley stated the one thing that was raised in the letter that might be an issue is the authority of
Mr. MacKinnon to grant any rights in this cost-sharing arrangement.
Huntley indicated they have been negotiating for three or four months and are close to an agreement, but
that it is all contingent on Mr. MacKinnon or his company having the authority to enter into an
agreement. The letter implies that they need the permission of all the property owners to the south.
Huntley stated that would essentially mean the homeowners to the south would be able to prevent any
future development because they could just simply not agree to the cost-sharing agreement, which would
basically end the discussion.
Huntley stated by essentially creating a precondition to the approval of the plat, it creates a situation
where the subdivision will not be approved. The Bollis’ are fine with a cost-sharing arrangement to
resolve the issue, and if it is not a precondition, the property owners are much more likely to negotiate.
Mattick stated he concurs with many of the concerns Mr. Huntley has raised. At this point it has been
represented to the City that Mr. MacKinnon can enter into that agreement. Mattick stated he understands
there is something to the contrary that says he does not have the authority and that he cannot tell the
Council the status of the agreement.
Mattick noted this is preliminary plat and that the City will have time to review the agreement and get the
input of the residents prior to final plat. If the residents do not want a cost-sharing agreement, that can be
struck from the final plat documents. Mattick stated at this point he understands from Mr. Bollis and
Mr. MacKinnon that he does have the authority to sign the agreement. If it turns out Mr. MacKinnon
does not have the authority, the Council would then be faced with the decision of not requiring a
maintenance agreement.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 39
7. #15-3763 CHRISTOPHER AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6536 (continued)
Mattick stated in his view it benefits everyone to spell out the cost sharing arrangement and maintenance
responsibilities and that he would recommend it stay in the preliminary plat resolution.
Levang asked if the City Attorney is basing that on the fact that there is a public easement for a road.
Mattick stated that is correct and that it was always felt that this road would be privately maintained.
Council Member Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6536, a
Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for a Class III Subdivision of Property Located at
200-350 Stubbs Bay Road North, with the last two sentences being stricken from Item 16 on Page 4,
with the understanding that materials and equipment relating to the road construction will come
off of the existing Stubbs Bay driveway, removing the two-year limit on the septic system located on
Lots 4 and 5, and including language stating that no permits will be issued until the septic system is
removed on those lots. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
8. #15-3767 JON RESSLER, 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION
NO. 6537
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage addition and make modifications
to the existing one-level home resulting a 2-1/2 story home. The additions will require side, lake and
average setback variances as well as hardcover and structural coverage variances.
The existing home is located as close as 35 feet to the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka and
five feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback. With 1,781 square feet of structure on the property, it
currently exceeds the structural coverage limit by 281 square feet. The existing hardcover level is 54
percent and the proposal will result in a slight increase of 188 square feet or 56 percent hardcover.
Overall the applicant’s proposal will reduce structural coverage by nine square feet.
The Planning Commission, at its August meeting, voted 5 to 1 in favor of a motion to approve the
variances as requested with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the permitting requirements of the MCWD.
2. The top floor of the proposed home shall comply with the City’s definition of “half story”. No
height of number of stories variances are being granted.
3. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and Building Official
during the permit review and construction process.
4. Revised hardcover calculations shall be submitted to properly report the hardcover existing within
the 75-foot setback. The applicant has provided those revised calculations.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the application and a draft approval resolution has been provided
for the Council’s consideration. The City Council should hold the public hearing and then consider
adopting or denying the resolution.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 39
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
8. #15-3767 JON RESSLER, 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION
NO. 6537 (continued)
Walsh noted the Planning Commission had raised the amount of massing on the property and asked
whether any of the neighbors have commented on the application.
Curtis noted the neighbors on both sides of the subject property did submit written comments that were
included in the Planning packet.
McMillan asked if they will be using the existing foundation and framing.
Jon Ressler, Applicant, stated due to their research, it was determined that the existing foundation and
structure is sufficient to hold the weight of the second story. The foundation was largely rebuilt in 1999
and at that time there were no real changes necessary for reconstruction. Ressler stated in their view the
foundation is sufficient but this is the first step in finding that out.
McMillan noted the City at times in the past have required a report from a professional engineer and
asked whether that would be required in this situation.
Curtis stated the building official will want documentation that the foundation is suitable for the structural
load that it will be carrying, but essentially the applicant can rebuild this home in kind without evidence
of that information. If the applicants were to take out the entire structure and rebuild the foundation, they
would be able to do that.
McMillan asked if they would be limited to one story.
Curtis indicated they would be able to rebuild the house as it currently is but they would be required to
apply for a variance if a second story is added.
Levang stated she is concerned given the number of variances being requested. Levang stated the side
setbacks are very narrow and that she is concerned about safety in relation to a fire. Levang stated the
ability to be able to back out of the driveway is important but that 56 percent hardcover is a huge amount.
Levang stated the applicants are constructing a big house on a small lot and that she is concerned about
the massing.
Ressler pointed out there are two other homes on the road that have done similar projects as what he is
proposing with similar setbacks and similar variances. Ressler noted the house depicted on the left was
remodeled a few years ago and is even closer to the property line. This project will be improving the side
setback from what it currently is.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 39
8. #15-3767 JON RESSLER, 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION
NO. 6537 (continued)
In addition, the overall footprint of the structure will be decreased and that in their view the impact will be
improved since the garage will be attached and they are not requesting a height variance.
Walsh stated this is a difficult lot but that two other homes on the road have done similar projects. Walsh
stated he is glad the applicant has reduced the footprint somewhat and that in his view the applicant has
done the best he can with a very small lot.
Levang stated she is not sure whether these small lots were intended to have such big homes on them and
that the two neighbors’ homes will be dwarfed. Levang stated she is not sure how that will impact the
neighbors’ light and view.
Ressler noted they have received letters of support from the neighbors.
McMillan stated if they were constructing a new home from scratch, they would not be allowed the
structural coverage and average lakeshore setback variances. McMillan stated in her view a house could
fit in there without two of the variances.
McMillan noted if the applicant constructs the 1-1/2 story, they would actually be gaining more square
footage than if they construct a new house. McMillan stated she is using the tear-down/build over as the
comparison piece to see what this lot can sustain. McMillan stated the two variances she is struggling
with are the average lakeshore setback and the hardcover and how to mitigate that. McMillan stated
everybody else in Orono who has the space is not allowed to construct 35 feet from the lake and must be
beyond the 75-foot setback. McMillan stated there has to be a balance between that and what is being
requested and how much massing should be allowed.
McMillan stated in the past the City has required people to conform to the average lakeshore setback and
push the second story out of that area. McMillan stated she is looking for compromises and that in her
view pulling it out of the average lakeshore setback would be a possibility even though it might make for
a more difficult design. McMillan stated she is struggling with the idea of maxing out the square footage
of this lot and that it would not be allowed if the house was torn down and rebuilt.
Ressler stated it would be impossible to rebuild on that lot without variances.
McMillan stated it is a matter of how many variances should be granted.
Walsh noted this is not new construction and that the applicant will be adding a minor second story,
which will make it a better house. Walsh stated they are not asking to build a boathouse.
Levang asked what will be in the average setback.
Ressler indicated it will be a covered porch.
Levang asked what would happen if that went away or whether it could be pulled back.
Ressler stated he is not sure that will benefit the neighbors since their homes are basically facing the other
direction. Ressler stated the neighbor has a deck that is within the average lakeshore setback.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 39
8. #15-3767 JON RESSLER, 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION
NO. 6537 (continued)
Levang stated the City Council has the responsibility to have the lot as conforming as possible, and if that
would eliminate one variance by pulling it out of the average lakeshore setback, it would help her be able
to approve the application.
Curtis stated removal of the covered porch or the deck above the existing home footprint would probably
help reduce some of the massing.
Levang stated an open deck rather than a structure with a roof would help reduce the massing.
Walsh asked what that would accomplish.
McMillan stated a lot of times the roofline will cast shadows or block the neighbors’ view or give the
appearance of more massing. McMillan noted the City has required rooflines to be removed out of the
average lakeshore setback in the past.
Walsh stated he is simply building on top of existing hardcover.
McMillan stated this would be structure within the average lakeshore setback.
Printup indicated he is okay with the proposal and that the natural thing to do on a small lot is to go up.
Printup stated he can also see the value of not creating massing on a small lot but that the current structure
is already in the 75-foot zone.
Curtis noted the deck would be smaller than what is currently there.
Walsh stated the applicant is not doing anything different other than going up.
McMillan stated they are intensifying the structure in the 0-75 foot zone.
Walsh stated he is in agreement with that.
Levang asked if the brick patio will remain.
Ressler stated they have not really discussed the patio, but if the Council feels it would be helpful to
reduce it, they would consider it. Ressler indicated they will be removing a concrete pad that has been
there since the 1960s.
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6537, a Resolution Granting
Variances from Orono Municipal Code Sections 78-350, 78-1279, 78-1403, 78-1680 and 78-1700, for
the property located at 3683 North Shore Drive.
McMillan noted she will not be voting in favor of the resolution since it will increase the massing on a
small lot, which will create a tunnel effect and shade the neighboring properties.
Cornick asked if the changes proposed by the Mayor would be acceptable.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 39
8. #15-3767 JON RESSLER, 3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION
NO. 6537 (continued)
Ressler stated it is difficult to answer that on the fly and that he is the third generation to own the
property. Ressler stated he grew up in this house but that it needs to be changed to accommodate their
needs. Ressler stated it is his position the second story will not really have any impact on the neighbors.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Levang and McMillan Opposed.
9. #15-3768 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON, AMEND B-1 USES TO ALLOW DOG
KENNELS/DOG DAY CARE
Michael and Lisa Larson, Applicants, were present.
Barnhart stated the applicants are proposing an ordinance amendment that defines dog boarding, daycare,
and grooming and allows those uses as a conditional use permit in the B-1 zoning district. Kennels,
though not defined by the ordinance, are a conditional use permit in the B-5 zoning district. All kennels
require an annual license approved by the City Council.
Barnhart stated Staff did look at surrounding cities and found that Minnetonka allows kennels as an
interim use in some of their residential zones but has lot size, screening, and licensing requirements.
Plymouth also allows indoor kennels in some of their commercial districts as a permitted use and as a
conditional use in their industrial district. Kennels are a conditional use in Wayzata’s commercial zoning
district.
In anticipation of the ordinance being approved, the applicants have submitted an application for a
business which would meet those definitions for a building on Shoreline Drive in Navarre. That
application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their September meeting.
In addition, at their August meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed two ordinances, one prepared by
the applicant and another more general one prepared by Staff. The Planning Commission favored the
more specific one, noting concerns of unintended impacts to neighboring properties. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the ordinance prepared by the applicants. Planning Staff also
recommends approval.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Rick Meyers, 2195 Bayview Place, stated he read in the paper that it would be up to 80 dogs. Meyers
asked if that is correct.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 39
PUBLIC HEARING (continued)
Barnhart stated he is probably referring to the public hearing notice on the specific application that has
been submitted and that the number of dogs would be based on the amount of parking and size of the
building.
Meyers stated the property is in a commercial district but it abuts a residential neighborhood. Meyers
asked if the 80 is a general number for approval or whether that is what is being requested.
Barnhart noted the application tonight is a text amendment and that there is an application in process that
will be reviewed by the Planning Commission that indicated there could potentially be up to 80 dogs in
this location. The applicants would also anticipate some outdoor activity. Barnhart stated the 80 number
is independent of this request.
Meyers stated the outdoor portion is in the back of the building which would face the neighborhood.
Meyers indicated there is a dog that lives there that barks every time another dog walks by and that he can
imagine the amount of barking that will occur if there are dogs outside the building on Shoreline.
Meyers stated he has been to dog kennels before and that it can be done, but in his view it would be good
to look at the Odogo facility, which is located in a commercial district. Meyers stated in his view 80 dogs
in this particular building would be a lot.
McMillan asked if it in a warehouse district.
Meyers indicated they have a facility off of Baker Road and are constructing another one near Ridgedale
but neither one is close to a residential area.
Walsh stated children’s daycare is very specific and that in his view the City can get a little more specific
on the definition of dog boarding and dog daycare. Walsh stated Staff may need to refine the definitions
further.
Barnhart stated he does not disagree with those comments but that he is not sure if those specifics should
be included within the definitions.
Walsh stated if it was known what amount of land would be required outside of the building, they could
lay out the requirements better.
Meyers stated if the outdoor area is on the east side, it would be more toward the residential area, and on
the west side it would be toward the commercial area. Meyers stated the City should look at this
application carefully and perhaps see whether there have been complaints with similar businesses in other
cities.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 39
9. #15-3768 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON, AMEND B-1 USES TO ALLOW DOG
KENNELS/DOG DAY CARE (continued)
Michael Larson, Applicant, stated the intent is to primarily run the business indoors and that they are
planning to have 35 suites indoors. Larson stated the 80 number comes from adding the maximum
number of overnight guests along with the potential of 35 daycare dogs. Larson indicated they plan to
dedicate 1,000 square feet of indoor play space and that the dogs will primarily be indoors.
Larson stated the outdoor play space would be located in the northwest corner of the building so it will be
as far from the residential properties as possible. The dogs’ outdoor relief area will also be along the west
side of the building. Larson stated they anticipate 10 to 15 dogs outside at any given time and that the
outdoor play area would only be used for a few months during the summer weather permitting.
McMillan asked if the outdoor area would be grass.
Larson stated they would be installing a synthetic turf called Canine Grass, which is an artificial turf that
is similar to what is seen on a professional sports field, and would have crushed limestone beneath.
Larson stated the product is very sanitary.
McMillan stated she thought that would be parking lot and that she is not sure how there is enough space
for an outdoor play area.
Larson stated the proposed parking will be located in the back of the building and the entrance to the
building would be relocated to the Blaine Avenue side.
McMillan asked if he anticipates there being a lot of barking.
Larson stated the building is cinderblock and will be insulated. In addition, the latest in sound mitigation
technology will be utilized as well. Larson stated he was in conversation with a veterinarian located two
doors down and their building does not have air-conditioning. The veterinarian indicated they have dogs
barking all the time and they have never received any complaints. Larson stated they will attempt to keep
the dogs indoors as much as possible.
Barnhart noted the definition proposed tonight is for an indoor kennel and that an outdoor kennel would
not be allowed.
Cornick asked if cats and other animals would not be allowed.
Barnhart stated the ordinance is basically written for dogs in mind with the exception of pet grooming.
Walsh asked if other cities have been contacted to see whether they have experienced any problems with
this type of business. Walsh stated since this is a new concept in Orono, he is worried about unintended
consequences.
Barnhart stated the use is new in Orono, which is why Staff felt more comfortable proceeding with a
conditional use permit. Barnhart stated he expects this business use will have some negative impacts as
most businesses do, such as noise, and the conditional use process would allow the City to address those
types of issues.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 39
9. #15-3768 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON, AMEND B-1 USES TO ALLOW DOG
KENNELS/DOG DAY CARE (continued)
McMillan stated this is a larger scale operation than a typical dog kennel business and that she does not
know anything about the economics of dog daycare. McMillan stated she is concerned about having the
appropriate space for a large number of dogs.
Barnhart stated that then raises the question of what is the maximum number of dogs, but in his view it
should not be included in an ordinance.
Walsh stated the conditional use permit would provide some restrictions, but once it is allowed, it is
allowed.
Barnhart noted the licenses are reviewed annually.
Levang stated the City Council is being asked to consider the ordinance amendment tonight and that the
conditional use permit would be vetted by the Planning Commission as well as the Council. Levang
stated the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed the draft ordinance and that she is comfortable with
the ordinance.
Walsh stated he was in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and that he also thought they did
a good job vetting the application. Walsh stated there likely will not be more than one dog daycare
business in the City but that he does not know enough about issues other cities have experienced. Walsh
stated his experience with kennel facilities is that there is constant barking.
McMillan stated she does not know a lot about urban dog kennels or boarding but that she is okay with
the dog grooming piece. McMillan stated she is concerned with the number of dogs as well as the lack of
space between the outdoor play area and the residential. McMillan stated she would need more
information about the daycare and boarding but that she is okay with the dog grooming. McMillan noted
some vets will board a dog overnight to take care of it, which is fine, but that this will be a more active
business.
Walsh stated he also does not have an issue with the dog grooming.
Mattick asked if the concern is about the underlying use with the dog daycare and boarding aspect or the
unknown performance standards.
Walsh stated there are too many unknowns. Walsh stated he would not want his dog indoors for five days
and that in his view they need some outdoor time. Walsh stated there should be some type of buffer
between a residential area and this type of business since common sense tells someone there will be noise
and the need for some type of buffer.
Mattick asked if it would be helpful for Staff to bring back some type of noise or sound mitigation
recommendations. Mattick noted there is a request for a conditional use permit coming before the
Planning Commission this month. Mattick stated the questions is whether the Council is willing to allow
dog boarding and dog daycare or whether they are opposed to it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 39
9. #15-3768 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON, AMEND B-1 USES TO ALLOW DOG
KENNELS/DOG DAY CARE (continued)
McMillan stated it is difficult to place performance standards without knowing more about dog daycare
and that she would hate to get into a situation where the City approves something and the City receives a
number of complaints.
Levang noted the map shows that they own the whole lot down to Lyric, which would mean there really
are only a couple of businesses in the general area.
Barnhart illustrated the lot and the surrounding neighborhood on the overhead.
Levang noted the nearest neighbor is located at the back corner of the building and that this is not a heavy
residential area and is more commercial.
McMillan stated dog barking can travel, which would be a concern.
Printup stated it would be an intensified use of this area but that there is a county road in the area as well.
Cornick asked if he is anticipating 12 new jobs.
Larson indicated he is.
Cornick asked if there would be someone there 24/7.
Larson stated not initially but probably by year two there would be.
Cornick asked if there would be somebody available at 1:00 in the morning if the City received a
complaint about dog barking.
Larson stated in his view dog noise traveling outside the building would be highly unusual given the
sound mitigation they will be doing to the building. Larson stated their business plan also calls for small
dogs.
Cornick asked what the normal business hours would be.
Larson stated typical lobby hours would be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
McMillan asked how often the dogs would be outdoors.
Larson stated relief time would be rotated in groups of eight to ten over the course of the day and that the
outdoor play area would be limited to 15 dogs at a time and the dogs would be rotated through the day.
Larson noted the outdoor play area would only be used for a few months.
Barnhart stated he has heard some concerns regarding the number of dogs and that he would suggest
tabling the application to allow Staff to talk to other cities and then come back on September 28 with that
information.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 39
9. #15-3768 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON, AMEND B-1 USES TO ALLOW DOG
KENNELS/DOG DAY CARE (continued)
Barnhart stated in the meantime, the Planning Commission will be reviewing the conditional use permit
application and would need to make a recommendation subject to the ordinance being approved.
McMillan asked if the neighbors would be notified.
Barnhart stated the neighbors would be notified because a conditional use permit is being requested.
Walsh stated he would like the names of the communities so he could perhaps speak to some of the
neighbors.
Cornick noted on Page 1 of 2, Section 2, it goes to Section 86-644. Cornick asked if that should be
78-644.
Barnhart stated he will correct that.
Cornick moved, Levang seconded, to adopt the proposed Ordinance Amending the Orono
Municipal Code By Amending Section 78-1 Regarding Definitions and 78-644 Regarding Dog
Grooming and Spa Services. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Walsh, Printup and McMillan Opposed.
MOTION FAILED.
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to table Application No. 15-3768, Michael and Lisa Larson,
Amend B-1 Uses to Allow Dog Kennels/Dog Daycare. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:56 p.m. to 8:59 p.m.)
10. #15-3771 JULIE LENSING, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION
NO. 6538
Julie Lensing, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct additions over the existing home. One addition is
proposed to be constructed on top of the open, roofed stoop, and the other addition above an existing
lakeside family room bump-out to accommodate a master bedroom and bath addition on the level above
the family room on the lakeside of the home. The applicant has requested a lake setback and an average
lakeshore setback variance in order to construct the additions.
The existing home is three levels, which includes a tuck-under garage. According to current codes, based
on the existing first floor elevation and existing grades, the lowest level is defined as a story. In addition,
the third story of the home does not meet the half-story definition. As a result, in order to expand the
square footage of the conforming third story as requested, a variance is required.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 22 of 39
10. #15-3771 JULIE LENSING, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION
NO. 6538 (continued)
The Planning Commission at its August meeting held a public hearing and voted 6 to 0 to recommend
approval of the application with the following condition:
1. Submit revised hardcover calculations shall be submitted to properly report the hardcover existing
within the 75-foot setback and the lot area. Revised calculations have been submitted by the
applicant.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. A draft approval resolution has been
provided for Council’s consideration. The Council should hold a public hearing tonight and consider
adopting or amending the resolution.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 9:03 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m.
McMillan noted Staff’s report states that the City’s definition of half-story changed since the original
resolution.
Curtis stated the City’s definitions regarding half story and basement has changed over time and that she
is not sure what exactly was in place at the time. Curtis stated what is on the property currently is not
conforming.
McMillan asked if there was a half-story definition at that time.
Curtis stated to her knowledge it was more of a definition for a basement and that this is intended to be a
two-story home with a tuck-under garage. Curtis stated she is aware the regulations have changed over
time but that she does not know exactly what was in place at the time of the original resolution.
McMillan indicated she did visit the property but that she did not go behind the house and that she is not
sure whether there are windows back there.
Curtis stated the amount of exposure around the foundation for the lowest level is what it comes down to
and that the back portion of the house near the property line is in the ground but the other two sides and
front are more exposed.
McMillan asked whether there are any bedrooms on the lower level.
Curtis stated the applicant would need to speak to that.
Levang stated from the back it appears to be a 3-story house.
Julie Lensing, Applicant, stated from the back, it does appear to be three stories and there is one large
window on the lower level.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 23 of 39
10. #15-3771 JULIE LENSING, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION
NO. 6538 (continued)
From the garage, there is a 3-step rise which enters the lower level and there is a bathroom with no
windows and basically a study with no closet down there. Lensing indicated there is one large window
down there which is even with the yard.
