The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-26-2015 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 14 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., and Lizz Levang. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 9, 10, 12, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 2 was taken off the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 12, 2015 McMillan requested the minutes on Pages 12 and 13 be corrected to read junior season pass rather than junior senior pass. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of January 12, 2015, as amended. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – KEVIN LANDGRAVER, REPRESENTATIVE Landgraver stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 3. #15-3705 AMEND CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 7 AND 8, ELIMINATE RR1B-1 AND M-6 DISTRICTS – ORDINANCE NO. 130 Senior Planner Gaffron stated the RR-1B-1, Rural Residential Sub-district, was created to accommodate the Spring Hill Conference Center back in the 1970s. Gaffron noted that was the only property that was ever zoned RR-1B-1 and it simply allowed study and research centers in that two acre single-family zone. The Spring Hill Conference Center went away approximately 15 years ago and became a golf course. Gaffron indicated there has never been any property before that and since that has been zoned RR-1B-1 so Staff recommends that be eliminated from the City Code. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 14 (3. #15-3705 AMEND CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 7 AND 8, ELIMINATE RR1B-1 AND M-6 DISTRICTS – ORDINANCE NO. 130 continued) Gaffron stated the M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District was created in 1976 to provide standards for multiple-family development but has been superseded almost entirely by the 1989 PUD zoning ordinance as well as the RPUD, which was created in February of 2001. The City has never, since 1976, had any property zoned M-6, this is an outdated piece of the City Code. Staff recommends those two districts be removed from the City Code. Levang stated the changes are straight forward. McMillan indicated she also is fine with the changes. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 130, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Orono Zoning City Code by Eliminating the RR-1B-1 and M-6 ZONING DISTRICTS. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 4. #15-3706 AMEND SECTION 78-1211 REGARDING CLARIFICATION TO THE TOE OF BLUFF DEFINITION – ORDINANCE NO. 131 Gaffron stated this definition was questioned by an attorney as the City was going through a variance application last year. Gaffron stated the City’s definition exactly mimics the State Statute’s definition, but there was a question about how many different points on a slope might be defined as the toe of bluff. Gaffron stated from a practical standpoint, there can only be one toe. The proposed language changes the language it to state that the toe of the bluff is the lower point of the lowest 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Gaffron stated essentially that means when it is a steep slope and it ends right at the lakeshore, you would not go out into the water to get to that 18 percent. As a result, when the toe is defined as lakeward of the OHW, the OHW becomes the toe and not some point out in the lake. Levang stated she does remember that discussion on the variance application and that she is happy there is a clarification on the definition. Mayor McMillan asked if there is any public comment on the amendment. There were no public comments regarding this application. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 131, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Orono Zoning City Code by Amending the Definition of “Toe of Bluff.” VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 14 5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a) (5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. (Tabled) Gaffron stated this is a change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on yard requirements in the City Code. The clarification states that retaining walls cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot lines, cannot be closer than ten feet from the traveled right-of-way, and cannot be installed within an easement area. Gaffron stated because of some potential confusion and because it is not currently in the non- encroachment section, Staff would recommend it be added. Gaffron stated essentially the new ordinance section states that “No retaining wall of any height shall be located closer than five feet from any side or rear property line, never fewer than ten feet from the edge of a traveled roadway, or placed within a drainage, utility, or other easement, except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by the City or similar approval from another regulatory and/or utility agency.” McMillan noted she attended the January Planning Commission meeting when this item was discussed and that some of the discussion revolved around the fact that the City requires a permit for a 4-foot higher retaining wall. Gaffron stated a 4-foot or higher retaining wall requires engineering. McMillan asked if somebody can construct something below that. Planning Coordinator Curtis indicated it would require a zoning permit. McMillan asked if a 2-foot high boulder wall would require a permit. Curtis stated it is associated with the grading permit. Curtis stated the City’s permit form for a zoning permit has several line items that need to be