Lensing stated what she is attempting to do with the addition is to remove the curved windows up at the
top. There currently is a vaulted ceiling there and that she is proposing putting a floor right at the top of
the three windows with a master bedroom and bathroom up on top. The laundry room is located currently
in the garage, so a laundry room will be added inside the house. Currently the home has three bedrooms,
with one bedroom on the main floor and two bedrooms on the upper level. Lensing stated she is not
increasing hardcover or structural coverage and that it would be very similar to the other homes in the
neighborhood.
Walsh stated he is familiar with some of the homes in the neighborhood and that they are similar to this
home.
McMillan noted the structural coverage is conforming currently and that the applicant is not proposing to
go over that.
Lensing stated her options are limited and that she is not able to go out to the side. Lensing stated she
would like to add another bedroom to accommodate her children.
McMillan noted the side setbacks are conforming with the exception of the south setback. McMillan
stated there is an average lakeshore setback variance as well for this property and that the house next to
this house is a one-story. McMillan expressed concern about this addition towering over the neighboring
house more than what exists today.
Lensing stated she did speak with those neighbors and that they are in support of the project. Lensing
stated they do not have much of a view from the side and that they spend most of their outdoor time on
the deck located above the garage, which would not be affected by this project.
McMillan stated the only thing she is struggling with is the average lakeshore setback variance and that
due to the fact the story definition was changed in 2000, she does not expect compliance with the story
definition by this applicant. McMillan stated she is looking at ways to perhaps mitigate the average
lakeshore setback.
Levang asked how many feet the portion in pink comes out.
Curtis indicated it is two feet and would be similar to the bump-out above the garage. Curtis displayed a
sketch of the front of the house showing the bump-out.
McMillan asked how much higher the roof is going.
Curtis indicated it would be lower than the existing gable.
Levang asked if the home is nine feet into the average lakeshore setback.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 24 of 39
10. #15-3771 JULIE LENSING, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION
NO. 6538 (continued)
Curtis indicated it is.
Levang asked if the house to the east is approximately the same to the lake.
Lensing state the home on the west is basically the same except their deck extends out further.
Walsh stated in his view she has done a good job of designing the addition.
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6538 , a Resolution Granting
Variances From Orono Municipal Code Sections 78-1, 78-350, and 78-1279, for the property
located at 3349 Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539
Robert Miller, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in order to construct
a second story addition over the existing residence, plus a one-story mud/laundry room and attached
garage. The lot consists of 0.84 acre in a 2-acre zoning district. The two variances being requested are a
front yard setback and a side setback variance.
Gaffron illustrated the layout of the house and property on the overhead.
The existing house is located approximately 33 feet from the street lot line where a 50-foot setback is
normally required. The covered front entry will be slightly relocated at 29.2 feet from the front lot line.
The garage and mudroom will be approximately 38 feet from the front lot line.
At the north end, the house will maintain the existing 17.5 foot side setback where 30 feet is required. At
the sound end, the existing conforming detached garage located 3.2 feet from the side lot line will be
removed, to be replaced with an attached garage at 10.1 feet from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback
is required. Gaffron noted the two neighboring homes also have substandard setbacks.
Gaffron displayed photographs of the home and proposed designs.
Gaffron stated the existing home is proposed to be expanded to include a second story over the existing
story and porch, plus a one-story mudroom/laundry room and attached single-story garage with attic
storage. The front setback of approximately 30 feet will remain generally the same, although additional
structure will be added to the south of the house 35 to 40 feet from the street.
At the August Planning Commission meeting, the two adjoining neighbors expressed concerns regarding
the impact of the second story addition on the character of the existing neighborhood. The Planning
Commission voted 5-1 to approve the hardcover variance subject to providing additional vegetative
screening to the adjacent properties.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 25 of 39
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539 (continued)
Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances. It should be noted that the left side setback
is not decreasing. The front setback is only minimally changing due to shifting of the entryway. The
right side setback to the new attached garage, while moving forward from the existing detached garage, is
set back from the adjoining residence approximately the same distance as the existing detached garage
due to the angling of the homes relative to the side lot line.
Staff would also note that the existing vegetative screening along the left side exists almost entirely within
the neighboring property at 40 Smith. Gaffron stated requiring the applicant to provide additional
screening to visually buffer a second story that is no closer than the existing first story is not a common
request and Staff would ask the Council to consider whether there are really any negative visual impacts
to that adjoining neighbor.
On the east boundary, a row of existing bushes provides screening to the adjoining neighbor at 80 Smith
from the proposed attached garage location. These bushes appear to be on applicant’s property. To the
extent that these bushes can be saved during construction, Staff questions the need for additional
screening. If the bushes are destroyed during construction, then equivalent screening should be replaced.
Staff has drafted an approval resolution that requires replacement of any existing vegetative screening that
is damaged or destroyed during construction. This condition can easily be modified at the discretion of
Council.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 9:25 p.m.
TJ Bonnett, 40 Smith Avenue, stated they do not have any problem with the actual plan itself but that in
their view it should be built on a 2-acre property. Bonnett stated they feel the proposed project will
impose on them and cause them to lose their privacy. Bonnett stated they would request the City Council
look at other options for the project.
Mrs. Bonnett stated all the variances being requested is the issue rather than one single variance.
Walsh asked what they see as the biggest issues with the variances.
TJ Bonnett stated the main issue is the fact that there will now be a second story. Bonnett stated they
have a small view of a dormer and that they will have a view of a second story after this project is
completed.
Bonnett displayed a picture of another residence with a second story next to a one-level home. Bonnett
stated that is basically what is being proposed in this case and that the home will be made quite a bit
larger. Bonnett asked if the home would be 10 or 13 feet higher.
Gaffron indicated he has not looked into that. Gaffron stated the home does meet the City’s height
requirements.
Walsh asked if the second story would be next to the garage.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 26 of 39
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539 (continued)
Bonnett indicated it would be.
Walsh noted in addition to the side setback, there would be some hedges and the garage that would help
mitigate that.
Bonnett stated the hedges are near the end of their life and that the pine tree is dying. Bonnett stated he is
not sure how the architect can say there is adequate screening.
McMillan stated it is difficult to screen a second story.
Bonnett stated he agrees with that but that they are looking for some type of screening.
Levang stated the lilac bushes will probably not provide much screening.
Bonnett stated it is his understanding the garage will be in the area of the lilacs. Bonnett stated they are
basically looking for a little less massing on the property.
Levang commented it would look different if the home was in the middle of the lot but it is off more to
one side of the property.
McMillan noted a number of these homes existed prior to the 2-acre zoning and that the Bonnett’s lot is
close to two acres but their home is close to the side setback.
Bonnett stated it was the City’s hope that these lots would be combined but they weren’t and now larger
homes are being built on the lots.
Ryan Blackwell, 80 Smith Avenue, stated their concern with the proposed project is the height for both
the main structure and the garage. The structure will be quite large given the actual useable space on the
property. Blackwell stated as far as the side setbacks are concerned, there will be 18 feet on the Bonnett
side and 10 or 11 on his side. Blackwell stated in his view it is excessive to increase the size by 10 feet
on a house that already has a second floor over a portion of the house and that he would ask the Council
to consider the side impacts on both neighbors.
Blackwell stated in his view he is less impacted than the Bonnett’s since they are on the garage side of the
expansion but that the proposed garage height will be 21 feet. Blackwell stated he would request that any
vegetation that is damaged or removed be replaced with something similar.
Blackwell noted the street is a dead-end and fairly narrow and that during the construction process he
would ask for consideration about parking on the street and allowing cars to pass.
Rob Miller, Applicant, stated as it relates to the size of the home, they are working within essentially the
same footprint of the house and that the house will be no wider than what exists now. It will still be 40
feet wide and the only piece that is coming out is the component in the front. In addition, the footprint on
the main level is just over 1,100 square feet and the second story will bring it up to 2,250 square feet.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 27 of 39
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539 (continued)
Miller stated this is not a large house and it will not be looming or encroaching any further than where it
is right now. Miller indicated they also attempted to limit the impact to the side and angled the roof in to
minimize the looming nature of the home.
Miller stated they would be happy to replace any screening that gets damaged with like screening but that
they do not feel the design or scale of the house is out of character with the neighborhood since there are
currently homes that range from a few thousand square feet up to 6,000 square feet.
McMillan asked if the height of the ceilings will be raised on the first story.
Miller stated the main floor currently has 8-foot ceilings and that they are raising them to nine feet.
McMillan asked if they will be tearing it down to the foundation.
Miller stated they will be using the existing foundation.
Lon Oberpriller, Replacement Housing Services, stated they are the builder on the project. The intent of
the project is to keep as much of the first floor as possible, including the basement. The basement is not
fully excavated. Oberpriller stated he went through and checked all the tax records and pulled the square
footages of the homes in the neighborhood. A report has been put together to respond to the Bonnett’s
concerns that were expressed during the Planning Commission meeting.
As far as the overall construction of the home, the existing residence is a traditional colonial design and
there are a couple similar homes on Lyman. Oberpriller stated this home is not out of precedent or
character for the neighborhood in any way, shape or form. The intent is not to over scale anything and the
total footprint of the structure is less than 2,900 square feet, including the basement. Oberpriller stated in
his view this is not excessive and will consist of three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Oberpriller stated they have also been very careful to preserve the actual side setback of 17 feet and have
pulled the garage forward. The garage will still be ten feet off the property line. The neighbor next door
is at 13 feet and Mr. Bonnet’s garage is 11 feet. Oberpriller noted they are totally consistent with the side
yard setbacks and that they have tried not to encroach any further.
Oberpriller stated his client would like an attached garage with a mudroom, which is common with this
type of investment.
McMillan stated the attached garage does not appear to be an issue from what she is hearing from the
neighbors. McMillan noted she lives on Lyman Avenue and most of Lyman is newer 2-acre lots.
McMillan stated this is an old section of Orono and that this house was probably originally built in the
1950s. McMillan stated city sewer was installed in this area in the early 2000s since a number of the lots
did not have room for a new septic.
McMillan stated the question for the City Council is what the proper setbacks should be and that the main
concern of the neighbors was the second story.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 28 of 39
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539 (continued)
Oberpriller stated he is very familiar with the issues relating to the side setbacks and that they are
sensitive to that. Oberpriller stated they tried not to over scale the house either from a side yard or
encroachment point of view. Oberpriller stated they are not able to do anything about the current setbacks
outside of tearing the existing structure down, which is not economically viable in this case.
McMillan stated she understands the desire for a functional second story but the big question is the
vertical massing and the impact that will have on the neighboring structures.
Curtis displayed pictures of the property and neighboring lots.
McMillan asked how this project will impact the neighbor’s deck.
Oberpriller noted the garage will be pulled forward and that the picture on the overhead was taken from
the roof of the neighbor’s house.
Miller stated if the neighbors are on the deck, they would be looking at their home and not his residence.
McMillan stated she cannot tell from the plan how the new roof and windows will impact the neighbors.
Oberpriller stated they would be looking at the garage if they are on the deck. Oberpriller indicated they
are proposing a gable roof to help limit the impact.
McMillan stated she was attempting to visualize what the impact would be to the neighbors.
Bonnett stated they were looking for ways it could be impacted and with fewer variances.
Oberpriller stated they would not be able to see any of the windows. Oberpriller indicated the white
triangle depicts the eave line.
Walsh stated the second story would be going up ten feet.
Oberpriller stated it is not their intent to cause any disruption to the neighbors and that they are trying to
be sensitive to both neighbors’ concerns. Oberpriller stated the Millers will not be able to look down onto
the neighbor’s deck and that the height of the structure would be approximately 30 to the peak of the roof.
Walsh stated the ridge line is going from 21 to 30 feet.
Levang asked whether there will be living space above the garage.
Oberpriller indicated it will be storage space.
Bonnett stated as long as their windows are not looking down at their windows, they would be fine with
it, but that in his view there are other ways to do the project.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 29 of 39
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539 (continued)
Oberpriller stated it would not be possible to see the neighbor’s windows. Oberpriller noted the white
triangle would be roughly the eave line and that the window would be below that. Oberpriller stated it is
not their intent to cause disruption to the neighborhood or cause any concerns. Oberpriller stated he
would like to reach an understanding that this house will not be peering down on the neighbor’s deck.
Oberpriller indicated they are willing to repair and replace the screening.
McMillan stated it is a good plan but that she wanted everyone to be able to picture the impact.
McMillan asked if he is squaring off the second story.
Miller indicated that is correct.
Oberpriller stated they are basically just adding the second story.
Gaffron stated it is approximately 68 feet from the left side of the existing house to the right side of the
existing garage.
McMillan stated she understands the current second story of the house is not functional and that the
proposed new second story will be squared off with windows added at the end. McMillan noted the
garage will also be in between this house and the neighbor’s house to the north.
Miller stated they are attempting to stay within what is existing and to limit the number of variances
requested with the project.
Bonnett stated he does not understand how rushing the application through will help the situation.
Bonnett stated the larger homes in the neighborhood are on huge lots.
Levang stated she is concerned about strife in the neighborhood and that she would like everyone to be
good neighbors. Levang stated she is not sure whether tabling the application would give the neighbors
an opportunity to work this situation out.
McMillan stated the only difficulty she sees with the application is the second story and the amount of
massing but that she does not want to hold the application up unless the City Council needs more
information.
Walsh stated in his view the homeowner has done a good job with placing the windows only a foot higher
but that those should be verified with the building plans. Walsh stated in his view there is a good amount
of buffer and that the applicant is doing everyone a positive by moving the garage forward. Walsh stated
as a casual observer, it appears the applicant has addressed the issues with the windows and there is
plenty of room on the sides. Walsh noted the applicant is not proposing a huge house and that they have
made some concessions to stay within the character of the neighborhood. Walsh stated in the end it will
be a benefit to the neighborhood and beautify the area. Walsh stated he is in agreement the landscaping
should be replaced if it gets damaged.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 30 of 39
11. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER, 60 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLULTION NO.
6539 (continued)
Printup stated he also does not want to hold the application up since he is not sure what it will solve.
McMillan stated her only concern is the massing on the north side and that she hopes the neighbors
continue to have dialogue. McMillan stated the applicant is entitled to a functional second story and that
she is hopeful the addition will not impact the view of the neighbor to the north.
Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6539, a Resolution Granting
Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 (B), for the property located at 60 Smith
Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
12. #15-3775 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING TEMPORARY
SIGNS
Barnhart stated the City’s current ordinance regulating signs does not meet the needs of charitable
organizations or for community events. The existing ordinance does allow a conditional use permit once
every two years. As Staff and the City Attorney reviewed the ordinance closer, it became evident that
many of the signs are regulated based on their content, a direct violation of state statute, which allows
regulation based only on time, place and manner.
In response, the conditional use permit requirement was removed and now requires only a Staff issued
permit provided the sign meets certain criteria. Signs in commercial districts have the same number of
signage opportunities as before, but they will get an additional sign if they allow their property to be used
for charitable, community event signage.
The proposed ordinance amends the sign ordinance in several ways and achieves the following goals:
1. Allow temporary signs that meet certain parameters in the right-of-way jurisdiction only and City
property following a permit.
2. Allow temporary signs in commercial zones for a specific period of time and allow additional
signage for commercially zoned properties that provide signage for charitable organizations.
3. Amend the ordinance to reflect recent Supreme Court rulings on free speech.
4. Give the City authority to display any sign within its own right-of-way or property.
Barnhart noted signs in residential zones are subject to certain sign limitations regardless of message. In
addition, the City must issue a permit for signs in the right -of-way and on city property regardless of the
message. The City may not issue permits for county or state right-of-ways, including County Roads 15,
19, 51 and Highway 12.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as presented.
Walsh asked what the alternative would be.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 31 of 39
12. #15-3775 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING TEMPORARY
SIGNS (continued)
Barnhart stated it would be to not allow any signage on public property.
Mattick stated a conditional use permit should not be issued for a sign since it runs with the land and that
he would recommend the language regarding that be removed from the City’s current regulations.
Levang asked if 8B, temporary signs in residentially zoned districts, would cover signs that someone may
put out announcing their child is on the hockey team, a garage sale, or a roofing contractor.
Barnhart stated those would be examples of temporary signs in residential districts. Barnhart stated only
one sign would be allowed in the required front yard, which is the 0 to 30-foot zone, with a limit on the
total amount of area of the signs on the property.
Walsh asked if 20 people could erect signs on City property if they met the conditions.
Barnhart stated they could but that he will be coming back in the near future with some sort of mechanism
to identify the community and charitable events.
Printup asked if this could be done by resolution rather than codifying the language.
Mattick stated he would encourage the Council to have something in their ordinances addressing it. The
question regarding garage sale signs or other similar signs goes to the heart of the trouble that other
communities have experienced with regulating different categories of signs. Mattick stated a sign is a
sign and that the City cannot regulate its content but it can build in dimensional requirements in the
ordinance.
McMillan stated she had some issues with more of the permanent signs and that the Council should
perhaps discuss that in the future.
McMillan stated she has a concern about the public property piece, and if that is allowed, it may create
other issues.
Walsh noted the ordinance allows the City to erect signs on its property.
Printup moved, Levang seconded, to table Application No. 15-3775, City of Orono, Text
Amendment Regarding Temporary Signs.
Barnhart suggested the draft ordinance be revisited in a work session.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 32 of 39
13. #15-3776 NAVARRE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
SIGNAGE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY
Barnhart stated since the City Council tabled the text amendment, it will be necessary to approve the
conditional use permit for the Navarre Community Initiative. The group would like to place temporary
signs in Navarre area parks and right-of-way. The signs are intended to identify and promote a
community bike event.
The City’s current ordinance allows the Council to issue a conditional use permit for signs once every two
years at a given location. The Council may not issue a conditional use permit for signage in county or
state rights-of-way. The signs are four square feet and will be placed at various intersections, including
Navarre Park, Shoreline and Kelly Avenue, Shoreline and Casco Point Road, and Shadywood and
Bayview.
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit subject to the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
13. #15-3776 NAVARRE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
SIGNAGE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY (continued)
McMillan noted the event is this Saturday.
Levang stated the signs will be up until Sunday.
Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to approve Application No. 15-3776, Navarre Community
Initiative, granting of a conditional use permit for temporary signage on public property.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT
14. LYDIARD BEACH FENCE
Edwards stated at the last Council meeting, the City Council directed the Park Commission review this
application again due to some issues that were raised during the Council meeting and the request that a
survey be completed. Those items have been completed.
The purpose of the fence is to delineate the parking area at Lydiard Beach from the beach and the
adjacent channel. The fence will be a split rail fence, with the posts approximately 42 inches high with
eight to ten foot rails.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 33 of 39
14. LYDIARD BEACH FENCE (continued)
Two sections of fence will be constructed. One fence will run along the exposed portion of the channel
approximately five feet to the west of the property line and the other will run the width of the lot at the
south end of the street between the parking lot and beach.
Walsh asked if the survey revealed anything new that the City did not know.
Edwards stated there was a question about who owns the land where the wood wall transitions into the
metal wall, which is not within the 5-foot piece of property owned by the private resident. Edwards stated
that land was determined to belong to the homeowners association.
Cornick asked if there will be any signs on the fence.
Edwards stated there are no plans for any signs to be placed on the fence and that there is a park rules sign
already on the property. The Parks Commission is also looking at standardizing some informational signs
for the parks. Edwards stated the City could, if needed, place no fishing or no dogs signs up.
Walsh asked if the Parks Commission is doing any different as a result of the neighbors’ comments.
Edwards stated the fence has been moved five feet further in to allow for easier maintenance but that
probably does not address the concerns of the neighbors. Edwards stated he is not sure there is a practical
way to create a physical barrier to prevent people from accessing the wall.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the plan to install a split rail fence at Lydiard Beach.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*15. WILLOW DRIVE NORTH RECONSTRUCTION – PAY REQUEST NO. 6 – FINAL
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 6 and final for the contractor
C.S. McCrossan, in the amount of $19,913.77 for the Willow Drive reconstruction project.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
16. LIFT STATION #2 BACKUP GENERATOR
Edwards stated Lift Station No. 2 is a critical lift station and collects sewage from the area from the
Crystal Bay area, Weber Hills area, and Heritage Lane. The lift station then conveys that sewage into the
Metropolitan Council sewer main. Under the current load, the lift station can experience a backup within
20 minutes of a loss of power.
This summer the City was approached by the owners of 1955 Shoreline Drive offering to provide
space/easement for the placement of a backup generator for the lift station. In addition, the City receive d
a letter and petition in July from area residents requesting a backup generator for the lift station. A rough
estimate for the project is $110,000. The engineering and design cost from Bolton & Menk is not to
exceed $21,250.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 34 of 39
16. LIFT STATION #2 BACKUP GENERATOR (continued)
Cornick asked if Public Works will still have to respond or whether it will switch over automatically.
Edwards stated the Public Works Department will be alerted and will respond to determine why power
was lost regardless of the backup generator.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the installation of a backup generator with associated
electrical distribution and controls for Lift Station No. 2 and to authorize Bolton & Menk to
complete the design and engineering of same. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
17. LIVINGSTON (TOWER) PARK IMPROVEMENT DESIGN REQUEST
Rick Meyers, Parks Commission Chair, stated the Parks Commission has designated Livingston Park as
one of their priority parks for 2015. Norlings Landscape has designed a plan for the park. Meyers
indicated the amount of money being requested includes contingencies but that he does not believe it will
cost $50,000.
As it relates to the plan, the Parks Commission has elected to remove the one pergola, which decreased
the cost by $5,000. Meyers stated the big expense is the pervious pavers, but that the Parks Commission
felt it would be setting a good example if the City used that type of paver.
Meyers noted there is approximately $688,000 in the City’s Park Dedication Fund and that there will be
more money coming in as a result of a few new developments. Meyers stated that money is allowed to be
used for major park purchases, which the City is currently not contemplating. Meyers stated he would
propose just spending the interest on that money to help improve the parks. Meyers noted there has not
been an active Parks Commission for ten years and that the City is now trying to get back up to speed
with a number of the parks.
Meyers reported the Parks Commission has finished the majority of their priorities for this year and are
now looking at 2016. Livingston Tower Park was one of the priorities for 2015 and the $50,000 will
allow the entire project to be completed. Meyers stated in his view the visitors on the Dakota Rail Trail
could be directed to this park since it will have a port-a-potty and water. It is also close to the downtown
Navarre area.
Levang stated she likes the plan and that the connector piece with the trail is important. Levang stated the
Navarre Initiative Group will be using this park on Sunday, which will give the Parks Commission a
chance to highlight the proposed park improvements. Levang stated the new improvements would also
provide an opportunity to have a new name for the park that is not tied to the address.
Levang stated this is a beautiful piece of property that is not getting a lot of use and that it can become an
anchor for a community that has a number of pedestrians. Levang stated in her view it will add a lot to
the Navarre community and will be a nice amenity. In addition, it will serve as a connection to the
business section, the trail, and the Navarre Park.
Meyers stated there are also a lot of younger children in the neighborhood that will be able to utilize the
park.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 35 of 39
17. LIVINGSTON (TOWER) PARK IMPROVEMENT DESIGN REQUEST (continued)
Curtis displayed a picture of the current park.
Walsh stated he would echo the comments made by Council Member Levang. Walsh stated the project
demonstrates the commitment by the City to improve the parks and that there are funds in the Park Fund
that can be utilized for this project.
Printup stated since the money is currently in the Park Fund, this project will not impose any tax
obligation on the residents.
Meyers noted the funds must be used for a capital improvement and cannot be used for maintenance.
Meyers stated it does not make sense to continue to acquire park land if it is not improved and made
useable.
Printup asked where the estimates came from.
Meyers stated those are estimates from Norlings Landscaping, and that when this project goes out to bid,
the amount could be lower.
Edwards stated the Parks Commission requested Norlings to come up with the design and the prices.
Edwards indicated the prices that say contractor after them were obtained from the Norlings’ quote and
the prices with Public Works Department after them are the estimates that the City provided.
Levang stated in her view they will have several companies interested in bidding on the project and the
City should receive a good bid.
McMillan asked who would be maintaining the pollinator garden and whether there are any long-term
maintenance costs associated with the drinking fountain.
Meyers stated a watering source for the new plantings could also be installed next to the water fountain,
which is a $4,000 expense. Meyers stated Wayzata also has a dog drinking fountain at their beach.
Meyers stated the Parks Commission removed the one pergola because a drinking fountain was preferred
and would help draw people to this area.
Meyers stated as it relates to the pollinator garden, the City currently has a contract with Norlings to help
maintain them but that maintenance will probably have to be built into the budget. Meyers stated
typically pollinator gardens are more native plants, which would require a little more work than your
typical landscaping.
Meyers stated the $50,000 is the maximum that would be spent and that the cost likely will be less than
that.
McMillan asked whether there will be some information available on Sunday regarding the
improvements.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 36 of 39
17. LIVINGSTON (TOWER) PARK IMPROVEMENT DESIGN REQUEST (continued)
Meyers stated he would like to have a display case set up with the plans in it along with a sign that says
coming soon to your neighborhood. Meyers stated one of the park commissioners will also be there to
talk about the improvements.
Cornick asked why there is not a port-a-potty included in the plan.
Meyers stated he is going to approach Three Rivers to see whether they will partner on the water fountain
and port-a-potty.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Livingston Tower Park improvements with
funding from the Park Fund, not to exceed $50,000. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Meyers noted the maintenance barn will be painted red and a cupola will be added to it so it will resemble
a barn.
*18. APPOINTMENT OF 2015 GOLF COURSE EMPLOYEE
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the hiring of Calvin Schmidt as a seasonal employee
for the Orono Golf Course. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
19. KELLY AVENUE DRAINAGE (CARMEN OUTLET)
Edwards stated the residents on Kelly Avenue have reported excessive flooding in the street during larger
rainfall events and are concerned about the impact of future development on the storm system in the area.
Last fall Bolton & Menk was contracted to conduct a drainage analysis and provide recommendations.
On May 11, 2015, the Council authorized the design engineering for the upsizing of the Carmen Bay
Outlet. Edwards stated this is the first of three projects aimed at improving the drainage for the Kelly
Avenue area.
The low bid came in at $69,718 from Kusske Construction. The project will be funded from the Storm
Water Fund. The project should be completed by the end of October, 2015. Edwards stated he is still
finalizing some easements and that the bid award will be contingent upon that being resolved.
Cornick asked whether he is familiar with Kusske.
Edwards indicated he has not but that Tim Amundson in the Public Works Department has worked with
them in Victoria and recommended them.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to award construction of the culvert at Carmen Road to Kusske
Construction. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 37 of 39
20. WELL SITE NO. 4 PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Edwards stated the biggest issue with the City’s water system was the location for the second well on the
northern system. Edwards stated the City did not have enough room on the property for the well and that
placing the well on other city-owned property would have doubled the cost. As a result, the City
approached Mr. Cliff Otten about acquiring a piece of his land that abuts the City’s current well and well
house. Mr. Otten in exchange asked for that easement right-of-way to be vacated to allow his property to
hook up to city sewer since it will drop below the 2-acre minimum.
Edwards stated Mr. Otten signed the purchase agreement on Wednesday and that the City Council needs
to approve the purchase agreement and adopt the resolution dispensing with the statutory requirements for
review by the Planning Commission of acquisition of property.
McMillan stated in her view it is a great solution.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt Dispensing with Statutory Requirements for Review by
Planning Commission of Acquisition of Property and Approving the Purchase Agreement. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONTINUED
Edwards reported the City’s golf course has already exceeded last year’s number of rounds.
Levang stated she received a comment from someone that played this morning who said that the greens
were magnificent.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Walsh stated he attended the August Planning Commission meeting and that a number of applications
will be coming before the City Council. Walsh stated in his view the Planning Commission is doing a
good job.
Levang noted the Navarre Community Festival is scheduled for this Sunday and a number of activities are
planned for the event. Saturday is the 100-year anniversary of the Long Lake Fire Department and that
they will be having an open house on Sunday as part of the Navarre festival.
Printup reported last week there was a Highway 12 safety commission meeting. The final safety audit has
been completed and statistics for the entire corridor have been taken and will be included in the audit.
The audit will also contain some suggestions for safety upgrades that the committee can work toward.
Printup reported rumble strips will be installed this fall and that he hopes to receive a summary of the
results this week for Council review.
McMillan stated she and Council Member Cornick will be attending a Highway 12 turnback meeting on
Wednesday. McMillan stated the committee narrowed it down to two options and that she will report
back on what the committee discusses. McMillan stated she is worried about people using Long Lake
Road as an alternate route.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 38 of 39
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued)
Walsh asked if the costs will be passed down to the City in some form.
McMillan stated to her knowledge they will come out of the turnback fund.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
*21. ORONO POLICE GARAGE – PAY REQUEST NO. 12
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve payment of Pay Request No. 12 for the contractors
working on the Orono Police Garage project in an amount totaling $66,980.45. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
22. ADOPT THE LAKE MINNETONKA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN –
RESOLUTION NO. 6540
Police Chief Farniok stated over the past eight months, the Lake Minnetonka Emergency Management
Group has been working on updating the City’s emergency operations plan. Farniok noted he distributed
the report by CD since it is rather lengthy.
Farniok stated the main changes were the addition of appendixes for a domestic and exotic animal
directory, terrorism, and voluntary donations. The rest of the changes were grammar or updating name
and contact information. Farniok stated the majority of the document was left unchanged since the
policies are mandated by the state.
Printup asked what the trigger was for the update.
Farniok stated the Emergency Management Group was formed approximately 15 years ago to do it as a
group rather than each individual city doing the review. Farniok stated the review is mandated by the
state.
Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6540 , a Resolution Adopting the
Updated Lake Minnetonka Emergency Operations Plan (LMEO). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*23. CLAIMS/BILLS
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
*24. PERMITS/LICENSES
1. Fireworks/Pyrotechnic Special Effectives
PC Pyrotechnics for Display of Fireworks for Long Lake Fire Department
4016 Aspen Circle South
Rockford, MN 55373
*24. PERMITS/LICENSES (continued)
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, September 14, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 39 of 39
2. One-Day Temporary Permit for On-Sale Liquor
Orono Lions for the Long Lake Fire Department
P.O. Box 65
Orono, MN
3. One-Day Temporary Permit for On-Sale Liquor
8 to A Lamp for Taste of Long Lake
1817 Freedom Lake
Chanhassen, MN
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the above listed permits and licenses.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*25. ACCEPT RESIGNATION OF POLICE OFFICER LINDSEY OLSON
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to accept the resignation of Police Officer Lindsey Olson.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*26. REQUEST TO HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the hiring of Tim Datwyler as a full-time police
officer effective September 15, 2015. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Mattick stated he had nothing to report.
ADJOURNMENT
Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 11:28 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: September 28, 201
Item No: 3
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name: Correy Farniok RJO City Administrator
Title: Police Chief
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Police Officer Oath of Office (Presentation)
______________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION:
Recently two officers have been promoted to Full-Time police officers. Joshua Raze on April 14,
2015 and Timothy Datwyler on September 14, 2015. Both officers have completed the field
training program and are working sole patrol.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
It is recommended that these officers be given the oath of office as an Orono Police Officer.
OATH OF OFFICE FOR POLICE OFFICER
CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA
I Timothy Datwyler, do solemnly swear under oath that I will support the Constitution of
the United States of America and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the
duties of the office of police officer in the City of Orono, of the County of Hennepin to the
best of my judgment and ability, so help me God.
__________________________
Signed Date
Subscribed and sworn before me this twenty eighth day, of September, 2015
____________________________________________
City Clerk
OATH OF OFFICE FOR POLICE OFFICER
CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA
I Joshua Raze, do solemnly swear under oath that I will support the Constitution of the
United States of America and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties
of the office of police officer in the City of Orono, of the County of Hennepin to the best of
my judgment and ability, so help me God.
__________________________
Signed Date
Subscribed and sworn before me this twenty eighth day, of September, 2015
____________________________________________
City Clerk
COMMENDING THE
ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR EXCELLENCE
WHEREAS, recent events resulted in demonstrations and protests around the country
regarding the use of force by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, these incidents highlight the dangers faced by all law enforcement
professionals during the course of their duties each and every day; and
WHEREAS, the members of the Orono Police Department provide an essential function in
our community by dedicating themselves to protect life, liberty, and property; and
WHEREAS, in light of the recent negativity directed toward law enforcement nationally,
there is a need to acknowledge to our local law enforcement officers that our citizens recognize the
difficult and dangerous responsibilities they shoulder in public service to our city; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Orono wishes to formally express support of, and for, the
Orono Police Department and all local law enforcement agencies around the country;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, in the County
of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, hereby expresses steadfast support for our local Orono Police
Department and commends the Department for excellence in upholding professional standards and
protecting the life, liberty, and safety of the residents of Orono.
ATTEST:
_________________________________ _________________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 28, 2015
ITEM NO: 5
________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Olson RJO City Administrator's
Title Acting City Administrator Report
________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Mediacom Update
________________________________________________________________________
The following representatives from Medicom will make a short presentation to the Council
and will answer questions on the status of the current buildout and service.
Theresea Sunde, Government Relations Manager
Zach Raskovich, Area Operations Director
Mark Niebuhr, Senior Construction Supervisor
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
No action is required.
182883
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 28 September 2015
ITEM NO: 6
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jeremy Barnhart RJO Planning Department Report
Title Community Development Director
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Request for administrative appeal; Nygard fence viewing
_____________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
August 10 City Council packet
Jay Nygard submitted information
Peter Lanpher submitted information
Purpose. Jay Nygard requests an appeal of the fence viewer’s decision that the fence adjacent to his
property is not a partition fence.
Background. At the August 10 City Council meeting, the Council heard the appeal of the Fence viewers
decision stating that a fence on Peter Lanpher’s property was not a partition fence and thus not subject
to Minn. Stat. 344 . At that meeting, Mr. Nygard presented information that was not included in the
informational packet, and the Council asked for time to review this new information. This information
included:
Nygard Exhibit 1 Complaint of fence, 7/16/12
Nygard Exhibit 2 Follow up complaint, 9/11/12
Nygard Exhibit 3 Complaint response, 9/17/12
Nygard Exhibit 4 Email from Lanpher RE Fence viewers, 5/22/13
Nygard Exhibit 5 Email from Loftus RE Appeal Court Ruling (fence painting), 4/30/12
Nygard Exhibit 6 Email from Curtis, RE Fence expansion, 10/15/12
Nygard Exhibit 7 League information, Conflict of Interest
Nygard Exhibit 8 Fence Viewer response, 7/13/15
Nygard Exhibit 9 Email from Levang RE Fence viewing summary, 7/16/15
Nygard Exhibit 10 League Information, Partition Fence Law
Pictures, no date
PD report 12-007680
PD report 12-4974
Email from J. Nygard, no subject, 6/22/12
Email from K. Nygard RE todays events 6/3/12
Pictures, no date, of picture taking
Minutes City Council 11/14/11
Forwarded Email from J Nygard RE Denny Walsh 3/2/12
Petition from The Residents of Rest Point, 10/11/11
Email from J. Nygard, no subject, 5/10/12
Affidavit of K. Nygard, 9/19/14
182883
An electronic copy of this information was distributed to the Council on August 14, 2014.
On August 17, staff received additional information from the adjacent property owner, Peter Lanpher,
who asked to provide information to the Council. That information was distributed electronically on
August 17, and included:
Court decision dated 5/15/12,
Appeal of that decision filed 4/22/13, and
An appeal to the Supreme Court filed 6/26/13.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council is asked to consider the appeal of Mr. Nygard, based on the information submitted.
182883
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 10 August 2015
ITEM NO: 4
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jeremy Barnhart RJO Planning Department Report
Title Community Development Director
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Request for administrative appeal; Nygard fence viewing
_____________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
Request for appeal
Statute
Fence viewer decision
Purpose. Jay Nygard requests an appeal of the fence viewer’s decision that the fence adjacent to his
property is not a partition fence.
Background. On July 6, Orono Fence Viewers inspected the fence between Jay Nygard and Peter
Lanpher’s houses. Mr. Nygard had requested fence viewers to determine if the fence is a partition
fence, a statutory designation affording the adjoining property owners certain rights.
The fence viewers determined that the fence was not a partition fence and therefore the criteria set
forth in Minn. Stat. 344 were not applicable. The fence viewers made their determination based on a
viewing of the fence and discussions with Jay Nygard and Peter Lanpher.
The fence viewers determined that there was no indication that the fence viewers originally ordered the
fence to be constructed pursuant to 344 and that the fence in question wasn’t one of the types of
fences described in 344.02 1(a) – (d). Mr. Nygard did not originally share in any of the cost associated
with the construction of the fence. It was never contemplated by the parties that the fence, when
constructed, was to serve as a partition fence. The fence is completely located on Lanphers’ property, is
owned by the Lanphers, and the Lanphers do not consider the fence to be a partition fence. The
Lanphers’ have not sought to burden the Nygards with any of the costs associated with the upkeep of
the fence. The fence is constructed of wood and is slightly discolored with small gaps in certain parts of
the fence. The fence is not in danger of falling over and does not present a safety hazard. No repair of
the fence is required.
Based on these facts, the fence viewers determined that the fence is not a partition fence and that no
repairs would have been required.
To date, no additional information has been received by Mr. Nygard.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council is asked to consider the appeal of Mr. Nygard.
Page 1
Sec. 2-41. - Right to administrative appeal.
Except as otherwise provided, if any person shall be aggrieved by any administrative decision of the
city administrator or any other city official, or any board or commission not having within its structure an
established review schedule or an appellate procedure, such aggrieved person is entitled to a full hearing
before the council upon serving a written request upon the mayor and city clerk at least seven days prior to
any regular council meeting. Such request shall contain a general statement setting forth the administrative
decision to be challenged by the appellant. At such hearing, the appellant may present any evidence he
deems pertinent to the appeal; but the city shall not be required to keep a verbatim record of the
proceedings. The mayor, or other officer presiding at the hearing, may, in the interest of justice or to comply
with time requirements and on the mayor's own motion or the motion of the appellant, the city clerk, or a
member of the council, adjourn the hearing to a more convenient time or place; but such time or place shall
be fixed and determined before adjournment so as to avoid the necessity for formal notice of reconvening.
An employee of the city who is aggrieved by an action or decision of another city employee that relates to
their employment shall exhaust the grievance procedures set forth in the administrative and personnel
policy before requesting a hearing before the city council.
(Code 1984, § 2.07)
Label Description
Nygard Exhibit 1 Complaint of fence, 7/16/12
Nygard Exhibit 2 Follow up complaint, 9/11/12
Nygard Exhibit 3 Complaint response, 9/17/12
Nygard Exhibit 4 Email from Lanpher RE Fence viewers, 5/22/13
Nygard Exhibit 5 Email from Loftus RE Appeal Court Ruling (fence painting), 4/30/12
Nygard Exhibit 6 Email from Curtis, RE Fence expansion, 10/15/12
Nygard Exhibit 7 League information, Conflict of Interest
Nygard Exhibit 8 Fence Viewer response, 7/13/15
Nygard Exhibit 9 Email from Levang RE Fence viewing summary, 7/16/15
Nygard Exhibit 10 League Information, Partition Fence Law
Pictures, no date
PD report 12-007680
PD report 12-4974
Email from J. Nygard, no subject, 6/22/12
Email from K. Nygard RE todays events 6/3/12
Pictures, no date, of picture taking
Minutes City Council 11/14/11
Forwarded Email from J Nygard RE Denny Walsh 3/2/12
Petition from The Residents of Rest Point, 10/11/11
Email from J. Nygard, no subject, 5/10/12
Affidavit of K. Nygard, 9/19/14
File, Page
B4
B10
B5
B11
B6
B7
A3-8
B1
B2-3
A1-2
B8-9
D1-2
D3
D4
D11
D9
D5
D6
D7-8
D10
D12-13
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A12-1419
Peter H. Lanpher, et al.,
Respondents,
vs.
Jay T. Nygard,
Appellant,
Kendall M. Nygard,
Defendant.
Filed April 22, 2013
Affirmed
Hooten,Judge
Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-11-25386
Mark A. Lund, James A. Heuer, Jr., Heuer, Lund & Flores, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota
(for respondents)
Jay T. Nygard, Orono, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Considered and decided by Hooten, Presiding Judge;Cleary, Judge; and Smith,
Judge.
S Y L L A B U S
The partition fence statute, Minn. Stat. §§ 344.01–.20 (2012), does not provide a
unilateral right to repair a fence located at or near a property line unless the fence is a
“partition fence” as defined under the statute and the procedural requirements of the
statute have been satisfied.
2
O P I N I O N
HOOTEN,Judge
Appellant argues that the district court erred by holding that a fence that is located
on respondents’ property but that runs along the property line with appellant’s property,
is not a partition fence. Appellant further argues that, because the fence is a partition
fence, applicable law affords him the legal right to unilaterally paint and repair the fence
without respondents’ consent or knowledge. Because appellant failed to show that the
fence at issue is a partition fence or that he complied with the requirements of the
partition fence statute, we affirm.
FACTS
The parties own adjoining properties in Orono, Minnesota. A fence separates the
properties and is located entirely on property owned by respondents Peter H. Lanpher and
Penny A. Rogers, although,at one point it is located only three inches from the property
line. The fence is made out of natural cedar, but appellant Jay T. Nygard testified that the
fence was in disrepair, was “a rotted gray color,” and had mold growing on it.
Appellant’s wife testified that she experienced allergic reactions to mold on the fence.
Appellant testified that he attempted to contact “fence viewers”1 from the city of
Orono, but was told that the city “didn’t know what they were.” In July 2011, after
appellant was unable to obtain assistance from the city regarding his complaints about
respondents’ fence, he hired a friend to paint the fence, put in screws in several spots, and
1 The “fence viewers,” as defined in Minn. St at. § 344.01, is a body that handles fence
disputes and comprised of local supervisors, city council me mbers, commissioners, or
trustees, depending on the type of municipality in which the land exists.
3
reinforce a post so that it would not fall over. Appellant never advised, or sought
permission from, respondents about these activities. When respondents learned that their
fence had been painted and repaired, they sent appellant a letter stating that they believed
he trespassed on their property and that it would cost $5,071.86 to return the fence to its
unpainted state. In addition, respondents advised appellant that they did not want any
“verbal, physical[,] or written contact” with him or his wife. Despite the letter,appellant
had the fence painted again in September 2011.Appellant testified that he believed this
second painting was permissible because respondents had not properly maintained the
fence under city code, and because the painting was done “in order to keep the fence
from falling on to my property,in order to keep my wife from getting sick from the mold,
[and] to basically improve the value of both of our properties.”
Respondents filed a conciliation court claim for $5,071.86,plus costs,for their
claimed damages to restore the fence to its natural condition. In response, appellant filed
a counterclaim for $920,plus costs,for his expenses in painting and repairing the fence.
The conciliation court awarded respondents $2,000, plus costs of $70,but that judgment
was vacated when appellant filed a demand for removal and appeal to the district court.
Following a bench trial,the district court found that appellant “decided to remedy what
[he]believed to be disrepair and mold by painting a fence that did not belong to [him].”
The district court concluded that the fence is not a partition or common fence and that the
partition fence statute does not apply because the fence is entirely on respondents’
property. As a result, the district court ordered judgment for respondents for $5,071.86,
plus costs, which was the full amount of respondents’ claimed damages.
4
ISSUE
Does the partition fence statute, Minn. Stat. §§ 344.01–.20,provide a legal basis
for appellant to unilaterally paint and repair respondents’ fence without their consent?
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the district court erred as a matter of law in finding that the
fence is not a partition fence, a status which, appellant believes, would allow him to
repair the fence and seek contribution from respondents for his costs. Respondents argue
that the fence is not a partition fence,and that the partition fence statute is inapplicable
and does not excuse what would otherwise be vandalism of their property.
“Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” Rice v.
Kringler, 517 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Minn. App. 1994). “Findings of the trial court must be
affirmed unless clearly erroneous.” Miles v. Althoff, 373 N.W.2d 655, 657 (Minn. App.
1985), review denied (Minn. Nov. 1, 1985); Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
A “partition fence” is a fence used to separate adjoining property. Minn. St at.
§344.01–.20. Only fences meeting specific requirements for height, distance between
posts, and density of barbs for barbed wire fences are partition fences, though other
fences may be sufficient if they “are considered by the fence viewers as equivalent to any
of the fences listed in this subdivision.” Minn. Stat. §344.02, subd. 1(e). The partition
fence statute allows,for land that is “improved and used,” one or both of the owners of
adjoining land to “build and maintain a partition fence between their lands in equal
shares.” Minn. Stat. §344.03, subd. 1. However, a pre-existing fence located on or near
the property line may also be designated as a partition fence by the fence viewers. See
5
Minn. Stat. §§ 344.02, subd. 1(e) (allowing a fence that does not meet the other fence
construction categories to be considered a partition fence by the fence viewers); 344.06
(allowing, when “a controversy arises concerning the rights in partition fences of the
respective occupants or their obligation to maintain the fences,” the fence viewers to
assign each property owner a share of the fence for repair or erection); McClay v. Clark,
42 Minn. 363, 364, 44 N.W. 255, 255 (1890) (noting that the parties were owners of
adjoining land,“separated by a division fence” that both parties used and benefitted from,
and which “thus served as a partition fence between their lands”).
When there are disputes about whether a fence has been properly maintained, what
type of fence to build, or where to locate the fence in reference to bodies of water that
may exist along the property lines, a body comprised of local supervisors, city council
me mbers, commissioners, or trustees, known as “fence viewers” can provide a resolution.
Minn. Stat. §§344.02, subd. 2 (requiring fence viewers to “determine what kind of fence
should be built on the line and order it built”when the parties disagree about the kind of
fence to be built); 344.04 (empowering fence viewers to “determine that an existing fence
is insufficient or a new fence is necessary”); 344.10 (allowing fence viewers to
“determine that it is impracticable, without unreasonable expense, for a partition fence to
be made on the waters at the true boundary line” and determine “on which side of the
stream or pond the fence must be erected and maintained”). When one party “fails to
build, repair, or rebuild a partition fence,” the fence viewers may order the failing party to
undertake that action or the other party may recover double their costs of performing the
work. Minn. Stat. §§ 344.04–.05.
6
Appellant first challenges the district court’s conclusion that the fence is not a
partition fence because it is wholly on respondents’ property. The statute clearly
presumes that a partition fence will be placed on the property line,but the statute
indicates that in certain situations—specifically, where a stream or pond ma kes it
“impracticable, without unreasonable expense”—the fence can be built off of the
property line. Minn. Stat. § 344.10. Moreover, the parties with adjoining property may
“agree upon [a location] as such dividing line, and as the place where the partition fence
should be built,” and “are estopped to deny that it is a partition fence” when such
agreement is evident. Oxborough v. Boesser, 30 Minn. 1, 3, 13 N.W. 906, 907 (1882).
Thus, appellant is correct that the partition fence statute and relevant caselaw do not
strictly require partition fences to be located on the property line, though the general rule
is that “a fence built by a person on his or her own land and claimed by him or her and
his or her grantees as theirs exclusively is not a division or partition fence recognized by
the statute.” 36A C.J.S. Fences §5 (2003). Despite that general rule, we decline to adopt
the district court’s conclusion that this fence is not a partition fence solely because of the
fence’s location.
Rather, we conclude that the partition fence statute does not justify appellant’s
actions for two other reasons. First, there is no indication that either party has done
anything to cause this fence to be a partition fence. For example,there is no indication
that fence viewers approved this particular fence as a partition fence, which would be
necessary because the fence is plainly not one of the statutorily enumerated varieties of
partition fences. See Minn. St at. § 344.02, subd. 1(a)–(d). There are also no indications
7
that fence viewers ordered the parties to build or maintain the fence, found the fence to be
deficient and ordered its repair, or assigned a share of the fence to appellant to be
repaired. Minn. Stat. §§ 344.04, .06. Further, fence viewers have not “decide[d]that
either occupant has voluntarily erected or otherwise become the proprietor of more than
that occupant’s just share of the fence before a complaint was made,”such that they
could order the party contributing less to “pay for the share of the fence assigned to the
other to repair and maintain.” Minn. Stat. § 344.09. Ultimately, if the “fence was not
built at such time and place, under the statute, to permit the builder of it to burden his
neighbor with part of its costs,” that fence is not a “partition fence.” Brom v. Kalmes,
304 Minn. 244, 250, 230 N.W.2d 69, 74 (1975); see also 36A C.J.S. Fences §23 (2003)
(“Although a fence actually exists between adjacent lands, it will become a partition
fence[]and the obligations and rights of the adjacent owners . . . will arise only on its
being made a partition fence by agreement, or by proceeding in the manner prescribed by
the statute[.]”).
There is no support for the assertion that appellant can unilaterally deem a fence to
be a jointly owned and controlled partition fence when it is wholly on a neighbor’s
property and was not constructed as, or converted into, a partition fence according to
statute. There are only a few cases that discuss the application of the partition fence
statute, but these cases do not specify how the fences became partition fences or involve
disputes about whether the partition fence law applies. See Rice, 517 N.W.2d at 607–0 8
(noting that one party told the other “that the fence separating the adjoining properties
needed to be replaced,” and applying the partition fence law); Miles, 373 N.W.2d at 656–
8
57 (noting that the parties owned adjoining property with a “boundary line fence,” and
applying the partition fence law); McClay, 42 Minn. at 364, 44 N.W. at 255 (noting that
“both parties ha[d]the use and benefit of such division fence, which thus served as a
partition fence between their lands”). More importantly, regardless of how the fence in
each case came to be deemed a partition fence, each case involves a party who sought
relief under the partition fence statute, a distinguishing point from the instant case.
Second, there is no independent right of repair in the partition fence statute. To
the extent that unilateral repair is contemplated, the statute only allows such repair when
fence viewers deem it necessary and have followed the specific statutory procedures for
notifying the parties and allowing the repair of the fence by the party that is required to
do so. See Rice, 517 N.W.2d at 608 (reversing a district court’s order that one party must
pay repair costs because that party was not given proper notice of the fence viewers’ visit
under the statute); 36A C.J.S. Fences §26 (2003) (“Before a duty to build, maintain, or
repair a partition fence can arise under such a statute, there must be a compliance with the
conditions imposed thereby.”). Appellant argues that he attempted to contact fence
viewers for the city of Orono, but was rebuffed because the city “didn’t want anything to
do with it” and did not “want[] to participate.” Apparently because of this lack of
response, appellant took it upon himself to repair the fence. But nothing in the partition
fence statute allows such unilateral action.
Appellant’s self-help remedy is disfavored in part because there are other legal
options through which appellant can address concerns about his neighbors’fence.
Further, appellant could have sought to force the city of Orono to perform what appears
9
to be a non-discretionary duty to have fence viewers view the fence. See Minn. St at.
§ 344.17 (“A fence viewer who unreasonably fails to perform a duty required by this
chapter shall forfeit $5 to the town or city and be liable to the injured party for all
resulting damages.”). However, neither of these other legal remedies nor anything in the
partition fence law allows appellant to take unilateral action without complying with
applicable legal procedures first.
D E C I S I O N
Because appellant failed to show that respondents’ fence is a partition fence within
the meaning of the partition fence statute, and because appellant has no independent right
to repair respondents’ fence even if it were a partition fence, the district court’s judgment
is not erroneous.
Affirmed.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A12-1419
Peter H. Lanpher, et al.,
Respondents,
vs.
Jay T. Nygard,
Petitioner,
Kendall M. Nygard,
Defendant.
O R D E R
Based upon all the files, records,and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Jay T. Nygard for further review be,
and the same is, denied.
Dated: June 26, 2013
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Lorie S. Gildea
Chief Justice
June 26, 2013
Date Application Received: 08/06/15
Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/10/15
60 –Day Review Period Extension Expires: 11/09/15
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 23 September 2015
Item No. 7
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Melanie Curtis mcc RJO Planning
Title: Planner
Item Description:
#15-3738 – Kuhl Design Build o/b/o John and Cyndy Bowlsby – 1025 Spring Hill Rd – Variances – Amend
Resolution No. 6519 – Resolution
Application Summary:
At the September 14th meeting, the Council directed staff to draft a resolution amending Resolution No. 6519
to allow changes to the approved plan for modifications to the proposed additions on the lake side of the
home within the 100-foot setback from Long Lake and lakeward of the average lakeshore setback.
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council adopt the attached resolution amending Resolution No. 6519.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider adopting or amending the attached resolution.
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Draft Resolution
Exhibit B. Revised Plan
Exhibit C. Draft Council Minutes 09/14/15
Date Application Received: 6/17/15
Date Application Considered as Complete: 7/7/15
120-Day Review Period Expires: 11/5/15
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: September 24, 2015
Item No: 8
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Mike Gaffron RJO Planning
Title: Senior Planner
Item Description: #15-3758, City of Orono & Clifford Otten, 2251 Pine Ridge Lane and
City-owned Parcel PINS 34-118-23 22 0019 (Well #3)
- Lot Line Rearrangement and Rezoning
- Adopt Resolution and Ordinance
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Approving Lot Line Rearrangement
Exhibit B. Draft Rezoning Ordinance
Exhibit C. Executed Purchase Agreement
Exhibit D. Council Minutes 8/10/15
Application Summary: The City and Cliff Otten have agreed to conditions for City
acquisition of a portion of the property at 2251 Pine Ridge Lane to accommodate Municipal
Well #4. The agreement requires three specific zoning actions: 1) lot line rearrangement; 2)
rezoning to R-1A, 1-acre Single Family District; and 3) vacation of the road easement within
Outlot C, East Willow Woods.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution for lot line
rearrangement and ordinance for rezoning of the property. A public hearing for the easement
vacation will be scheduled for the October 19 Planning Commission meeting.
At the August 10 meeting Council reviewed the proposed lot line rearrangement and rezoning, and
directed staff to draft an approval resolution for the lot line rearrangement and an ordinance for
rezoning.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the attached rezoning ordinance and resolution approving the lot
line rearrangement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
A. Motion to adopt the attached ordinance entitled An Ordinance Amending the Orono
Municipal Code by Listing the Legal Description of the Properties at 2251 Pine Ridge Lane
and 2250 Wayzata Boulevard as Rezoned from RR-1B to R-1A - File No. 15-3758.
B. Motion to adopt the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Approving a Subdivision of a
Lot Line Rearrangement at 2251 Pine Ridge Lane and 2250 Wayzata Boulevard - File No.
15-3758.
Date Application Received: 7/20/2015
Date Application Considered as Complete: 7/30/2015
60-Day Review Period Expires: 9/30/2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 28 September, 2015
ITEM NO: 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jeremy Barnhart RJO Planning Department Report
Title Community Development Director
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: #15-3768, Michael and Lisa Larson, Ordinance amendment related to dog
boarding and grooming in B-1 zoning district
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Purpose. The applicants propose an ordinance amendment that defines dog boarding, daycare, and
grooming and allows those uses as a conditional use permit in the B-1 zoning district.
Background. On September 14, the City Council reviewed the proposed text amendment that would
allow indoor dog boarding, indoor dog day care, and dog grooming as a conditional use in the B-1 zoning
district. The City Council tabled action on the item, noting uncertainty with the business, in particular
noise. The Council questioned how other communities handle this type of the business.
On September 21, the applicant presented their plans for The Woofington as a Conditional use Permit
application to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission tabled action, wishing to see a
redesign of the entrance and an opportunity to observe similar locations.
Other locations. Since the meeting on the 14th, staff has visited 4 area indoor dog day care/ boarding
facilities, spoken with staff at these facilities, and spoken with the planners in these cities.
Puptown in Medina is a large facility, having a 13,000 square feet outdoor play area. Puptown is in a
commercial area. On site, staff observed little dog barking. The adjacent Hwy 55 may have drowned
out dog noise. Medina recently approved an expansion of the number of dogs.
Camp Bow Wow in Plymouth is in an industrial area. On site, staff observed minimal dog noises.
Adogo has two locations in Minnetonka, one near Ridgedale and another on Baker Road. Both sites
have outdoor play areas. The Ridgedale location is new, and is adjacent to residential uses,
including single family residential to the north. A large apartment building was recently built
adjacent to the Ridgedale property.
Adogo on Baker road was their first location in Minnetonka. This is a commercial location.
Minnetonka’s planner noted no concerns or complaints for any of their locations.
The applicants have provided locations of other similar businesses adjacent to residential areas,
attached.
Zoning characteristics. The zoning district allows, by right, pet shops, which inherently include dogs and
cats for sale. The zoning district allows, as a conditional use, garages for automotive repair, provided
repair occurs indoors. The concerns with automotive garages are often the sounds from clanking tools
and the whine of power tools. The requirement to place the garage business within the building is
consistent with the definition of dog boarding and dog day care. The only outdoor activities are relief.
The Council may wish to consider placing per square foot limits on the number of dogs, and a
requirement that the Conditional Use Permit ensure that noise is mitigated.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
List of Exhibits
Draft Ordinance
Planning Commission exhibits
Competition Maps
Noise mitigation strategy presented to the Planning Commission
Page 1 of 2
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 78-1 REGARDING DEFINITIONS AND 78-644
REGARDING DOG GROOMING AND SPA SERVICES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby amended
by adding text as follows:
“Sec. 78-1. Definitions.
Dog Boarding means indoor overnight boarding services for more than three dogs aged
greater than six months.
Dog Daycare means indoor daycare services for more than three dogs aged greater
than six months.
Dog Grooming means a premises where pet grooming services such as bathing, teeth
cleaning, haircuts, and nail polishing and trimming are provided.
SECTION 2. Section 78-644 of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding text as follows:
“Sec. 86-644. Conditional uses.
(11.) Dog Boarding, with a maximum density of 1 dog per 85 square feet of floor area.
(12.) Dog Daycare, with a maximum density of 1 dog per 85 square feet of floor area.
(13.) Dog Grooming
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this ___th day of _____________, 2015 on a vote of __ ayes and __
nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Page 2 of 2
______________________________ _____________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2015.
Date Application Received: 07/22/15
Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/10/15
60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/09/15
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 22 September 2015
Item No. 10
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Melanie Curtis mcc RJO Planning
Title: Planner
Item Description: #15-3773, Bill Brueggeman o/b/o Steve Elliott, 1400 Baldur Park Rd, CUP & Variance -
Resolution
Application Summary:
The property owner is planning to demolish the existing home and construct a new family home on the
property. The new home must be constructed to conform to all applicable laws and regulations. In order to
conform to the floodplain regulation, the lowest floor of the home must be at or above the regulatory flood
protection elevation (RFPE). The RFPE is one foot above the elevation with 1% annual chance of flooding
(formerly referred to as the 100-year floodplain elevation), and follows the 931.5’ elevation contour.
Therefore, the RFPE for Lake Minnetonka is established at 932.5’; the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
requires an additional foot above the RFPE for all openings. The applicant’s proposal contemplates cutting
and filling within the property in order to elevate the proposed home to meet the floodplain regulations.
Additionally, the City’s floodplain regulations require all structures proposed to be elevated on fill material to
have the fill material continue for a width of 15 feet around the perimeter of the structure to be elevated. The
subject property is 50 feet wide; the proposed home is 30 feet wide. While the 10-foot LR-1C district setback
can be met, there is not sufficient room on either side of the home to fully comply with the 15-foot perimeter
fill requirement. The applicant requests a variance to this code provision.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On August 17, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the
evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the
conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit evidence of MCWD permits prior to placement on the City Council’s agenda
for review. This has been submitted (see Exhibit D).
Further, the application was presented to the planning commission without the variance element; staff made
the correction and published for a variance public hearing at the Council’s September 28th meeting. The
Council should hold the public hearing regarding the application prior to discussing the details of the project.
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP and variance allowing for redevelopment of the property.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should hold a public hearing consider adopting or amending the variance and CUP approval resolution.
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Draft Resolution
Exhibit B. Proposed Survey
Exhibit C. Practical Difficulty Analysis – Variance
Exhibit D. MCWD Permit
Exhibit E. Floodplain Regulation Excerpts
Exhibit F. PC Staff Report & Exhibits
Exhibit G. PC Minutes
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 28 September 2015
ITEM NO: 11
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jeremy Barnhart RJO Planning Department Report
Title Community Development Director
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: #15-3775, City of Orono, Text amendment regarding temporary signs
_____________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
Draft Ordinance
Purpose. The ordinance amends the sign ordinance in several ways, achieving the following goals:
1. Remove private signage from city right of way
2. Allow additional signage for commercially zoned properties that provide signage for charitable
organizations.
3. Give the city authority to display any sign within its own Right of Way or property.
Background.
The Council reviewed a draft text amendment on September 14 that:
1. Allow temporary signs that meet certain parameters in the Right of Way (city
jurisdiction only) and city property following a permit.
2. Allow temporary signs in commercial zones for a specific period of time, and allow
additional signage for commercially zoned properties that provide signage for charitable
organizations.
3. Amend the ordinance to reflect recent Supreme Court rulings on free speech.
4. Give the city authority to display any sign within its own Right of Way or property.
The Council had concerns with the ordinance, recognizing the need, but noting that the changes
proposed require more discussion, in particular the definition of content neutral and the signage
changes proposed in the residential area.
Staff suggests addressing the more pressing issues in the ordinance, and revisiting the content neutral
and signs on public property at a later time. The revised ordinance allows businesses an extra sign if
they advertise for a community event, and removes the opportunity for private signage on public
property all together.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as presented.
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 78-1466 REGARDING SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Chapter Section 788-1 of the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby
amended by adding and deleting text as follows:
Sec. 78-1466. - Signs as accessory use.
Signs are a permitted accessory use in all districts subject to the following regulations:
(1) On right-of-way. Private signs are prohibited within the public right-of-way or easements, except
that the council may grant a conditional use permit to locate signs and decorations on or within the right-of-
way under their jurisdiction for a specified time not to exceed 90 days. No conditional use permit for such a
sign shall be issued by the council if a conditional use permit or temporary sign permit had been issued in
the previous 24 months to that property. (Purposely Left Blank)
(8) Temporary signs.
a. A temporary sign may be displayed on commercially zoned property up to 4 times per
calendar year, for a period not to exceed 10 days per time. There shall be no more than four
temporary business signs issued per calendar year, and for a period of not more than ten
days per time or of the duration of the event promoted by the sign message, whichever is
less. A property providing signage for charitable organizations (as defined by Internal
Revenue Code section 501 (c)(3)), or city, community, nonprofit organizations shall be
permitted temporary signage up to 5 times per calendar year and 50 calendar days . The
sign (including banners or balloons), sign supports or portable stand shall be removed from
public view at the end of the period. Total area of the sign shall not exc eed 32 square feet
per surface (64 square feet total signage allowed for two-sided portable sign) and may be
up to 8 feet in height. Advertising balloons are not subject to area restrictions but must meet
all applicable federal and state standards.
1. A permit shall be issued to a business, on behalf of a city, community, nonprofit, or
charitable organizations as defined by Internal Revenue Code section 501 (c)(3),
provided the following standards are satisfied. Nonprofit organizations shall be
limited to three signs per event and the signs shall not exceed 10 days of display. No
sign shall be larger than 32 sq ft, or higher than 8 feet in height. For the purposes of
this Chapter, community events shall include Orono Police and Long Lake events,
and Navarre Community Initiative and Orono school district events.
b. There shall be no more than one temporary sign in any required yard area, and, if separate
multiple signs are proposed, the total area of the signs shall not exceed 32 square feet.
Temporary business signs require a building permit from the city. No such permit shall be
issued by the city if a conditional use permit under section 78-1467(1)c has been issued to
a residential property. No temporary sign shall be allowed in residential zones unless
Page 2 of 2
permitted as election or sale signs under this section. Multitenant buildings shall be
considered as a single property for purposes of subsection (8) of this section; and the use of
the single temporary business sign by tenants on the property shall be the responsibility of
the property owner or designated manager, who shall endorse in writing all applications for
sign permits.
c. The owner or manager of the sign and the owner of the property shall be equally responsible
for the proper location, maintenance and removal of the sign. All temporary signs shall be
located on a property so that they do not impede safety by obstructing vision of pedestrians
or motor vehicle operators.
d. The city may, without notice, remove any temporary sign erected in v iolation of this section
or any other federal, state, or local law or ordinance. Any signs not claimed within 30 15 days
after removal may be destroyed by the city.
e. The City of Orono may display signs of any size within its property and R ight of W ay in its
jurisdiction.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this ___th day of _____________, 2015 on a vote of __ ayes and __
nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
______________________________ _____________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2015.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 28, 2015
ITEM NO: 12
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards RJO Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report
____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Watertown Road Reconstruction (w/ Long Lake)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
A- Feasibility Report
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to provide the council an opportunity to review and accept
the Feasibility Report for the project to rebuild our shared portion of Watertown Road with the City of
Long Lake.
2. Background. Watertown Road is a Collector road for the City of Orono. From Willow Road to
Brown Road responsibility for its care is shared with the City of Long Lake due to the alignment of the
cities’ boundaries. Orono owns 29.5% of the road surface by square footage along this stretch of road
with Long Lake owning the remainder. Long Lake is proposing to rebuild this section of the road in 2016
and is looking to partner with Orono to do so. Long lake is considering rebuilding the road and replacing
the utilities that currently run under this section of Watertown Road. Orono does not have any utilities
under this section of Watertown road. At the February 23rd Work Session the Council provided direction
to staff to use reclamation costs as a basis for Orono’s cost share in the project. In May of 2015 both
Long Lake and Orono approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The JPA authorizes long lake to
manage the project with Orono participating through funding. Both City Councils will have to approve
the final plans and the award of the project.
3. Feasibility Report. The City of Long Lake accepted the Feasibility Report (Exhibit A) at their last
council meeting but is still considering which design option to include in the final design. Key items
they are deliberating include the roadway width and whether or not to include a rain gardens as part of the
storm water system. The feasibility study does not recommend any change to Orono’s contribution to the
project.
4. Cost/ Funding. Per the JPA Orono shall contribute to 29.5% of the feasibility report, 29.5% of a
surface, storm sewer storm water management, construction administration and materials testing costs up
to $133,800. The project would be funded from the Pavement Management Fund.
6. Timing. Below is a revise timeline for the project.
What When
Execute JPA (Long Lake/Orono) May, 2015
Receive Feasibility Report (Long Lake/Orono) September, 2015
Design (Long Lake/Orono) October, 2015
Receive Bids February, 2016
Construction Summer 2016
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to accept the Watertown Road Feasibility Study.
City of Long Lake
450 Virginia Avenue, PO Box 606 • Long Lake, MN 55356
September 15, 2015
Watertown Road
Improvement Project
City of Long Lake
Hennepin County, Minnesota
WSB Project No. 2151-120
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120
FEASIBILITY REPORT
WATERTOWN ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FOR THE
CITY OF LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA
September 15, 2015
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
763-541-4800
763-541-1700 (Fax)
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
September 15, 2015
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Long Lake
450 Virginia Avenue, PO Box 606
Long Lake, MN 55356
Re: Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
The following is a feasibility report which addresses street improvements for the Watertown
Road Improvement Project. The roadway investigated in this report includes Watertown Road
from the City of Long Lake/City of Orono municipal boundary to Brown Road. The proposed
improvements for the Watertown Road Improvement Project consist of the removal of the
existing pavement surface, placement of new concrete curb and gutter, and a new bituminous
pavement surface.
We would be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience. Please give us a call at
763-231-4860 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Chris LaBounty, PE
City Engineer
Enclosure
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed
professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Prepared By:
Chris LaBounty, PE
Date: September 15, 2015 Lic. No. 49837
Quality Control Review Completed By:
Brian Bourassa, PE
Date: September 15, 2015 Lic. No. 21816
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1
2. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Authorization ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Scope ................................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 Data Available .................................................................................................................... 2
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Surface ................................................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Sanitary Sewer & Watermain ............................................................................................. 5
3.3 Storm Sewer ........................................................................................................................ 5
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................. 6
4.1 Surface ................................................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Sanitary Sewer & Watermain ............................................................................................. 6
4.3 Storm Sewer ........................................................................................................................ 7
4.4 Right-of-Way ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.5 Permits/Approvals .............................................................................................................. 7
4.6 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 7
4.7 Design Alternative .............................................................................................................. 8
5. FINANCING .................................................................................................................................. 9
5.1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (Base Project) ...................................................... 9
5.2 Funding (Base Project) ....................................................................................................... 9
5.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (Design Alternative) .......................................... 10
5.4 Funding (Design Alternative) ........................................................................................... 11
5.5 Special Assessments ......................................................................................................... 11
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE .............................................................................................................. 12
7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION........................................................................... 13
APPENDIX A
Project Location Map
Drainage Ditch Sub-watershed Map
Roadway Section Alternatives
APPENDIX B
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
APPENDIX C
Preliminary Assessment Map
Preliminary Assessment Roll
APPENDIX D
Public Comments Received
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Watertown Road Improvement Project includes surface improvements and limited utility
improvements on Watertown Road between Brown Road and the municipal boundary between
the City of Long Lake and the City of Orono, east of Willow Drive.
This report recommends improvements to Watertown Road that includes: removal of the existing
pavement section, necessary utility replacements, subgrade corrections as necessary, installation
of concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and culvert improvements, and placement of a new
bituminous roadway surface.
The total estimated project cost for the Watertown Road Improvement Project is $880,000 which
includes a 10% contingency and 28% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative, and
financing. Proposed funding for the project is through City Street Improvement Funds, City
Utility Funds, and special assessments to benefiting properties in the City of Long Lake.
This report also identified two project opportunities for the City of Long Lake to consider
beyond the base Watertown Road Improvement Project. With the Base Project the City may
consider additional water improvements north of Watertown Road and to Glendale Drive.
Additional costs to the City of Long Lake for these improvements are estimated at $119,000
which includes a 10% contingency and 28% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative,
and financing.
A design alternative project may also be considered which includes additional surface and utility
improvements along Harrington Drive from Watertown Road to Glendale Drive. The total
estimated project cost for the design alternative is $1,067,000 which includes a 10% contingency
and 28% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative, and financing. Proposed funding
for the project is through City Street Improvement Funds, City Utility Funds, and special
assessments to benefiting properties in the City of Long Lake. All improvements outlined herein
are proposed to be completed in the 2016 construction season.
Should the City determine that adequate funds are available, the additional water improvements
and design alternative as proposed is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering
standpoint. The feasibility of this design alternative is subject to financial review by the City.
Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended to proceed with the
Watertown Road improvements as outline, with the option for the additional water
improvements and design alternative. The proposed project is feasible, necessary, and cost-
effective from an engineering standpoint.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 2
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Authorization
In May, 2015 the City of Long Lake and the City of Orono entered into a Joint Powers
Agreement for the Watertown Road Improvement Project, and on May 19, 2015, the Long Lake
City Council authorized the preparation of an engineering feasibility report for the Watertown
Road Improvement Project.
2.2 Scope
This report investigates the feasibility of surface and utility improvements for the following
roadways:
Watertown Road (Brown Road to western municipal boundary)
Harrington Drive (Watertown Road to Glendale Drive)
Watertown Road within the study area has been identified on the City of Long Lake and City of
Orono Pavement Management Plans for improvements in 2016. A map of the study area can be
found in Appendix A of this report.
2.3 Data Available
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following:
City of Long Lake Record Drawings
City of Long Lake Street Reconstruction Assessment Policy
Field Observations of the Area and Discussions with City Staff
Pavement Coring Data
Private Utility Maps
Utility Maintenance Records
Hennepin County Property Data
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 3
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
Roadways in the study area were generally constructed in the late 1950’s. The pavement in the
proposed project area is currently aged and experiencing differing severities of stresses
including: alligator cracking, edge cracking, longitudinal cracking, raveling, and transverse
cracking. The photographs below depict the level of distress in the existing pavement in the
proposed project area. The photograph on the left is an example of re-occurring potholes in the
surface pavement and the photograph on the right is an area of alligator cracking. This level of
pavement distress is consistent in this project area.
Watertown Road; June 2015
.
The existing bituminous pavement thickness varies from 5.5-inch to 7.5-inch, with sand or sandy
gravel base material. Underlying soils are a mixture of silt, clay, and sand. Table 3.1 below is a
summary of the pavement coring completed in the project area.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 4
Table 3.1 – Summary of Pavement Coring
Core
ID Location
Pavement
Thickness (In.)
Base
Thickness (In.)
Base
Material
1 E. of Westwood 5.5 5.5 Sandy Gravel
2 At Westwood 6.0 5.0 Sandy Gravel
3 At Inglewood 7.0 8.0 Sand
4 At Harrington 7.5 6.5 Sand
5 W. of Harrington 7.0 0.0 N/A
Source: WSB & Associates, Inc., June 2015
The existing roadway section is primarily rural (no curb and gutter exists), but potions of the
project area have bituminous curbs. The existing pavement width varies from approximately 23
feet to 30 feet within the project area with a corridor average width of 24 feet. A summary of
widths along the project area can be found in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2 - Existing Road Widths on Watertown Road
Point Number* Existing Width Measured From
1 23.5 ft. Edge of curb
2 24.4 ft. Edge of curb
3 24.4 ft. Edge of curb
4 26.7 ft. Edge of curb
5 23.6 ft. Edge of curb
6 23.8 ft. Edge of curb
7 24.2 ft. Edge of curb
8 24.5 ft. Edge of curb
9 23.9 ft. Edge of curb
10 28.1 ft. Edge of curb
11 29.7 ft. Edge of curb
12 24.0 ft. Edge of curb
13 23.2 ft. Edge of curb
14 23.3 ft. Edge of curb
*See Pavement Map in Appendix A for location.
Source: WSB & Associates, Inc., June 2015
The City’s standard residential roadway section is 32-foot from face of curb to face of curb. The
City Council has authorized the reduction of this standard to 28-foot from face of curb to face of
curb in recent residential reconstruction projects; many of which are in the adjacent areas.
No sidewalks or tails currently exist within the proposed improvement study area. The City of
Long Lake’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan currently indicates a proposed trail along the north side
of Watertown Road within the project area. The City of Orono’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan does
not propose a trail along the corridor.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 5
3.2 Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
The sanitary sewer consists of 8-inch VCP pipe, and discussions with Public Works staff
indicated the facilities within the project area are functioning adequately. Many of the existing
manholes that were field inspected have been reconditioned within the past ten years, and no
significant damage or wearing was identified.
An existing sanitary sewer lift station exists at the intersection of Watertown Road and
Harrington Drive. This lift station discharges through a 4-inch-diameter forcemain pipe which
connects the lift station to a sanitary sewer manhole located on Harrington Drive. From
discussions with Public Works staff, this lift station is currently believed to be at or nearing
capacity as a result of the 4-inch diameter forcemain pipe.
The existing watermain in the project area consists of 6-inch-diameter cast iron pipe, and Public
Works records indicated the facilities within the project area are functioning adequately. There
have been no significant watermain breaks in recent years within the base project area.
North of the project area, a 6-inch-diameter watermain exists within a series of private properties
and connects the watermain on Watertown Road to the watermain on Glendale Drive. This
watermain currently provides a loop to the City’s system in this area, but has a history of breaks
that are difficult to replace partially due to the lack of permanent easement over the pipe and
partially due to the topography and vegetation around the pipe.
3.3 Storm Sewer
There are limited storm sewer facilities in the project area. A storm sewer system exists within
the northern boulevard between Harrington Drive and Neilson Avenue. This system is a
reinforced concrete pipe system with periodic yard drain inlets. Field investigations discovered
that the system condition appears to be sufficient, but has accumulated large amounts of
sediment in inlets from the roadway and at the outlet.
Existing corrugated metal pipe culverts also exist in the project area to convey stormwater under
driveways and Watertown Road. Many of the driveway culverts were found to be functioning,
but damaged. A more substantial culvert exists west of the intersection of Watertown Road and
Harrington Drive, which allows stormwater from an adjacent drainage ditch to pass under
Watertown Road. Approximately 94.5 acres of the City of Long Lake and City of Orono drain to
this drainage ditch and, based on discussions with Public Works, during large rain stormwater
overtops the roadway. The existing culvert appears to be undersized for the drainage area that
currently outlets through this facility.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 6
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Surface
The condition and age of the existing pavements within the Watertown Road Improvement
Project area warrant surface improvements at this time. The proposed surface improvements for
the Watertown Road Improvement Project area consists of removal of the existing pavement
section, placement of new aggregate base as necessary, and a new pavement section. In addition
to the new bituminous pavement, the project is proposed to include the construction of new
concrete curb and gutter through the project area.
The new roadway width is proposed to be constructed narrower than the City’s 32-foot (face of
curb to face of curb) standard; construction is proposed to a 28-foot (face of curb to face of curb)
section with B618 concrete curb and gutter.
Property owners in the project area expressed concerns regarding current speeds on Watertown
Road and ineffectiveness of the existing stop sign at Watertown Road and Harrington Drive. In
conjunction with the street reconstruction, the project proposes to include traffic calming
geometry at the intersection.
A bituminous trail is not proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the improvement
project. The proposed trail would effectively create an east-west connection along the southern
limits of the City (connecting Willow Drive to Brown Road), but this appears to be redundant to
the existing Luce Line State Trail which is located approximately 0.4 miles south of the project
area.
4.2 Sanitary Sewer & Watermain
The existing sanitary sewer system in the project area is functioning adequately according to
Public Works staff, and thus, no major maintenance is proposed at this time. Repair of minor
areas of settlement around manholes, replacement of adjustment rings, and installation of
chimney seals are proposed as necessary for construction.
The existing 4-inch-diameter forcemain is proposed to be upsized to a 6-inch-diameter pipe
under the proposed project area in conjunction with the project.
Watermain in the project area is functioning adequately in the base project area according to
Public Works staff, and thus no significant replacement work is proposed at this time. Existing
gate valves and fire hydrants are proposed to be reconstructed or replaced in conjunction with the
project. In addition a connection is proposed to be constructed in Watertown Road west of
Neilson Avenue.
The City may also consider additional watermain improvements north of the base project area
which includes the replacement of the existing watermain in place including new service
connections and restoration of private property. Should the City proceed with these
improvements permanent drainage and utility easements are recommended to be acquired.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 7
4.3 Storm Sewer
The existing storm sewer system in the project area is in generally good condition and no
replacement or major maintenance work is proposed at this time. Repair of minor areas of
settlement around catch basins, cleaning of inlets, and the replacement of deteriorated rings are
proposed with the project. Additional storm sewer laterals are proposed to collect surface water
from the proposed curb and gutter.
Culverts and storm sewer crossings are proposed to be replaced and upsized as approved by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Stormwater Management Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed to be included in the
project. BMPs are proposed at the discharge points of the project area to off-site areas. These
include the culvert on the east side of the project area and the drainage ditch west of Harrington
Drive. In addition, in areas it is feasible to construct rain gardens, property owners will be
contacted to inquire if they would be willing to maintain a garden.
4.4 Right-of-Way
It is anticipated that all work will take place within the existing City right-of-way or within
drainage and utility easements (existing or acquired). Additional right-of-way is not anticipated
to be necessary for the construct the project as proposed.
4.5 Permits/Approvals
This project does not currently propose to disturb more than one (1) acre of underlying subgrade
material, and therefore, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will
not be required. Permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Minnesota
Department of Health permit will be required.
4.6 Public Involvement
A Neighborhood Open House for the Watertown Road Improvement Project was conducted on
August 26, 2015. Preliminary information was presented to approximately 8 attendees regarding
the proposed improvements, costs, funding, schedule, and impacts associated with the project.
Comment cards were made available to attendees at the meeting. Summaries of the
correspondence received are included in Appendix D.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 8
4.7 Design Alternative
A design alternative may also be considered by the City of Long Lake, which includes the
reconstruction of Harrington Drive between Watertown Road and Glendale Drive to the same
proposed width and pavement section as Watertown Road. Improvements would also include the
replacement of sanitary sewer castings, upsizing of sanitary sewer forcemain, and construction of
a new watermain connection beneath the reconstructed roadway. Prior to abandonment of the
existing loop system west of Harrington Drive, the City should consider investigating pre-project
and post-project fire flows conditions in their water model to ensure the stub provides sufficient
or at a minimum equivalent volumes.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 9
5. FINANCING
5.1 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (Base Project)
A detailed breakdown of the cost opinion for the proposed project can be found in Appendix B
of this report. The opinion of cost incorporates estimated 2016 construction costs and also
includes a 10% contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the estimated
construction cost and include legal, engineering, administrative, and financing. Table 5.1 below
provides a summary of anticipated construction costs for the base project area.
Table 5.1 - Watertown Road Improvement Project
Base Project Costs
Project Costs
Surface Improvements $ 597,000
Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 36,000
Watermain Improvements $ 109,000
Storm Sewer Improvements $ 98,000
Stormwater Management $ 40,000
TOTAL COSTS $880,000
Additional water improvements may also be considered for including in the base project costs by
the City of Long Lake. A detailed breakdown of the cost opinion for the additional water
improvement costs can be found in Appendix B of this report. The opinion of cost includes a
10% contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the estimated construction cost
and include legal, engineering, administrative, and financing. Table 5.2 includes a summary of
costs of the base project with additional water improvement costs.
Table 5.2 - Watertown Road Improvement Project
Base Project with Additional Water Improvement Costs
Project Costs
Base Project Costs $ 880,000
Additional Water Improvements $ 119,000
TOTAL COSTS $999,000
5.2 Funding (Base Project)
The base project area cost is estimated to be $880,000, and funding for the Watertown Road
Improvement Project is proposed to come from the City Street Improvement Funds, City Utility
Funds, and special assessments to benefiting properties in the City of Long Lake. A breakdown
of funding sources is shown in Table 5.3 below.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 10
Table 5.3 - Watertown Road Improvement Project
Base Project Proposed Funding
Funding Source
Street Improvement Funds $393,800
Sanitary Utility Funds $36,000
Watermain Utility Funds $109,000
Storm Sewer Utility Funds $72,000
Special Assessments $135,400
City of Orono Contribution $133,800
TOTAL FUNDING $880,000
Should the City determine to proceed with the additional water improvements, the total
additional costs of $119,000 are proposed to be funded with the City of Long Lake Watermain
Utility Fund.
The preliminary assessment roll and preliminary assessment map can be found in Appendix C.
The City of Orono is not proposing to assess City of Orono properties.
5.3 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (Design Alternative)
A detailed breakdown of the cost opinion for the design alternative proposed project area can
also be found in Appendix B of this report. The opinion of cost incorporates estimated 2016
construction costs and also includes a 10% contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at
28% of the estimated construction cost and include legal, engineering, administrative, and
financing. Table 5.4 below provides a summary of anticipated construction costs for the design
alternative project area.
Table 5.4 - Watertown Road Improvement Project
Design Alternative Project Costs
Project Costs
Surface Improvements $ 677,000
Sanitary Sewer Improvements $ 76,000
Watermain Improvements $ 172,000
Storm Sewer Improvements $ 102,000
Stormwater Management $ 40,000
TOTAL COST $ 1,067,000
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 11
5.4 Funding (Design Alternative)
The recommended scope total design alternative project cost is estimated to be $1,067,000, and
funding for the Watertown Road Improvement Project is proposed to come from the City Street
Improvement Funds, City Utility Funds, and special assessments to benefiting properties in the
City of Long Lake. A breakdown of funding sources is shown in Table 5.5 below.
Table 5.5 - Watertown Road Improvement Project
Design Alternative Proposed Funding
Funding Source
Street Improvement Funds $ 456,100
Sanitary Utility Funds $ 76,000
Watermain Utility Funds $ 172,000
Storm Sewer Utility Funds $ 72,000
Special Assessments $ 157,100
City of Orono Contribution $ 133,800
TOTAL FUNDING $ 1,067,000
The preliminary assessment roll and preliminary assessment map can be found in Appendix C.
The City of Orono is not proposing to assess City of Orono properties.
5.5 Special Assessments
Special assessments for benefiting properties in the City of Long Lake are determined as set
forth by the City’s Special Assessment Policy for Road Improvements/Reconstruction. Per the
City’s Assessment Policy, benefitting property owners will be assessed by the actual parcel
square footage up to a cap of 18,000 square feet per sub-dividable, buildable lot for a residential
properties.
The assessment rate for a given project will be based on the increased market value of a parcel
due to that improvement. The City of Long Lake completed a special benefit appraisal for the
Watertown Road Improvement Project and has set the assessment rate for this project at $0.37
per square foot of assessable area (per the City’s policy).
Per the City’s policy, corner lots are proposed to be assessed at half of the total assessable square
footage for each side abutting an improved roadway.
The preliminary assessment roll and preliminary assessment map can be found in Appendix C.
The City of Orono is not proposing to assess City of Orono properties.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 12
6. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed project schedule for the Watertown Road Improvement Project is as follows:
Execute JPA (Long Lake/Orono)................................................................... May, 2015
Authorize Feasibility Report ..................................................................... May 19, 2015
Neighborhood Meeting ........................................................................ August 27, 2015
City of Orono Receives Feasibility Report ..................................... September 14, 2015
City of Long Lake Receives Feasibility Report .............................. September 15, 2015
Hold Public Improvement Hearing/Order Project ............................... October 20, 2015
Bid Opening ................................................................................................ March, 2016
Assessment Hearing ...................................................................................... April, 2016
Begin Construction ........................................................................................ May, 2016
Final Wearing Course ................................................................................... May, 2017
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Page 13
7. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
The Watertown Road Improvement Project is proposed to include surface improvements and
limited utility improvements on Watertown Road between Brown Road and the municipal
boundary between the City of Long Lake and the City of Orono east of Willow Drive.
Improvements include: removal of the existing pavement section, necessary utility replacements,
subgrade corrections as necessary, installation of concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer and
culvert improvements, and placement of a new bituminous roadway surface.
The total estimated project cost for the Watertown Road Improvement Project is $880,000 which
includes a 10% contingency and 28% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative, and
financing. Proposed funding for the project is through City Street Improvement Funds, City
Utility Funds, and special assessments to benefiting properties in the City of Long Lake.
This report also identified two project opportunities for the City of Long Lake to consider
beyond the base Watertown Road Improvement Project. With the Base Project the City may
consider additional water improvements north of Watertown Road and to Glendale Drive. A
design alternative project may also be considered which includes additional surface and utility
improvements along Harrington Drive from Watertown Road to Glendale Drive.
Additional water improvement costs associated with the base project area are estimated at
$119,000, and the total estimated project cost for the design alternative is $1,067,000. These
costs include a 10% contingency and 28% indirect costs for legal, engineering, administrative,
and financing.
Proposed funding for the project is through City Street Improvement Funds, City Utility Funds,
and special assessments to benefiting properties in the City of Long Lake. All improvements
outlined herein are proposed to be completed in the 2016 construction season.
Should the City determine that adequate funds are available, the additional water improvements
and design alternative as proposed is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering
standpoint. The feasibility of this design alternative is subject to financial review by the City.
Based on the information contained in this report, it is recommended to proceed with the
Watertown Road improvements as outline, with the option for the additional water
improvements and a design alternative. The proposed project is feasible, necessary, and cost-
effective from an engineering standpoint.
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Project Location Map
Drainage Ditch Subwatershed Map
Roadway Section Alternatives
C
i
t
y
o
f
L
o
n
g
L
a
k
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
O
r
o
n
o
W
a
t
e
r
t
o
w
n
R
d
Grand Ave
De
v
i
n
L
n
Brown Rd N
Co
l
i
n
D
r
H
a
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
D
r
I
n
g
l
e
w
o
o
d
S
t
Brown Rd S
Ne
i
l
s
o
n
A
v
e
Lakeview Ave
Westwood Dr
Glendale Cove Ln
Creek Ridge PassKennedy LnDocument Path: K:\02151-030\GIS\Maps\ProjectLocation.mxd Date Saved: 1/30/2015 2:01:58 PM
Wa
t
e
r
t
o
w
n
R
o
a
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ci
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
1
i
n
c
h
=
3
0
0
f
e
e
t
±
Ba
s
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
De
s
i
g
n
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
E
x
t
r
a
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
Lo
n
g
L
a
k
e
Or
o
n
o
Or
o
n
o
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
S
H
E
D
M
A
P
Wa
t
e
r
t
o
w
n
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
LE
G
E
N
D
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
t
o
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
[
9
4
.
5
a
c
]
Wa
t
e
r
t
o
w
n
R
o
a
d
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
V 0500 1 inch = 500 feet
Se
r
v
i
c
e
L
a
y
e
r
C
r
e
d
i
t
s
:
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
E
s
r
i
,
D
i
g
i
t
a
l
G
l
o
b
e
,
G
e
o
E
y
e
,
i
-
c
u
b
e
d
,
U
S
D
A
,
U
S
G
S
,
A
E
X
,
G
e
t
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
,
A
e
r
o
gr
i
d
,
I
G
N
,
I
G
P
,
s
w
i
s
s
t
o
p
o
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
I
S
U
s
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
:
Dr
a
i
n
a
g
e
A
r
e
a
=
9
4
.
5
a
c
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
=
2
6
c
f
s
DE
S
I
G
N
F
L
O
W
S
:
Q 2 = 34 cfs
Q 10
= 75 cfs
Q 10
0
= 181 cfs
28’
O
P
T
I
O
N
WATERTOWN ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
32’ O
P
T
I
O
N
24’
28’
32’
EXISTING WIDTH
SECTION
SECTION
(CITY STANDARD)
28’
O
P
T
I
O
N
WATERTOWN ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
32’ O
P
T
I
O
N
EXISTING WIDTH
24’
28’
32’
SECTION
SECTION
(CITY STANDARD)
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Project:Watertown Road Improvement Project
Project Location:City of Long Lake & Orono
WSB Project No:02151-120
Item
No.
MnDOT
Spec. No.Description Unit Unit Price
Estimated
Quantity Estimated Cost
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION L. SUM $45,000.00 1 $45,000.00
2 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $350.00 10 $3,500.00
3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $350.00 10 $3,500.00
4 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT $4.00 100 $400.00
5 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) SQ YD $3.00 6,500 $19,500.00
6 2104.523 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL STREET SIGN EACH $150.00 6 $900.00
7 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $3.00 1,200 $3,599.33
8 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPING STRUCTURES L. SUM $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
9 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX & MAILBOX SUPPORT EACH $100.00 20 $2,000.00
10 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD $8.00 3,000 $24,000.00
11 2105.501 COMMON BORROW CU YD $14.00 800 $11,200.00
12 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD $10.00 500 $5,000.00
13 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CU YD $12.00 500 $6,000.00
14 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD $24.00 800 $19,200.00
15 2105.601 DEWATERING L. SUM $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
16 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD $2.50 1,000 $2,500.00
17 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA $150.00 23 $3,450.00
18 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON $12.00 3,000 $36,000.00
19 2531.601 8" THICK CONRETE DRIVEWAY APRON SQ YD $40.00 200 $8,000.00
20 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $3.50 600 $2,100.00
21 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) TON $68.00 830 $56,440.00
22 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) TON $66.00 830 $54,780.00
23 2360.503 3" THICK TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $25.00 200 $5,000.00
24 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION L. SUM $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
25 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN B618 LIN FT $12.00 5,500 $66,000.00
26 2540.602 MAIL BOX (TEMPORARY) EACH $20.00 20 $400.00
27 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L. SUM $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
28 2573.530 CULVERT PROTECTION EACH $250.00 6 $1,500.00
29 2573.540 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT $3.50 2,000 $7,000.00
30 2573.602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH $750.00 6 $4,500.00
31 2575.501 SEEDING AND MULCHING ACRE $3,500.00 2 $7,000.00
32 2575.501 TEMPORARY SEEDING ACRE $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
33 2575.601 INSTALL RAIN GARDEN EACH $2,500.00 2 $5,000.00
34 2564.637 INSTALL SIGN EACH $150.00 10 $1,500.00
Sub Total:$423,969.33
10% Contingency: $42,396.93
Sub Total (Construction):$466,366.27
28% Indirect: $130,582.55
TOTAL: $596,948.82
35 2104.501 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN PIPE LIN FT $10.00 100 $1,000.00
36 2503.511 6" SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN PIPE LIN FT $80.00 100 $8,000.00
37 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00
38 2503.602 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CASTING REPLACEMENT EACH $1,000.00 10 $10,000.00
39 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEAL EACH $250.00 10 $2,500.00
Sub Total:$25,500.00
10% Contingency: $2,550.00
Sub Total (Construction):$28,050.00
28% Indirect: $7,854.00
TOTAL: $35,904.00
A. Surface Improvements
Opinion of Probable Cost
Engineers Estimate
B. Sanitary Improvements
Project:Watertown Road Improvement Project
Project Location:City of Long Lake & Orono
WSB Project No:02151-120
Item
No.
MnDOT
Spec. No.Description Unit Unit Price
Estimated
Quantity Estimated Cost
Opinion of Probable Cost
Engineers Estimate
40 2104.501 REMOVE WATERMAIN PIPE LIN FT $3.00 50 $150.00
41 2014.509 RECONSTRUCT EXISTING GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $1,000.00 7 $7,000.00
42 2014.509 REMOVE EXISTING HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH $300.00 5 $1,500.00
43 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH $1,500.00 2 $3,000.00
44 2504.602 HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH $5,500.00 5 $27,500.00
45 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
46 2504.603 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN LIN FT $40.00 550 $22,000.00
47 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION SQ YD $40.00 50 $2,000.00
48 2504.620 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS - EPOXY COATED POUND $4.00 1,500 $6,000.00
Sub Total:$77,150.00
10% Contingency: $7,715.00
Sub Total (Construction):$84,865.00
28% Indirect: $23,762.20
TOTAL: $108,627.20
49 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT $5.00 100 $500.00
50 2502.521 6" PT PIPE DRAIN LIN FT $20.00 150 $3,000.00
51 2502.601 6" TP PIPE DRAIN CLEAN OUT EACH $250.00 4 $1,000.00
52 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V LIN FT $36.00 200 $7,200.00
53 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III LIN FT $38.00 200 $7,600.00
54 2503.541 36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III LIN FT $80.00 50 $4,000.00
55 2503.601 18" RC PIPE APRON EACH $1,750.00 2 $3,500.00
56 2503.601 36" RC PIPE APRON EACH $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00
57 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCH BASIN) EACH $650.00 14 $9,100.00
58 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT $350.00 12 $4,200.00
59 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60-4020 LIN FT $450.00 11 $4,950.00
60 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH $1,500.00 7 $10,500.00
61 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 2 EACH $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
Sub Total:$69,550.00
10% Contingency: $6,955.00
Sub Total (Construction):$76,505.00
28% Indirect: $21,421.40
TOTAL: $97,926.40
62 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $350.00 15 $5,250.00
63 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $350.00 15 $5,250.00
64 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD $8.00 1,000 $8,000.00
65 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH $3,500.00 2 $7,000.00
66 2575.501 SEEDING AND MULCHING ACRE $7,500.00 0.4 $3,000.00
Sub Total:$28,500.00
10% Contingency: $2,850.00
Sub Total (Construction):$31,350.00
28% Indirect: $8,778.00
TOTAL: $40,128.00
TOTAL WATERTOWN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: $879,534.42
E. Stormwater Management
C. Watermain Improvements
D. Storm Sewer Improvements
Project:Watertown Road Improvement Project
Project Location:City of Long Lake & Orono
WSB Project No:02151-120
Item
No.
MnDOT
Spec. No.Description Unit Unit Price
Estimated
Quantity Estimated Cost
67 2021.501 MOBILIZATION L. SUM $7,000.00 1 $7,000.00
68 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $350.00 14 $4,900.00
69 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $350.00 14 $4,900.00
70 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) SQ YD $3.00 400 $1,200.00
71 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $3.00 20 $60.00
72 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPING STRUCTURES L. SUM $1,500.00 1 $1,500.00
73 2105.601 DEWATERING L. SUM $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00
74 2360.503 3" THICK TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $25.00 400 $10,000.00
75 2573.540 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT $3.50 500 $1,750.00
76 2575.501 SEEDING AND MULCHING ACRE $3,500.00 1 $3,500.00
77 2104.501 REMOVE WATERMAIN PIPE LIN FT $3.00 500 $1,500.00
78 2014.509 REMOVE EXISTING GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $1,000.00 1 $1,000.00
79 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH $1,500.00 4 $6,000.00
80 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $2,000.00 1 $2,000.00
81 2504.603 1.5" TYPE K COPPER SERVICE PIPE LIN FT $28.00 100 $2,800.00
82 2504.602 1.5" CORP STOP EACH $600.00 5 $3,000.00
83 2504.602 1.5" CURB STOP EACH $600.00 5 $3,000.00
84 2504.603 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN LIN FT $40.00 500 $20,000.00
85 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION SQ YD $40.00 50 $2,000.00
86 2504.620 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS - EPOXY COATED POUND $4.00 1,500 $6,000.00
Sub Total:$84,110.00
10% Contingency: $8,411.00
Sub Total (Construction):$92,521.00
28% Indirect: $25,905.88
TOTAL: $118,426.88
TOTAL WATERTOWN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (ADDITIONAL WATER IMPROVEMENTS): $118,426.88
Opinion of Probable Cost - Additional Water Improvements
Engineers Estimate
F. Additional Water Improvements
Project:Watertown Road Improvement Project
Project Location:City of Long Lake & Orono
WSB Project No:02151-120
Item
No.
MnDOT
Spec. No.Description Unit Unit Price
Estimated
Quantity Estimated Cost
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION L. SUM $45,000.00 1 $45,000.00
2 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $350.00 14 $4,900.00
3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $350.00 14 $4,900.00
4 2104.501 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER LIN FT $4.00 100 $400.00
5 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) SQ YD $3.00 7,700 $23,100.00
6 2104.523 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL STREET SIGN EACH $150.00 6 $900.00
7 2104.513 SAWING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) LIN FT $3.00 1,500 $4,500.00
8 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL LANDSCAPING STRUCTURES L. SUM $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
9 2104.602 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL MAILBOX & MAILBOX SUPPORT EACH $100.00 20 $2,000.00
10 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD $8.00 3,400 $27,200.00
11 2105.501 COMMON BORROW CU YD $14.00 900 $12,600.00
12 2105.507 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD $10.00 700 $7,000.00
13 2105.522 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV) CU YD $12.00 700 $8,400.00
14 2105.525 TOPSOIL BORROW CU YD $24.00 900 $21,600.00
15 2105.601 DEWATERING L. SUM $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
16 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD $2.50 1,000 $2,500.00
17 2112.501 SUBGRADE PREPARATION STA $150.00 27 $4,050.00
18 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON $12.00 3,600 $43,200.00
19 2531.601 8" THICK CONRETE DRIVEWAY APRON SQ YD $40.00 200 $8,000.00
20 2357.502 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK COAT GAL $3.50 800 $2,800.00
21 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) TON $68.00 950 $64,600.00
22 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) TON $66.00 950 $62,700.00
23 2360.503 3" THICK TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT SQ YD $25.00 250 $6,250.00
24 2505.601 UTILITY COORDINATION L. SUM $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
25 2531.501 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER, DESIGN B618 LIN FT $12.00 6,200 $74,400.00
26 2540.602 MAIL BOX (TEMPORARY) EACH $20.00 20 $400.00
27 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL L. SUM $5,000.00 1 $5,000.00
28 2573.530 CULVERT PROTECTION EACH $250.00 6 $1,500.00
29 2573.540 SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED LIN FT $3.50 2,500 $8,750.00
30 2573.602 TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH $750.00 6 $4,500.00
31 2575.501 SEEDING AND MULCHING ACRE $3,500.00 2.4 $8,400.00
32 2575.501 TEMPORARY SEEDING ACRE $1,000.00 1.5 $1,500.00
33 2575.601 INSTALL RAIN GARDEN EACH $2,500.00 2 $5,000.00
34 2564.637 INSTALL SIGN EACH $150.00 10 $1,500.00
Sub Total:$480,550.00
10% Contingency: $48,055.00
Sub Total (Construction):$528,605.00
28% Indirect: $148,009.40
TOTAL: $676,614.40
35 2104.501 REMOVE SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN PIPE LIN FT $10.00 400 $4,000.00
36 2503.511 6" SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN PIPE LIN FT $80.00 400 $32,000.00
37 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH $2,000.00 2 $4,000.00
38 2503.602 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CASTING EACH $1,000.00 11 $11,000.00
39 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEAL EACH $250.00 11 $2,750.00
Sub Total:$53,750.00
10% Contingency: $5,375.00
Sub Total (Construction):$59,125.00
28% Indirect: $16,555.00
TOTAL: $75,680.00
Opinion of Probable Cost - Design Alternative
Engineers Estimate
A. Surface Improvements
B. Sanitary Improvements
Project:Watertown Road Improvement Project
Project Location:City of Long Lake & Orono
WSB Project No:02151-120
Item
No.
MnDOT
Spec. No.Description Unit Unit Price
Estimated
Quantity Estimated Cost
Opinion of Probable Cost - Design Alternative
Engineers Estimate
40 2104.501 REMOVE WATERMAIN PIPE LIN FT $3.00 50 $150.00
41 2014.509 RECONSTRUCT EXISTING GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $1,000.00 8 $8,000.00
42 2014.509 REMOVE EXISTING HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH $300.00 5 $1,500.00
43 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH $1,500.00 2 $3,000.00
44 2504.602 HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EACH $5,500.00 5 $27,500.00
45 2504.603 1.5" TYPE K COPPER SERVICE PIPE - DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED LIN FT $50.00 500 $25,000.00
46 2504.602 1.5" CORP STOP EACH $600.00 5 $3,000.00
47 2504.602 1.5" CURB STOP EACH $600.00 5 $3,000.00
48 2504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH $2,000.00 4 $8,000.00
49 2504.603 8" PVC C-900 WATER MAIN LIN FT $40.00 850 $34,000.00
50 2504.604 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION SQ YD $40.00 50 $2,000.00
51 2504.620 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS - EPOXY COATED POUND $4.00 1,750 $7,000.00
Sub Total:$122,150.00
10% Contingency: $12,215.00
Sub Total (Construction):$134,365.00
28% Indirect: $37,622.20
TOTAL: $171,987.20
52 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM) LIN FT $5.00 300 $1,500.00
53 2502.521 6" PT PIPE DRAIN LIN FT $20.00 200 $4,000.00
54 2502.601 6" TP PIPE DRAIN CLEAN OUT EACH $250.00 4 $1,000.00
55 2503.541 15" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS V LIN FT $36.00 200 $7,200.00
56 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III LIN FT $38.00 200 $7,600.00
57 2503.541 36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 CLASS III LIN FT $80.00 50 $4,000.00
58 2503.601 18" RC PIPE APRON EACH $1,750.00 2 $3,500.00
59 2503.601 36" RC PIPE APRON EACH $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00
60 2506.602 CASTING ASSEMBLY (CATCH BASIN) EACH $650.00 14 $9,100.00
61 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 48-4020 LIN FT $350.00 15 $5,250.00
62 2506.501 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 60-4020 LIN FT $450.00 11 $4,950.00
63 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH $1,500.00 7 $10,500.00
64 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 2 EACH $4,000.00 1 $4,000.00
Sub Total:$72,600.00
10% Contingency: $7,260.00
Sub Total (Construction):$79,860.00
28% Indirect: $22,360.80
TOTAL: $102,220.80
65 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $350.00 15 $5,250.00
66 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $350.00 15 $5,250.00
67 2105.501 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD $8.00 1,000 $8,000.00
68 2506.502 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN SPECIAL 1 EACH $3,500.00 2 $7,000.00
69 2575.501 SEEDING AND MULCHING ACRE $7,500.00 0.4 $3,000.00
Sub Total:$28,500.00
10% Contingency: $2,850.00
Sub Total (Construction):$31,350.00
28% Indirect: $8,778.00
TOTAL: $40,128.00
TOTAL WATERTOWN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS (DESIGN ALTERNATE): $1,066,630.40
D. Storm Sewer Improvements
E. Stormwater Management
C. Watermain Improvements
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Appendix C
APPENDIX C
Preliminary Assessment Map
Preliminary Assessment Roll
21
2
431
5
96
8
16
7
271110
15
14
19
29281213
20
24
22
26
17 18
25
23
W A T E R T O W N R D
GRAND AVE
W I L L O W D R N
B R O W
N R D N
H A R R I N G T O N D R
I N G L E W O O D S T
G L E N D A L E D R
L A K E V I E
W A V E
A P P L E
G L
E N R D
NEILSON AVE
U
P
P
E
R
L
E
A
L
N
WOODHAVEN DR
W
E
S
T
W
O
O
D
D
R
D U P O N T S T
C H A R L E S S T
V
A
L
L
E
Y
V
I
E
W
S
T
KENNEDY LN
Watertown Road Improvement ProjectPreliminary Assessment RoleLong Lake, MN
Ü
0 350Feet
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
P
a
t
h
:
K
:
\
0
2
1
5
1
-
1
2
0
\
G
I
S
\
M
a
p
s
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
o
l
e
.
m
x
d
Pr ojec t Are a
Alternate Area
Pa rce ls
Asse ssed Parc els
City Boundar y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
Wa
t
e
r
t
o
w
n
Ro
a
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Ci
t
y
of
Lo
n
g
La
k
e
an
d
Or
o
n
o
Re
c
l
a
i
m
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Rate (Sq. Ft.):0.37 $
WS
B
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
No
.
:
02
1
5
1
‐12
0
20
0
8
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Rate (Sq. Ft.)0.51 $ BASE PROJECT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
1
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
7
K
E & C HU
I
S
K
E
N
2
2
9
8
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
2
7
,
3
6
5
.
3
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
2
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
6
J
R & C E DU
N
N
2
2
9
6
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
6
6
,
1
6
7
.
1
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
3
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
8
P
A
T
T
I
WE
B
E
R
2
2
8
0
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
2
7
,
8
6
5
.
5
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
4
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
0
9
G
A
I
L
KO
E
H
N
E
N
ET
AL
SU
B
/
L
E
2
2
6
0
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
4
0
,
7
8
7
.
1
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
5
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
6
0
J
O
H
N
A & JO
D
I
K PE
L
T
I
E
R
6
5
HA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
8
,
4
0
0
.
8
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
‐6,660.00 $
6
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
6
1
J
A
M
E
S
D BE
N
S
O
N
5
5
HA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
4
,
1
7
4
.
1
0
7
,
0
8
7
.
0
5
*
2
,
6
2
2
.
2
1
$
5,244.41 $
7
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
3
9
S
T
E
V
E
N
C HA
L
L
7
8
HA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
4
0
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
4
0
‐4,440.14 $
8
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
4
0
R
DI
P
R
I
M
A
& E DI
P
R
I
M
A
6
6
HA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
3
,
5
0
6
.
4
0
1
3
,
5
0
6
.
4
0
‐4,997.36 $
9
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
4
1
P
L ST
A
A
C
K
& D K ST
A
A
C
K
5
0
HA
R
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
6
,
0
0
4
.
3
0
8
,
0
0
2
.
1
5
*
2
,
9
6
0
.
8
0
$
5,921.59 $
10
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
3
0
0
5
3
L
O
R
I
GO
O
D
S
E
L
L
2
2
0
6
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
8
,
6
4
5
.
9
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
11
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
4
4
M
A
R
Y
AN
N
PI
E
T
E
R
I
C
K
5
7
IN
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
ST
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
8
,
7
1
7
.
9
0
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
,
3
3
0
.
0
0
$
3,330.00 $
12
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
5
4
C
H
A
R
L
E
S
E MO
B
U
R
G
5
8
IN
G
L
E
W
O
O
D
ST
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
4
,
0
0
5
.
4
0
7
,
0
0
2
.
7
0
2
,
5
9
0
.
9
9
$
2,590.99 $
13
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
8
0
D
R SH
A
N
N
O
N
& K A SH
A
N
N
O
N
2
1
6
2
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
3
,
7
9
4
.
4
0
1
3
,
7
9
4
.
4
0
5
,
1
0
3
.
9
2
$
5,103.92 $
14
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
8
1
D
KE
R
S
T
E
N
& S KE
R
S
T
E
N
2
1
5
6
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
5
,
9
8
8
.
7
0
1
5
,
9
8
8
.
7
0
5
,
9
1
5
.
8
1
$
5,915.81 $
15
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
7
9
S
T
E
V
E
N
D TR
U
A
X
2
1
5
8
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
8
,
4
8
8
.
8
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
16
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
7
8
R
O
G
E
R
L BA
U
S
E
R
2
1
6
0
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
2
4
,
2
9
7
.
4
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
17
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
6
3
M
O
L
L
Y
L KI
R
K
P
A
T
R
I
C
K
2
1
2
8
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
,
1
3
8
.
3
0
1
2
,
1
3
8
.
3
0
4
,
4
9
1
.
1
7
$
4,491.17 $
18
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
6
4
D
E
A
N
V SU
C
H
Y
& MA
R
I
E
E SU
C
H
Y
2
1
1
4
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
,
0
9
0
.
1
0
6
,
0
4
5
.
0
5
2
,
2
3
6
.
6
6
$
2,236.66 $
19
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
7
3
J
O
H
N
D CA
Y
L
O
R
2
1
0
0
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
5
,
6
2
8
.
0
0
7
,
8
1
4
.
0
0
2
,
8
9
1
.
1
8
$
2,891.18 $
20
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
7
4
T
E HE
N
J
U
M
& P C HE
N
J
U
M
2
0
5
0
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
3
,
0
2
0
.
5
0
1
3
,
0
2
0
.
5
0
4
,
8
1
7
.
5
8
$
4,817.58 $
21
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
7
6
C
H
U
R
C
H
OF
ST
GE
O
R
G
E
2
0
3
8
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
2
5
8
,
7
5
8
.
0
0
4
6
,
2
1
6
.
2
2
1
7
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
17,100.00 $
22
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
1
1
K
A KO
V
A
L
I
K
& R M KO
V
A
L
I
K
2
1
7
5
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
,
4
1
3
.
2
0
1
2
,
4
1
3
.
2
0
4
,
5
9
2
.
8
8
$
4,592.88 $
23
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
1
3
A
J AL
B
R
E
C
H
T
& K J LY
N
C
H
2
1
6
7
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
1
,
5
4
0
.
3
0
1
1
,
5
4
0
.
3
0
4
,
2
6
9
.
9
1
$
4,269.91 $
24
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
1
4
S
B RO
B
I
N
S
O
N
& R A RO
B
I
N
S
O
N
2
1
5
3
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
,
9
6
4
.
1
0
1
2
,
9
6
4
.
1
0
4
,
7
9
6
.
7
1
$
4,796.71 $
25
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
1
5
S
K AN
D
R
U
S
& S A SH
A
R
P
E
2
1
4
3
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
1
,
9
5
2
.
7
0
1
1
,
9
5
2
.
7
0
4
,
4
2
2
.
4
9
$
4,422.49 $
26
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
1
6
R
A CA
R
L
S
O
N
& M L CA
R
L
S
O
N
2
1
2
5
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
2
,
1
6
3
.
6
0
1
2
,
1
6
3
.
6
0
4
,
5
0
0
.
5
3
$
4,500.53 $
27
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
0
8
K
E
L
L
I
J MO
E
N
& DA
V
I
D
MO
E
N
2
1
0
1
WA
T
E
R
T
O
W
N
RD
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
2
3
,
2
6
3
.
3
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
$
6,660.00 $
28
34
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
1
7
J
E
A
N
N
I
E
JO
H
N
S
O
N
7
3
WE
S
T
W
O
O
D
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
4
,
6
1
0
.
6
0
7
,
3
0
5
.
3
0
2
,
7
0
2
.
9
6
$
2,702.96 $
29
3
4
1
1
8
2
3
3
4
0
0
3
4
K
E
N
T
R HA
F
T
& SH
E
L
L
I
L HA
F
T
82
WE
S
T
W
O
O
D
DR
,
LO
N
G
LA
K
E
,
55
3
5
6
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
4
,
7
1
2
.
0
0
7
,
3
5
6
.
0
0
2
,
7
2
1
.
7
2
$
2,721.72 $
Nu
m
b
e
r
of
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
to
Be
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
:
26
2
9
To
t
a
l
Am
o
u
n
t
to
Be
As
s
e
s
s
e
d
:
135,348
$
157,028 $
*D
e
s
i
g
n
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Ar
e
a
La
r
g
e
r
th
a
n
Ba
s
e
Ar
e
a
**
T
h
e
Ci
t
y
of
Or
o
n
o
Do
e
s
No
t
As
s
e
s
s
fo
r
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Wa
t
e
r
t
o
w
n
Ro
a
d
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
Ro
l
l
MA
P
I
D
P
I
D
F
E
E
O
W
N
E
R
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
AS
S
E
S
S
E
D
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
AR
E
A
(
S
Q
.
FT
.
)
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
AR
E
A
(S
Q
.
F
T
.
)
Feasibility Report
Watertown Road Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 2151-120 Appendix D
APPENDIX D
Public Comments Received
1
9
September
2015
Watertown
Road
Improvement
Project:
(Between
Brown
Road
on
the
east
and
Willow
on
the
west)
The
major
issues
associated
with
the
roadway
improvement
beyond
improving
the
pavement
surface
include;
• Vehicular
speed—A
major
current
issue
on
Watertown
Road
is
the
speed
of
vehicles
moving
thru
the
neighborhood.
It
has
been
a
problem
for
years.
The
improvement
project
should
not
intensify
the
problem
and
in
fact
should
do
what
it
can
to
reduce
the
problem.
• Storm
water
control
and
pollutant
removal—Currently
storm
water
control
is
not
very
good
along
this
portion
of
Watertown
Road.
The
improvement
project
should
not
only
increase
the
control
but
should
also
improve
the
water
quality
of
the
runoff.
• Continuity
of
Aesthetics—Both
the
east
and
west
ends
of
this
stretch
of
roadway
are
extremely
low
density
with
a
lot
of
trees
and
landscaping.
The
improvement
project
should
not
change
the
existing
image.
I
believe
that
with
community
input
and
the
possible
infusion
of
grant
monies
that
these
issues
can
be
effectively
addressed
and
cost
reduced.
Some
points
which
can
address
these
issues
are
as
follows.
These
are
not
a
complete
list
but
it
is
a
start.
Landscaping
Elements
and
Traffic
Calming:
Aesthetics:
• “drivers...prefer
plants
that
are
taller,
more
dense,
and
that
screen
views
of
adjacent
commercial
land”
(“Safe
Streets”)
• “larger
objects
such
as
trees
would
be
most
effective
at
influencing
drivers’
mental
states”
(Macdonald
134)
• “the
presence
of
street
trees
was
associated
with
greater
sense
of
spatial
edge”
(Macdonald
43)
Many
cities
have
regulations
about
distance
between
road
and
trees
for
safety
reasons.
Raingardens
incorporate
tall,
dense
plants
such
as
native
grasses,
which
could
fulfill
the
same
visual
effects
as
trees
and
provide
an
ecological
function.
2
Stress
and
Mood:
• “initial
exposure
to
a
natural
roadside
setting
decreased
the
magnitude
of
response
to
a
subsequent
stressful
task”
(“Safe
Streets”)
• “The
anger
and
frustration
often
associated
with
stressful
experiences
may,
in
turn,
trigger
unsafe
or
aggressive
driving”
(“Safe
Streets”)
• “driving
scenes
through
park-‐like
areas
elicited
the
least
effect
on
blood
pressure
and
quickest
recovery
from
stress
and
highest
scores
on
subject
tests”
(Macdonald
129-‐130)
Because
stress
and
anger
are
associated
with
poor
driving,
a
road
lined
with
raingardens
would
reduce
the
likelihood
of
dangerous
driving
and
improve
a
driver’s
experience
on
the
road.
Safety:
• “drivers
slowed
their
driving
speeds
upon
encountering
the
trees
closer
to
the
roadway,
suggesting
that
they
‘read’
the
surroundings
and
reacted
accordingly”
(Macdonald
31)
• “drivers
on
edge
[paint]-‐lined
roadways
drove
closer
to
the
center
of
the
road”
(Macdonald
32)
• “The
findings
from
this
[Toronto]
pilot
study
indicated
that
a
positive
correlation
exists
between
the
landscape
improvements
to
the
roadside
and
reduction
in
mid-‐block
accidents”
(5%-‐20%
decrease)
(Naderi
7)
• “The
analysis
of
differences
in
the
average
crash
rates
[10
locations,
3-‐5
years
monitored
before
and
after]
seems
to
suggest
that
the
‘roadside
landscaping’…‘median
landscaping’…and
‘sidewalk
widening
and
tree
planting’
treatments
positively
affect
safety
performance”
(Mok,
Landphair,
Naderi
7)
• “after
the
landscape
improvement,
accidents
related
to
pedestrian
crossing,
walking,
or
standing
in
roadways
showed
a
decrease”
(Mok,
Landphair,
Naderi
8)
A
road
edged
with
landscaping
is
more
effective
at
indicating
the
boundaries
of
the
road,
and
leads
to
safer
driving.
Raingardens
would
be
particularly
useful
in
“lining”
or
“edging”
the
road,
because
they
are
dense
at
a
level
closer
to
the
ground
than
trees
would
be.
Beyond
reducing
traffic
accidents,
landscaping
can
also
be
used
to
provide
an
attractive
neighborhood
appearance.
Sources:
Macdonald,
Sanders,
Supawanich.
“The
Effects
of
Transportation
Corridors'
Roadside
Design
Features
on
User
Behavior
and
Safety,
and
Their
Contributions
to
Health,
Environmental
Quality,
and
Community
Economic
Vitality:
a
Literature
Review.”
University
of
California
Transportation
Center,
2008.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
3
Mok,
Jeonghun.
Landphair,
Harlow
C.
Rosenblatt
Naderi,
Jody.
“Comparison
of
Safety
Performance
of
Urban
Streets
Before
and
After
Landscape
Improvements.”
Texas
A
&
M
University.
Nacto.org,
2003.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
Rosenblatt
Naderi,
Jody.
“Landscape
Design
in
the
Clear
Zone:
The
Effect
of
Landscape
Variables
on
Pedestrian
Health
and
Driver
Safety.”
Texas
A
&
M
University.
Southwest
Region
University
Transportation
Center,
2002.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
“Safe
Streets.”
University
of
Washington,
College
of
the
Environment,
2014.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
Curb
and
Gutter
Systems
vs.
roadside
swales:
Curb
and
Gutter
Uses:
• “curbing
at
the
outside
edge
of
pavements
is
a
normal
practice
for
low-‐speed,
high
traffic
urban
highway
facilities”
(Minnesota
Department
of
Transportation
12)
• “curbs
and
gutters
are
designed
to
quickly
convey
runoff
from
the
street
to
the
storm
drain
without
removing
pollutants”
(EPA)
• Used
to
distinguish
road
from
sidewalk
(“Road
Storm
Drainage
Systems”)
• Curbs
“enable
the
orderly
development
of
property
adjacent
to
the
roadway”
(Minnesota
Department
of
Transportation
12)
• Stops
erosion
in
areas
with
soils
susceptible
to
high
water
volume
(“Road
Storm
Drainage
Systems”)
Curb
and
gutter
systems
are
best
for
high-‐traffic,
high-‐density
areas
with
a
relatively
low
runoff
volume.
Curb
and
gutter
systems
are
most
efficient
in
removing
runoff
from
the
roadway,
but
convey
the
water
directly
to
a
larger
body
of
water
without
removing
pollutants.
Roadside
Swale
Uses:
• “The
use
of
engineered
swales
in
place
of
curbs
and
gutter
should
be
encouraged
in
low
and
medium
density
residential
zones”
(EPA)
• “The
flow
from
major
areas
draining
towards
road
way
pavements
should
be
intercepted
in
the
swale
as
appropriate”
(Minnesota
Department
of
Transportation
12)
so
swales
are
capable
of
diverting
storm
water
from
entering
a
roadway,
as
well
as
capturing
it
once
it’s
there
• For
larger
amounts
of
runoff
(“Road
Storm
Drainage
Systems”)
• Reduces
quantity
of
runoff
to
local
water
body,
and
can
remove
pollutants
(EPA)
Swales
are
good
solutions
for
low-‐density
areas,
and
are
effective
in
blocking
runoff
from
entering
a
roadway.
Swales
(rain
gardens)
can
also
capture
and
filter
the
runoff
before
it
enters
a
body
of
water.
4
Cost
and
Maintenance:
• Swales
may
experience
erosion
if
vegetation
is
not
enough
to
manage
the
runoff,
so
other
lining
may
be
needed
(“Road
Storm
Drainage
Systems”)
• Swales
can
become
full
of
sediment
and
require
maintenance
to
function
properly
(Walker)
• Curbs
and
gutters
($36/linear
foot)
are
twice
as
expensive
as
a
grass
swale
(EPA)
While
swales
(with
rain
gardens)
are
initially
less
expensive
than
curbs
and
gutters,
they
do
require
maintenance.
Swales
better
address
storm
water
control
both
entering
and
leaving
roadways.
Swales
with
rain
gardens
add
to
the
aesthetics
surrounding
the
road
way
which
curb
and
gutters
do
not
accomplish.
Sources:
“Eliminating
Curbs
and
Gutters.”
EPA.
Np.,
nd.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
“Road
Storm
Drainage
Systems.”
Michigan
State.
Drainage
Manual,
7.
Sept.
2009.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
“Storm
Drainage
Systems.”
Minnesota
Department
of
Transportation.
Drainage
Manual.
8.
Aug
30,
2000.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
Walker,
Donald.
“Local
Road
Assessment
and
Improvement
Drainage
Manual.”
University
of
Wisconsin-‐Madison,
Transportation
Information
Center.
Nd.
Web.
17
Aug
2015.
IN
SUMMARY;
We
feel
that
the
best
solution
for
the
improvement
of
Watertown
Road
would
be
to
keep
it
at
the
present
width
of
24
feet
with
no
curbs
and
treatment
of
storm
water
with
rain
gardens
in
appropriate
locations.
The
possible
exception
to
this
approach
would
be
to
widen
it
as
appropriate
to
accommodate
parking
on
one
side
of
Watertown
Road
on
the
section
of
road
from
Inglewood
to
Westwood
Drive.
The
concept
of
being
able
to
park
on
the
street
in
that
area
has
been
supported
and
requested
by
some
of
the
residents
in
that
area.
Parking
on
one
side
would
in
addition
act
as
a
traffic
calming
device
just
as
the
24
foot
wide
roadway
would
in
the
other
sections
of
Watertown.
Residents
on
Watertown
Road
are
thankful
for
the
Council’s
wiliness
to
seek
input
from
the
people
most
affected.
The
control
of
speed
is
the
most
critical
aspect
of
the
roadway
improvement.
The
24
foot
wide
road
with
no
curb
and
gutter
and
dealing
with
rain
gardens
in
the
less
dense
areas
with
the
widening
to
28
feet
in
the
dense
area
to
allow
parking
on
one
side
accomplishes
this.
5
The
benefits
of
this
approach
are;
1. Speed
is
addressed
in
a
very
straightforward
way.
2. Storm
water
is
addressed
in
an
efficient
way
to
reduce
pollutants
and
eliminates
the
need
for
larger
ponding
areas.
3. The
ambiance
of
the
streetscape
is
maintained
with
acknowledgement
of
the
wooded
sections
of
the
street
with
residences
on
only
one
side
of
the
street
and
low
density
on
the
other
side.
4. Costs
are
reduced
for
the
roadway
construction
and
storm
water
treatment
by
bringing
in
grants
from
the
MCWD.
To
address
the
first
3
items
in
a
better
way
while
still
reducing
over
all
costs
is
a
worthy
goal.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
City
in
accomplishing
these
goals
successfully
as
we
move
forward.
Metro
Blooms
has
successfully
done
exactly
what
we
are
proposing
as
a
solution
that
will
benefit
both
the
directly
adjacent
residents
as
well
as
the
City
of
Long
Lake
and
the
City
of
Orono
in
general.
Thank
you
and
feel
free
to
call
me
with
any
questions.
Neil
Weber
2280
Watertown
Road
Long
Lake,
MN
952-‐476-‐4434
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 28, 2015
ITEM NO: 13
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards RJO Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report
____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Watertown Road Phase 2
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
A- Street Drawing
B- Cost Estimate
C- Bolton & Menk, Inc. Letter
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to complete Engineering and Design for
Water Town Road Phase 2.
2. Background. On 20 May 2014 Bolton & Menk presented a feasibility study for the Rehabilitation of
Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road. On October 27, 2014 the Council decided to phase the project
over multiple years and approved engineering services for survey, design and bidding for reconstruction
of Phase one which included Stubbs Bay Road from Watertown Road to Bayside Road and Watertown
Road from Stubbs Bay Road to Old Crystal Bay Road. On May 11th, 2015 the City awarded the contract
for phase one. Phase one is near completion.
3. Phasing. The following are the phases of construction for the Watertown Road project as outlined at
the October 27th, 2014 council meeting. (Exhibit A)
a. Phase 1. Watertown Road from Old Crystal Bay to Stubbs Bay Road and Stubbs Bay Road from
Watertown Road to Bayside Road
b. Phase 2. Watertown Road from Turnham Road to Stubbs Bay Road and Old Crystal Bay Road to
Long Lake City Limits.
4. Phase 2 Scope of Work. This phase of the project will consist of the reclamation of the bituminous
pavement, select subgrade corrections, and the replacement / improvement of the associated Stormwater
system. The project consist of two sections which abut the section of Watertown Road that was
reclaimed in 2015.
a. Section 1. Watertown Road from Turnham Road to Stubbs Bay Road
b. Section 2. Watertown Road from Old Crystal Bay Road to Long Lake City Limits
5. Cost. The estimated cost for Phase Two is $1,509,283. (Exhibit B)
6. Funding. The project will be funded with a combination of Municipal State Aid funds and the Storm
Water Fund.
Fund Section 1 Section 2 Total
MSA construction $ 804,524 $ 452,326 $ 1,256,850
Storm Water Fund $ 150,255 $ 102,178 $ 252,433
Total $ 954,778 $ 554,504 $ 1,509,283
7. Timing. In order to move forward with the project starting in 2016 we will require authorization to
conduct survey and engineering work this fall/winter, complete plans and specs for advertisement and
bidding in the winter/spring and commence in the 2016 construction season.
Council Authorizes Project Development and Design ...................................September 28, 2015
Public Meeting to Review Design ....................................................................... December, 2015
Council Review of Design and Cost………............................................................ January, 2016
Mn/DOT State Aid Review ................................................................................... February, 2016
Design Revisions per State Aid Review .................................................................... March, 2016
Advertise for Bids ...................................................................................................... March, 2016
Open Bids/ Award........................................................................................................ April, 2016
Construction …………………………………………………………………….….Summer 2016
8. Surveying, Project Development and Design Services. Bolton and Menk has provided a scope of
services for Water town Road Phase 2 (Exhibit C). Their fee estimate is not to exceed $155,000. A
separate scope and fee for construction services will be presented at the construction award.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize the project development and design and approve the Bolton and Menk project
development proposal for a fee not to exceed $155,000.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 28, 2015
ITEM NO: 14
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards ATE RJO Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Water Treatment System Improvements – Pay Request No. 6
______________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
A- Recommendation Letter from Bolton & Menk
B- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 6
1. Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request #6 of the Water Treatment System
Improvements
2. Background. On January 12, 2015, the Council awarded the contract to improve the city’s water
treatment facilities to Municipal Builders, Inc and further authorized Bolton and Menk to perform
construction oversight. Work includes updating the chemical feed system to meet MN Department of
Health requirements as well as replacing roofing, replacing doors, painting, new electrical and HVAC
improvements.
3. Cost. Total Cost for the project is $707, 960 broken down as listed below:
Who Work Cost
Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid Engineering $42,160
Municipal Builders, Inc Water Treatment Improvements $625,000
Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $40,800
TOTAL $707,960
4. Funding. This project is funded from a bond issue in 2014.
5. Status. Municipal Builders has completed approximately 94% of the work and has requested
payment of $19,084.06. (Exhibit B). Bolton and Menk has reviewed the payment request and
confirmed that the work has been completed to standard (Exhibit A).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve Pay Request No. 6 to Municipal Builders, INC. in the amount of $19,084.06
for the Water Treatment Systems Improvement project.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 28, 2015
ITEM NO: 15
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Olson RJO
Title Finance Director City Administrator’s Report
Item Description: Orono Police Garage - Pay Request #13
Attachments:
Kraus Anderson, the Construction Manager for the garage project, has submitted pay request
number ten on behalf of the contractors working on the project. The pay request is for
$13,857.70. Including this pay request, a total of $2,696,965.60 (97%) of the $2,783,857.00
contract has been paid.
The contractors and amounts are as follows:
Description Amount
Kellington Construction, Inc $ 10,157.90
Maxx Steel Erectors $ 737.50
Midwest Fence & Manufacturing $ 1,495.00
Summit Companies $ 1,467.30
Total $ 13,857.70
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve the payments to the contractors working on the Orono Police Garage Project
as listed in an amount totaling $13,857.70.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: September 24, 2015
ITEM NO: 16
________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Olson RJO City Administrator's
Title Finance Director Report
________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Adoption of the 2016 Preliminary Budget and Tax Levy
________________________________________________________________________
Attachments:
1. Resolution Adopting the 2016 Preliminary General Fund Budget
2. Resolution Adopting the 2016 Preliminary Tax Levy
3. General Fund Budget Revenues
4. General Fund Budget Expenditures
________________________________________________________________________
Staff has been working on the preliminary 2016 budget since the beginning of June. City
Council input into the budget was provided at work sessions that were held in June, July, and
August. At the September 14th council meeting, the preliminary budget and tax levy was
presented to the public. In accordance with State law, the preliminary tax levy must be
adopted by September 30.
The 2016 budget reflects the Council’s desire to maintain a low rate of taxation while
improving service levels. The 2016 tax levy includes a new Pavement Management Levy in
the amount of $183,000. The purpose of this new levy is to provide funding for the
maintenance of the City’s road infrastructure.
In addition to adopting the preliminary budget and tax levy, the time and date of the public
hearing to discuss the budget before in final adoption, is required to be announced at tonight’s
meeting. This hearing will take place at the regularly scheduled council meeting of December
14, 2015 at 6:30pm.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to adopt the Resolution Adopting the 2016 Preliminary General Fund Budget and the
Resolution Adopting the 2016 Preliminary Tax Levy as presented.
P
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE
PRELIMINARY 2016 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin,
Minnesota that the preliminary 2016 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows:
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Taxes - General $4,016,500
Licenses and Permits 469,650
Intergovernmental 217,220
Charges for Services 2,692,300
Fines and Forfeits 105,500
Interest Income 35,500
Recreation Fees 138,000
Miscellaneous 33,900
TOTAL $7,708,570
APPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,223,505
Public Safety 4,966,568
Street Maintenance 480,576
Parks and Recreation 254,345
Engineering - Unallocated 20,000
Reimbursable Expenditures 95,750
Special Projects and Contingency 100,826
Capital Outlay 202,000
Transfers to Other Funds 365,000
TOTAL $7,708,570
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting
held September 28, 2015.
ATTEST:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Page 1
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2015
TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2016
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin,
Minnesota, that the following sums be levied for the current year, collectible in 2015 upon the
taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes:
General Fund - Operating $4,016,500
Pavement Management Levy 183,000
G.O Improvement Bond 2008 192,150
G.O. Improvement Bond 2010 131,050
G.O. Improvement Bond 2014 431,780
TOTAL ALL LEVIES $4,954,480
The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the
County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held
September 28, 2015.
ATTEST:
______________________________ ______________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: Sept 28, 2015
Item No. 17
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Ron Olson RJO City Administrator’s
Title: Finance Director Report
Item Description: Claims/Bills
The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is
recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 103717 to
103802, totaling $171,477.69.
Noteworthy payments include:
SKD Architects Inc
$51,584.15
Payment to the architect for the police
garage. The City has retained $12,615.00 to
insure completion of remaining items.
Deputy Registrar
$ 20.75
Payment to transfer title of DWI Forfeited
vehicles to the City. The vehicles are then
sold with proceeds going to the Forfeiture
Fund.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented.
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Advanced Imaging Solutions 09/28/2015 103717 82371 101-42110-401 printer maint contract 9/10 to 10/9 Police Department 126.09
Advanced Imaging Solutions 09/28/2015 103717 82371 101-41900-401 printer maint contract 9/10 to 10/9 Central Services 100.86
Advanced Imaging Solutions 09/28/2015 103717 82371 602-49450-401 printer maint contract 9/10 to 10/9 Sewer 25.22
Total 103717:252.17
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 09/28/2015 103718 286584776 101-42110-413 pd copier lease 8/20 to 9/20 and overage Police Department 578.47
Total 103718:578.47
ALLIANCE BENEFIT GROUP 09/28/2015 103719 29935 101-41900-319 Cobra Admin fee Central Services 45.00
Total 103719:45.00
APACHE GROUP 09/28/2015 103720 183243 101-41900-223 paper towels, trash bags, bath tissue Central Services 862.25
Total 103720:862.25
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573061 101-45200-415 Bederwood park Parks 160.00
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573062 101-45200-415 Summit beach Parks 160.00
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573063 101-45200-415 Hackberry Beach Parks 125.00
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573064 101-45210-415 Orono Golf Course Golf Course 62.79
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573065 101-45200-415 Crystal Bay Playground Parks 62.50
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573066 101-45200-415 Navarre Playground Parks 160.00
BIFFS INC 09/28/2015 103721 W573067 101-45200-415 French Creek Park Preserve Parks 62.50
Total 103721:792.79
BUDGET PRINTING 09/28/2015 103722 8782 101-42110-201 envelopes Police Department 86.17
BUDGET PRINTING 09/28/2015 103722 8791 101-41900-201 park commission nameplates Central Services 73.92
Total 103722:160.09
CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH 09/28/2015 103723 91715 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-00583, 14-3671 700.00
Total 103723:700.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-42400-307 B&Z assistance Building & Zoning 528.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 Fence viewers issue Law/Legal Services 573.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 ordinances Law/Legal Services 519.25
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-42400-307 staff meetings 8/15 Building & Zoning 1,209.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 Gen Legal/staff/review Law/Legal Services 1,418.75
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 Council meetings 8/15 Law/Legal Services 1,069.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-000G1 101-42110-307 Police data practices Police Department 124.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-004G1 101-42110-307 Police matters Police Department 325.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-130G6 101-43280-307 Kintyre Two Special Services 1,260.40
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-130G7 101-43280-307 Kintyre Two Special Services 267.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-150G5 101-43290-800 litigation Special Projects-Contingencies 341.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-201G3 101-41600-307 misc recordings Law/Legal Services 380.10
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-347G4 101-41600-307 Park purchase option Law/Legal Services 170.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-348G6 101-43280-307 15-3723 405 North Arm Dr Special Services 2,622.98
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-352G5 101-43280-307 15-3737 1150 Homestead Trl/3020 Sixth Ave N Special Services 90.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-353G4 101-41600-307 Spates Ave Lake Access Law/Legal Services 186.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-360G4 601-16500 Well location 166.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-369G2 101-43280-307 15-3752 425, 475, 595 Old Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 90.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/28/2015 103724 2717-371G1 101-43280-307 15-3761 4775 North Shore Dr Special Services 67.50
Total 103724:11,410.48
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 CF83115 101-42110-226 holster-ID holsters Police Department 37.19
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 CF90915 101-42110-439 food for police commission meeting-Cub Police Department 14.26
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 CF91315 101-42110-402 car wash Buff-N-Glo Police Department 10.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 CF91615 101-42110-437 ammo/water/gatorade for event-NTCP funds Police Department 107.56
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 JL910154 101-41300-489 food for employee welcome-Panera Administration 30.02
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 SO91115 101-45200-221 picnic table paint-Mound True Value Parks 17.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/28/2015 103725 SO91615 101-41900-223 flags for post office and city hall-Carrot Top Ind Central Services 220.83
Total 103725:437.84
CARQUEST #2239 09/28/2015 103726 324627 101-45200-221 park mower parts Parks 34.85
CARQUEST #2239 09/28/2015 103726 325114 101-45200-221 park mower parts Parks 4.28
CARQUEST #2239 09/28/2015 103726 91415 101-45200-221 park mower parts Parks 33.77
Total 103726:72.90
CEMSTONE 09/28/2015 103727 1554813 101-45200-225 picnic table install Parks 319.50
Total 103727:319.50
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13073 101-42110-402 #238 oil change, tires Police Department 109.69
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13110 101-42110-402 #229 battery Police Department 125.15
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13118 101-42110-402 #228 oil change, tires, control arm Police Department 517.40
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13123 101-42110-402 #235 oil change, filters, tire rotation Police Department 192.03
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13126 101-42110-402 #844 tire mount Police Department 20.46
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13127 101-42110-402 #233 tire repair Police Department 14.31
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13130 101-42110-402 #231 blower motor, AC repair Police Department 191.54
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/28/2015 103728 13147 101-42110-402 #229 oil change, brakes, rotors, control arm Police Department 1,208.49
Total 103728:2,379.07
CITY OF MINNETONKA 09/28/2015 103729 508 101-43000-224 salt brine Public Works Department 66.45
Total 103729:66.45
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 09/28/2015 103730 150831 101-43000-224 blacktop-Caroline and Casco Public Works Department 174.53
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 09/28/2015 103730 150915 101-43000-224 patching supplies Public Works Department 339.96
Total 103730:514.49
CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC 09/28/2015 103731 14346 601-49400-405 water plant repairs Water 761.95
Total 103731:761.95
CORREY FARNIOK 09/28/2015 103732 90315 101-42110-226 reimb for clothing Police Department 125.27
CORREY FARNIOK 09/28/2015 103732 90315 101-42110-439 Henn Cty chiefs lunch Police Department 15.00
Total 103732:140.27
DELTA DENTAL 09/28/2015 103733 6178486 101-15998 003722072 Oct Cobra 516.30
DELTA DENTAL 09/28/2015 103733 6178486 101-21709 003722072 Oct Dental 1,721.35
Total 103733:2,237.65
DEPUTY REGISTRAR 09/15/2015 103710 91115 231-45650-441 15-001861 2005 Acura 20.75
Total 103710:20.75
DEPUTY REGISTRAR 09/17/2015 103715 91715 231-45650-441 14-15154 20.75
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 103715:20.75
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 09/28/2015 103734 109043 101-43000-224 signs Public Works Department 57.00
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 09/28/2015 103734 109056 101-43000-224 traffic cones Public Works Department 421.50
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 09/28/2015 103734 109122 101-43000-224 Kelly Ave street signs Public Works Department 94.26
Total 103734:572.76
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 09/28/2015 103735 253978 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 196.68
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 09/28/2015 103735 424208 101-42110-352 back to school ad Police Department 85.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 09/28/2015 103735 446326 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 71.52
Total 103735:353.20
ESS BROTHERS & SONS 09/28/2015 103736 6508 602-49450-443 supplies Sewer 280.00
Total 103736:280.00
EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROF 09/28/2015 103737 16256642-6 101-41300-489 temp for picnic Administration 99.65
Total 103737:99.65
FLAGSHIP RECREATION 09/28/2015 103738 F3982 101-45200-221 playground swings Parks 315.00
Total 103738:315.00
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006137110 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006137110 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 79.36
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006137110 601-49400-226 uniform Water 39.68
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006137110 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 39.67
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006182529 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006182529 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 36.89
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006182529 601-49400-226 uniform Water 18.45
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006182529 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 18.44
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006205257 101-41900-404 mats Central Services 6.38
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006205257 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 71.36
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006205257 601-49400-226 uniform Water 35.68
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006205257 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 35.68
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006216569 101-41900-404 mats Central Services 20.78
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006216569 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 108.12
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006216569 601-49400-226 uniform Water 54.06
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006216569 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 54.06
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006250596 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006250596 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 23.77
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006250596 601-49400-226 uniform Water 11.89
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006250596 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 11.88
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006261951 101-41900-404 mats Central Services 20.78
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006261951 601-49400-226 uniform Water 11.89
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006261951 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 11.89
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006261951 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 23.76
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006284713-101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006284713-602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 11.89
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006284713-601-49400-226 uniform Water 11.89
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006284713-101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 23.76
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006296090 101-41900-404 mats Central Services 6.38
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006296090 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 26.95
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006296090 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.47
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006296090 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.47
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006996535 101-43000-226 credit Public Works Department 31.98-
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006996535 601-49400-226 credit Water 15.99-
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006996535 602-49450-226 credit Sewer 15.99-
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006996536 101-43000-226 credit Public Works Department 47.97-
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006996536 601-49400-226 credit Water 23.99-
G & K SERVICES 09/28/2015 103739 1006996536 602-49450-226 credit Sewer 23.98-
Total 103739:707.90
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 286392 602-49450-227 supplies Sewer 16.99
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 288485 101-43000-221 filters Public Works Department 55.93
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 288513 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 17.75
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 288678 101-42110-221 headlights Police Department 51.91
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 289074 101-43000-221 battery Public Works Department 110.86
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 289130 101-42110-221 headlights Police Department 26.98
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 289339 602-49450-402 repair parts Sewer 30.85
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 289341 101-43000-221 filters Public Works Department 24.28
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/28/2015 103740 289549 101-43000-222 filters Public Works Department 15.36
Total 103740:350.91
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
GEPHART ELECTRIC CO INC 09/28/2015 103741 80674 602-49450-403 generator repair Sewer 204.00
Total 103741:204.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 09/28/2015 103742 1000064721 101-43000-240 radio admin fee Public Works Department 47.73
Total 103742:47.73
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 09/28/2015 103743 1000064689 101-42110-414 radio lease and MDC billing Police Department 1,817.14
Total 103743:1,817.14
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 09/28/2015 103744 1000064533 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 369.72
Total 103744:369.72
HENNING, BRIAN 09/28/2015 103745 91715 101-22205 Escrow refund 2013-00258, 2013-00590 700.00
Total 103745:700.00
HUBBARD, TIM 09/28/2015 103746 91715 101-22205 Escrow refund 2013-00610, 2013-01013 2,500.00
Total 103746:2,500.00
JIVASOFT CORPORATION 09/28/2015 103747 2684 101-42110-401 annual support fee 11/14/15 to 11/13/16 Police Department 1,000.00
Total 103747:1,000.00
JS STEWART COMPANIES INC 09/28/2015 103748 3966 601-49400-405 water leak repair 681-683 Sandstone Cir Water 275.00
Total 103748:275.00
KELLINGTON CONSTRUCTION I 09/28/2015 103749 8 437-48970-520 Police Garage project RFP #13 10,157.90
Total 103749:10,157.90
LANO EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103750 03-307430 101-43000-221 repair parts Public Works Department 76.01
LANO EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103750 03-307484 101-43000-221 repair parts Public Works Department 19.86
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 103750:95.87
LINE, TIM 09/28/2015 103751 91815 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-01377 2,000.00
Total 103751:2,000.00
LISLE, STEVE 09/28/2015 103752 92215 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00129 2,500.00
Total 103752:2,500.00
LOGIS 09/28/2015 103753 40676 101-42110-310 police records 8/15 Police Department 5,347.00
LOGIS 09/28/2015 103753 40676 101-42110-329 internet 8/15 Police Department 193.50
LOGIS 09/28/2015 103753 40676 101-41900-329 internet 8/15 Central Services 193.50
LOGIS 09/28/2015 103753 40777 101-41900-401 cash register computer repair Central Services 26.25
Total 103753:5,760.25
LONG LAKE FIRE RELIEF ASSO 09/17/2015 103716 91715 101-42110-439 Trap shooting tourney-Crime Prevention Funds Police Department 200.00
Total 103716:200.00
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/28/2015 103754 B285404 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 1.29
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/28/2015 103754 B286694 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 4.40
Total 103754:5.69
MALMQUIST, JAY 09/28/2015 103755 91815 101-22205 escrow refund 2011-00222 1,900.00
Total 103755:1,900.00
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/28/2015 103756 765388 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 406.18
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/28/2015 103756 765389 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,581.44
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/28/2015 103756 799476 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 299.01
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/28/2015 103756 799477 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,427.73
Total 103756:5,714.36
MARQUARDT, GARY 09/28/2015 103757 91715 101-22205 escrow refund 2015-00034, 14-3697 2,500.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 103757:2,500.00
MAXX STEEL ERECOTRS INC 09/28/2015 103758 91215 437-48970-520 Police garage project RFP #13 737.50
Total 103758:737.50
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 09/28/2015 103759 91015 101-42400-310 Aug inspection services Building & Zoning 7,420.00
Total 103759:7,420.00
MEYERS OUTDOOR SERVICES 09/28/2015 103760 4201 101-45200-404 Aug service Parks 2,175.00
Total 103760:2,175.00
MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLI 09/28/2015 103761 168125918 101-45210-092 beverages Golf Course 232.32
Total 103761:232.32
MIDWEST FENCE 09/28/2015 103762 91215 437-48970-520 Police Garage project RFP #13 1,495.00
Total 103762:1,495.00
MIDWEST TURF SPECIALISTS 09/28/2015 103763 6195 101-45200-404 clean up vacant lots Kelley Pkwy Parks 1,068.75
Total 103763:1,068.75
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 09/28/2015 103764 171133957 101-43000-415 oxygen, acetylene Public Works Department 25.42
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 09/28/2015 103764 171133958 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 24.18
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 09/28/2015 103764 171133959 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 21.08
Total 103764:70.68
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSH 09/28/2015 103765 91115 101-45200-404 permit for Lidiyard Beach Parks 10.00
Total 103765:10.00
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103766 36014 101-43000-221 tractor hitch repair Public Works Department 168.77
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103766 36015 101-43000-221 tractor hitch repair Public Works Department 434.78
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103766 36016 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 33.52
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103766 36142 101-43000-226 safety gear Public Works Department 58.44
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103766 8577 101-45210-221 leaf blower repair Golf Course 50.63
Total 103766:746.14
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 09/28/2015 103767 82115 601-20802 Water test fee 1,596.00
Total 103767:1,596.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-34210 Aug sales tax 37.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 601-39610 Aug sales tax 113.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37910 Aug sales tax 1,268.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37920 Aug sales tax 610.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37930 Aug sales tax 153.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37935 Aug sales tax 59.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37940 Aug sales tax 44.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37960 Aug sales tax 27.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37970 Aug sales tax 4.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 09/28/2015 103768 83115 101-37990 Aug sales tax 124.00
Total 103768:2,439.00
MOONEY, DAWN 09/28/2015 103769 91715 101-22205 escrow refund 2015-00978 2,500.00
Total 103769:2,500.00
MORRIES PARTS AND SERVIC 09/28/2015 103770 535850 101-43000-222 fuel cap Public Works Department 37.44
Total 103770:37.44
MUNICIPAL BUILDERS INC 09/28/2015 103771 6 601-16500 Water Plant pay app 6 5,711.05
MUNICIPAL BUILDERS INC 09/28/2015 103771 6 601-20600 Water Plant pay app 6 13,373.01
Total 103771:19,084.06
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288223 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 16.98
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288317 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 63.70
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288333 101-45200-221 picnic table repairs Parks 19.47
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288369 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 12.87
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288499 101-45200-223 supplies Parks 33.94
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288519 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 44.15
NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/28/2015 103772 288605 602-49450-226 supplies Sewer 9.58
Total 103772:200.69
NEWEGG INC 09/28/2015 103773 1202159063 101-42110-575 PD laptop Police Department 290.98
Total 103773:290.98
NORLINGS 09/28/2015 103774 30809 101-45200-404 Crystal Bay park landscape maintenance Parks 387.00
NORLINGS 09/28/2015 103774 30810 101-45200-404 City Hall landscape maintenance Parks 535.00
Total 103774:922.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 09/28/2015 103775 83115 101-42110-402 car washes Police Department 55.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 09/28/2015 103775 83115 101-42110-212 fuel Police Department 31.21
Total 103775:86.21
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 09/28/2015 103776 83115 101-42110-402 car washes Police Department 279.60
Total 103776:279.60
OFFICE DEPOT 09/28/2015 103777 7926391100 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 107.43
OFFICE DEPOT 09/28/2015 103777 7926740280 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 7.04
Total 103777:114.47
OFFICE DEPOT 09/28/2015 103778 7927024320 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 33.17
OFFICE DEPOT 09/28/2015 103778 7938116220 101-41900-201 toner GC Central Services 65.90
Total 103778:99.07
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 09/28/2015 103779 16197 101-42110-402 #228 tow Police Department 65.00
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 09/28/2015 103779 16214 231-45650-436 Suzuki Katana 150.00
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 09/28/2015 103779 16215 231-45650-436 Mercedes 581-PPG 140.00
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 09/28/2015 103779 16230 101-42110-402 #232 tow Police Department 65.00
Total 103779:420.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
PIRTEK 09/28/2015 103780 2150469.001 101-45210-403 hydraulic hose and clamp Golf Course 69.45
PIRTEK 09/28/2015 103780 S2099606.00 101-43000-221 repair parts Public Works Department 96.36
Total 103780:165.81
PLUNKETT S 09/28/2015 103781 5072661 101-42110-404 pest contol Police Department 223.60
Total 103781:223.60
POPE/DOUGLAS 09/28/2015 103782 82015 101-42110-319 drug destruction Police Department 257.40
Total 103782:257.40
RDO EQUIPMENT 09/28/2015 103783 17915 101-43000-403 chipper repair Public Works Department 563.21
Total 103783:563.21
SCHMITZ, LAURA 09/28/2015 103784 90815 999-10015 refund utility bill overpay 155.92
Total 103784:155.92
SELECT ACCOUNT 09/28/2015 103785 90315 101-41900-319 participant fee Central Services 94.50
Total 103785:94.50
SELECT ACCOUNT 09/28/2015 103786 91515 101-21719 9/15/15 FLEX 250.45
Total 103786:250.45
SELECT ACCOUNT 09/28/2015 103787 92215 101-21719 9/22/15 FLEX 14.83
Total 103787:14.83
SKD ARCHITECTS INC 09/28/2015 103788 1225.10-915 437-48970-304 PD building remodel 64,199.15
SKD ARCHITECTS INC 09/28/2015 103788 1225.10-915 437-20600 PD building remodel 12,615.00-
Total 103788:51,584.15
SONICLEAR 09/28/2015 103789 91715 101-41900-416 recording software annual support Central Services 373.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 103789:373.00
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 09/28/2015 103790 1164499 101-42110-226 uniforms Sonnek Police Department 179.99
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 09/28/2015 103790 1164582 101-42110-226 uniforms Vargas Police Department 211.96
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 09/28/2015 103790 1166539 101-42110-226 uniforms McCoy Police Department 183.97
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 09/28/2015 103790 1168040 101-42110-226 uniforms Needham Police Department 174.99
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 09/28/2015 103790 1168653 101-42110-226 flashlight Police Department 108.00
Total 103790:858.91
SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 09/28/2015 103791 91215 437-48970-520 Police Garage project RFP #13 1,467.30
Total 103791:1,467.30
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 09/28/2015 103792 83115 101-21710 Life Insurance Sept 1,158.04
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 09/28/2015 103792 92215 101-21710 Life Insurance Oct 1,158.04
Total 103792:2,316.08
THORPE DIST CO 09/28/2015 103793 919785 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 88.75
Total 103793:88.75
TITAN MACHINERY 09/28/2015 103794 6515466 101-43000-221 front end loader repair Public Works Department 298.72
Total 103794:298.72
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 09/28/2015 103795 10097209 101-43000-221 welding supplies Public Works Department 61.82
Total 103795:61.82
TRAFFIC DATA INC 09/28/2015 103796 3381 101-43170-304 MSA traffic counts Engineering 1,275.00
Total 103796:1,275.00
UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 09/28/2015 103797 29492 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 59.99
Total 103797:59.99
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13
Check Issue Dates: 9/15/2015 - 9/28/2015 Sep 22, 2015 03:06PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
VERIZON WIRELESS 09/28/2015 103798 9751827658 101-42110-321 9/07 to 10/06 Police Department 1,501.39
VERIZON WIRELESS 09/28/2015 103798 9751827658 101-41900-321 9/07 to 10/06 Central Services 112.17
VERIZON WIRELESS 09/28/2015 103798 9751827658 101-45210-321 9/07 to 10/06 Golf Course 42.08
VERIZON WIRELESS 09/28/2015 103798 9751827658 601-49400-321 9/07 to 10/06 Water 45.36
VERIZON WIRELESS 09/28/2015 103798 9751827658 602-49450-321 9/07 to 10/06 Sewer 45.36
Total 103798:1,746.36
VOSSEN, MICHAEL 09/28/2015 103799 91715 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00776 2,500.00
Total 103799:2,500.00
WATER CONSERVATION SVC I 09/28/2015 103800 6208 601-49400-405 leak repair 681 Sandstone Circle Water 275.00
Total 103800:275.00
WHITE, GREG 09/28/2015 103801 92215 101-22205 Escrow refund 15-3726 2,500.00
Total 103801:2,500.00
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 09/28/2015 103802 90915 602-49450-381 8/01 to 9/01 service Sewer 26.61
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 09/28/2015 103802 90915 101-43000-381 8/01 to 9/01 service Public Works Department 95.42
Total 103802:122.03
Grand Totals: 171,477.69