filled out and that the land alteration permit has a $50 permit fee. The person would also need to indicate on the permit application whether they are going to construct a retaining wall or other structure. McMillan asked if a raised garden bed would need a zoning permit if it is less than four feet. Curtis stated the City Code threshold is 0 to 500 cubic yards and that nowhere in the City is there a low threshold of one yard or ten yards. Curtis indicated Staff does use discretion when people call and ask about planting a garden or planting trees or moving some dirt around to level for sod, and in some cases will consult with the City Engineer to see if it really requires a permit. Since the City Code does have a zero cubic yard threshold, any earth movement technically requires a zoning permit. McMillan stated that was one of the issues a Planning Commissioner had with the change. McMillan asked at what point it becomes a retaining wall versus a decorative wall. Curtis stated technically a 1-foot wall would be holding soil, but it is not a retaining wall that requires an engineer design. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 14 (5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a) (5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. (Tabled) continued) Edwards stated when retaining walls start to become a structure at four feet or above, the City requires a building permit and also an engineered design signed by a licensed engineer. Edwards stated there is some leeway between four and six feet, but generally the City uses four feet as their threshold for requiring an engineered design. Edwards stated that requirement typically kicks in when there is grading being done. McMillan asked what would happen with existing situations if this City Code change is approved. Gaffron stated existing retaining walls are not affected by this unless the wall is changed in some way. Gaffron stated when it says that no retaining wall shall be located closer than five feet; the City would not go back and require the resident to remove it. Gaffron stated the one dissenting vote on the Planning Commission was questioning the raised garden beds in a small area within five feet of the property line. Gaffron stated every situation will be different, but that there are possible ramifications to neighboring properties if a wall is closer than five feet to the property line. Gaffron stated there is the possibility that utility companies could find that an obstruction. Gaffron stated the City Council could define what a retaining wall is or include some exemptions in the City Code but that Staff is not prepared at this time to define exactly what those things are. Levang noted the Council is not specifying what the retaining wall is constructed out of. Edwards stated the main issue that Staff reviews is the drainage and whether the proposed work is going to alter the drainage patterns to drain onto the neighboring property. Edwards stated when someone is placing a simple, small retaining wall next to the property line that does have the potential to alter the drainage and could cause runoff to the neighboring property. Gaffron stated another potential issue is the need to go on to the neighbor’s property to maintain the wall if it is right against the lot line. McMillan asked if the edge of a traveled, established roadway needs to be ten feet from the property line. Gaffron stated in situations where there may not be an easement and there is a roadway, the City has the right to maintain and to claim for public use the first ten feet past the pavement or past the traveled roadway. Gaffron stated in many cases that ten feet leaves someone within the right-of-way but in some cases it puts them into the actual property itself. There could also be a visual aspect issue in certain situations. McMillan asked whether there would be an exemption if someone has a deteriorating timber wall within the right-of-way by the roadway and they need to replace it. McMillan noted in certain situations it may not be possible to re-grade the area. Gaffron stated the City does have an encroachment agreement to handle these situations and that Staff would review it to ensure that replacement does not make the situation worse. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 14 (5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a) (5) TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. (Tabled) continued) McMillan asked if that would be an administrative approval. Gaffron noted Staff has brought encroachment agreements to the Council in the past. Curtis indicated it would depend on the encroachment and what was being encroached upon. McMillan asked if there is a fee for the encroachment agreement. Curtis stated the fee is $150 because City Attorney and Staff time is involved in drafting the encroachment agreement. City Attorney Mattick stated the more items that are included in the utility easements; the more likely it could impact the easement, which is the reason for the review. Mattick stated if there is an encroachment in the right-of-way, the property owner is notified that they may need to remove it at some point at their own cost. McMillan stated her issue is with the one or two-foot high retaining wall but that basically a retaining wall is a retaining wall regardless of the height of it. McMillan noted there are some people that have walls within the right-of-way. McMillan suggested this change be clarified in the newsletter. Cornick stated he is a little troubled by the zero tolerance. Cornick asked if this could lead to neighbor disputes and whether that is something the City should attempt to address. Gaffron stated if there are specific changes the Council would like to see, he would recommend tabling the amendment. Cornick stated he would like to give it a little more thought. McMillan stated she is in agreement with Council Member Cornick and that she would also like to understand how it could potentially impact the different zones of a property. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to table Application No. 15-3707, Amend Section 78-1405 of the Orono Zoning City Code by Clarifying Retaining Wall and Landscape Structure Setbacks. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6) TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED USE PROVISIONS – ORDINANCE NO. 132 Gaffron stated in April of 1989, the City adopted an ordinance that included revisions to the B-1 commercial district, created the B-6 highway commercial district, and established provisions for development by the PUD process. PUD City Code Section 78-1001(6) authorized utilization of the PUD Zoning District only in the Highway 12 corridor, which was set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2 adopted in May of 1988. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 14 (6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6) TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED USE PROVISIONS – ORDINANCE NO. 132 continued) Since then, the City has not been able to use the PUD process or create a PUD district outside of the Highway 12 corridor area. This change to the City Code would allow that process to be used within the Navarre area. Gaffron noted there is the potential for redevelopment in the Navarre area and that the PUD District would allow for mixed use development. Gaffron indicated this would be the first step in allowing mixed use in the Navarre area and that a set of standards for PUD use should eventually be established. Cornick stated it sounds like good planning. Levang asked if any specific corridors should be specified or whether it just applies to the general Navarre area. Gaffron stated the way it was drafted initially only talks about Navarre in general. Gaffron stated there is mixed use potential on certain guided properties in Navarre and there are also properties that were not guided for mixed use but might develop at some point in the future. Gaffron stated an example is the Freshwater property, which was not guided for mixed use, but the PUD process could be used in that situation if it is redeveloped or on larger properties that might redevelop. Gaffron stated the Council has the opportunity to review and consider whether it is appropriate for any particular piece of property. McMillan noted Highway 12 corridor is not limited to just commercial. Gaffron stated the B-6 highway commercial district was initially commercial but that the PUD process was also used for Otten Brothers and the Stone Bay development, which is residential and commercial. McMillan stated it is probably best not to limit it since different properties could be combined at some point in the future. Gaffron stated if the City’s guiding changes for Navarre in the future, the City Code would need to be changed if it is limited to specific properties or specific zones. Gaffron stated he would prefer to leave it more open but that Staff could better define what the Navarre area is. Gaffron noted the highway commercial district that was created was fairly specific in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and defined which properties were parts of it and which ones were not. McMillan stated that is something that could also be accomplished with the next Comprehensive Plan review. McMillan stated in her view that might require a significant study and public input. Gaffron stated in many cities PUD is allowed anywhere. Levang stated she would prefer it be more general at this point since it will take a more in depth study if specific streets and corridors are identified. Cornick asked what the boundaries of Navarre are. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 14 (6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6) TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED USE PROVISIONS – ORDINANCE NO. 132 continued) Gaffron stated anything east of the two gas stations and Culvers is probably outside the defined Navarre area and anything west would go to the border with Spring Park. On the north end the boundary could be perceived as the railroad and that the southern boundary goes to approximately Lydiard. Cornick asked if it would be wise to define the boundaries. Gaffron stated eventually the City should do that but at the present time it is not necessary. McMillan asked if there is any public comment on this item. There were no public comments regarding this application. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 132, an Ordinance Amending the Orono Zoning City Code by Adding the Navarre Area to Section 78-1001(6) as Eligible for Development Via the PUD Process. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 7. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286 (b & d) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS TO TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING & FILLING ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE NO. 133 Gaffron stated since the 1990s, the City has had a number of exceptions to the Conditional Use Permit requirement. One of those exceptions was that grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less within the shore setback zone of all lakes was outlined in Article IX of the zoning chapter. This ten cubic yards exception, the rough equivalent of one dump truck load, was added to the City Code in the 1990s to accommodate requests for topdressing, rut repair, animal burrowing damage, etc, without the need for a rigorous conditional use permit review process. The proposed change increases the administrative permit threshold from ten cubic yards to fifty cubic yards for shoreland properties within the 0-75 foot setback area. This allows for administrative zoning permit approvals for things like in-ground stairs, ice ridge corrections, landscaping, etc. The Planning Commission supported changes to increase the ten cubic yards to fifty, but did not support changing the 500 cubic yards conditional use permit threshold to 1,500 cubic yards. Gaffron stated 500 cubic yards equals approximately 50 truckloads. Gaffron stated the change before the City Council is simply to change the ten cubic yard limit in the lakeshore to fifty cubic yards. McMillan asked if someone would require a permit for less than fifty cubic yards. Gaffron stated it would be an administrative permit and that Staff would likely have the City Engineer review it. Gaffron stated if filling of a wetland was proposed, it would require a different level of review. McMillan asked if there is a zero threshold. Gaffron stated it was 0 to 10 and the change would increase it from 0 to 50. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 14 (7. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286 (b & d) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS TO TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING & FILLING ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE NO. 133 continued) Levang asked if this is only in the shoreland. Gaffron indicated it would be in the 0-75 foot zone. Levang stated she appreciates being told that ten cubic yards equals one dump truck load. Levang stated in her view this is very straight forward and that she has no problem with the change. McMillan asked if D2 would be the shoreland overlay district. Gaffron indicated D2 is the shoreland district but it is outside the 0-75-foot setback. Gaffron stated it would still leave the 500 cubic yard threshold. Gaffron stated anything over 500 cubic yards or 50 truckloads on the rest of the lot would require a conditional use permit. McMillan asked how that would compare with non-shoreland property. Gaffron stated a non-shoreland property would have a limit of 500 cubic yards without a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated one of the exceptions would be a driveway for a house that requires over 500 cubic yards, but if someone were to haul in over 500 cubic yards to change a pasture, as an example, that would require a conditional use permit. Cornick asked how the City would know if someone dumps 600 cubic yards. Gaffron stated it can be difficult to estimate how much fill is brought in. Gaffron stated Staff would have an engineered plan that shows exactly the boundaries of the area and how deep it is supposed to be. Gaffron stated if it looks like it is way out of whack, it would need to be verified. Gaffron stated the new conditional use permit process that has been put in place requires a preconstruction meeting with the developer or the property owner as well as the grading contractor. Gaffron stated before any fill is added, there is a process where everybody is told what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do. Gaffron stated with a conditional use permit, someone cannot just go from 10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards without a higher level of review and oversight. Edwards stated it generally is caught when Staff looks at the as-builts and there are topographical features that were not there before. Edwards stated it is very difficult to determine if it is 50 cubic yards versus 51 cubic yards but that Staff would likely catch it is if it greater than that. Cornick asked if there is a certain person that would be responsible for that review. Edwards stated the City inspector would typically look at that. McMillan asked if the City has a lot of grading requests for over 500 cubic yards. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 14 (7. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286 (b & d) REGARDING CHANGES TO THE REQUIREMENTS TO TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING & FILLING ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE NO. 133 continued) Gaffron stated other than what is associated with a building project, such as a private road or a berm; there is probably one or two applications in a year for over 500 cubic yards. Cornick asked if this would apply to someone who would like to remove more than 500 cubic yards. Gaffron stated it relates to grading and filling, so it would apply to fill being removed as well, and if it is over 500 cubic yards, it would require a conditional use permit. McMillan asked if it would be a conditional use permit rather than a variance. Gaffron stated it would be a conditional use permit and would not necessarily require a variance. McMillan noted it would be more of a permanent change and asked if historically they have been treated as a variance. Mattick indicated they have not been and that reasonable conditions will be attached to it as part of the conditional use permit process. Gaffron stated what is allowed on a 2-acre lot versus a 10-acre lot would also be different and that it would be difficult to put a limit on it. Mattick stated the review of the conditions would pretty much come down to an engineer review to determine that the lot can handle that amount of fill and what the impacts on the drainage would be. Mayor McMillan asked if there is any public comment on this item. Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, stated if he understood correctly, it sounds like the fifty truck load rule applies the same to a 40-foot frontage of lakeshore as a 250-foot frontage of lakeshore. Kempf stated in his view it would be more equitable if the threshold was tied to the amount of land in the 0-75 foot zone or the amount of lakeshore frontage. Gaffron stated on a lot with 400 feet of frontage, fifty cubic yards would not be very noticeable but could still have an impact depending on where it is being spread. Gaffron stated basing it on the amount of frontage would require an extra layer of review. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 133 an Ordinance Amending the Orono Zoning City Code by Revising the Provisions for Topographic Alterations and Grading and Filling Activities Within 75 Feet of the Lakeshore and to adopt the SUMMARY ORDINANCE for publication. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 14 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT 8. BULK FUEL CONTRACT Edwards stated before the City Council is the City’s bulk fuel proposal for 2015. Prior to 2014, the City did not do an advanced fixed price purchase of fuel for the City’s fleet. Last year the City explored and entered into a fixed price contract for approximately 90 percent of the overall fuel purchases for the City. Edwards noted that did result in some fairly considerable savings for the City last year. The savings amounted to almost $10,000 in gasoline and about $7,700 in diesel. Edwards stated the City’s bulk fuel contract is up at the end of the month and that it is time to determine whether the City should enter into a similar agreement for 2015. As of last week, the fixed price being quoted for 87 percent octane gasoline was $2.22 a gallon before tax and diesel was $2.51 a gallon before tax. Edwards noted those prices are above what someone can currently purchase at the pump if the state gas taxes are removed. Edwards stated the Council could enter into a fixed price contract at those approximate numbers. The risk with entering into that contract is that prices may stay below the fixed price offered, which would result in the City losing an opportunity to save additional money. The advantage to entering into the contract is that the City would know what the budgeted numbers for the year will be. Edwards stated at the current rate, there will still be some savings over last year. Edwards stated the way the fixed pricing works is the City has to enter into a contract with a bulk fuel provider. The City provides them with a price range, a low and a high, at which the City is willing to enter into a contract with the provider. Once the contract is entered into, at that point the City is committed to purchasing a certain amount of fuel at that price for the rest of the year. Edwards stated the City would never want to enter into an agreement to purchase 100 percent of the City’s fuel since the demand changes on the conditions, such as the number of patrols the police are on and the amount of snowplowing that is required. Edwards stated that way the City is not purchasing fuel that they do not need. Edwards indicated he included in his report what he feels are the acceptable low and high costs as well as the quantity. The proposed quantity is the same as last year’s contract. Edwards stated gasoline is currently $2.00 a gallon, and if the state gas tax is removed, that would amount to approximately $1.70 a gallon. Edwards noted the summer blend of fuel will increase in price between 30 and 40 cents per gallon. In addition, prices for the Midwest region will increase a little higher than the rest of the country given some refinery and maintenance issues that are projected for this year. Levang noted the City is not using their snow equipment as much as last year, and asked whether those numbers should be adjusted. Edwards stated the majority of the gasoline is used by the Police Department and the majority of the diesel is used by the Public Works Department. Currently the Public Works Department uses around 600 to 700 gallons of diesel a month, with more being used in the winter. Edwards stated he feels comfortable with those quantity numbers. Edwards noted the police chief does anticipate some decrease in their fuel consumption given the indoor squad car parking. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 14 (8. BULK FUEL CONTRACT continued) Levang stated by only contracting for 75 percent of the City’s fuel needs, there is some cushion there, and that the savings last year were significant. Edwards stated the City does not want to enter into more than what they might use because they would need to pay for any overage. Cornick asked if there is any advantage to negotiating a contract that would include Mound vehicles or Spring Park vehicles. Edwards stated to his understanding no other city contracts with Orono on this bulk fuel contract. Edwards indicated there are a number of municipalities that enter into group agreements with the state but that the state’s rate is approximately $2.60 a gallon. Cornick asked if there is money that could be saved if Orono would join with Long Lake in negotiating this contract. Edwards stated he has not explored that but to his knowledge they would not. Edwards stated Orono is entering into a contract with the same contractor that provides the state’s fuel. Loftus stated the Long Lake Fire Department has asked about partnering with the City on its fuel purchases but that Orono is limited on the size of its tanks. Loftus stated it did not make financial sense to purchase bigger tanks to accommodate their request in the past. McMillan stated the positive is the City knows what their fuel budget is for the year, which was always something that was a big variable. Edwards noted the City would have lost money if they had gone in with the state contract. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize Public Works Director Adam Edwards to enter into a contract on behalf of the City of Orono at the prices and quantities listed in Paragraph 7 of Staff’s Memorandum dated January 26, 2015. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *9. 2014 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1 for the 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *10. CLEANING CONTRACT AMENDMENT Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Cleaning Contract Addendum with a start date of February 1, 2014, and direct Staff to solicit bids for a new cleaning contract. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 14 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT Edwards reported approximately 85 percent of the work on the sewer lining project has been completed and that work on the actual manhole lining and sealing will start in the spring once the ground conditions are right for that. Edwards noted there was a sewer backup last week on Casco Point and that they are currently working on remediation. In addition, the Public Works Department has renewed their efforts on tree trimming and cleanup at the parks. Edwards reported within the last week there have been two fire hydrants that were damaged by vehicles. Parts have been ordered and they should be repaired in the near future. McMillan stated at some point the updated CIP book will need to be distributed to the City Council. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang asked whether Ralph Kempf would like to talk about the upcoming meeting in Navarre. Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, stated he did send out a number of e-mails about the upcoming meeting and that Andrew Mack was anticipating approximately 15 to 20 people at the second meeting. Kempf stated he has stressed the importance of showing up and having strong numbers at these events since it will reflect well on the community and have a positive impact on the people who are awarding the grant. Kempf stated the meeting is scheduled for 6:30 on Tuesday, January 27, at the Navarre Fire Station. Levang indicated she plans on attending the meeting. McMillan reported she attended the January 14 LMCD meeting when Gabriel Jabbour was sworn in and that she also attended the January Planning Commission meeting. McMillan stated she and Council Member Cornick attended the Highway 112 advisory committee meeting and that the group basically discussed the streetlights and retaining walls. A public open house will be scheduled for March or April. McMillan stated one of the big issues will be the stabilization of the south bank of Long Lake and that MN/DOT will need to bring in some heavy equipment and stabilization equipment which will result in that portion of the road being closed for approximately six weeks. McMillan stated the public is welcome to attend the monthly meetings which are held the third Thursday of the month at 8 a.m. in the Orono City Council Chambers. McMillan noted information on the Highway 12 turnback is on the City’s website as well. McMillan reported the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is dredging the pond for the old Long Lake sewer treatment plant on Orono Orchard Road and creating a natural wetland and flow through of the water by removing the ditch. McMillan stated she is not sure how many truck loads or cubic yards will be moved but that it will be a fairly big project. McMillan stated the soils were not contaminated to the point where it would require dumping at a special landfill, which will save quite a bit of money. McMillan stated the project will bring a lot of wetland and wildlife value to the area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 14 (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT continued) McMillan noted Jessica, Adam, Mike and herself will be meeting with Hennepin County Director Jim Grube on Thursday about accesses along County Roads 15 and 19 in the event the intersection is redesigned. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR City Administrator Loftus noted Andrew Mack has tendered his resignation effective January 15. Loftus stated since the Community Development Director position is important in moving forward with City initiatives therefore she would recommend filling it. Loftus stated she is not recommending any changes to the salary level or job description at this time. Loftus stated she is looking for two Council Members to be on the interview panel. Levang indicated she would be willing to be part of the interview panel and that she would recommend Kevin Landgraver also be appointed to the committee. Levang stated she does not have any changes to the job description. Levang stated given how important this job is to the City, she would entertain paying to advertise with professional planning associations as well as using the League of Minnesota Cities and other avenues. Levang stated she would like to see a healthy candidate pool versus just a handful of candidates. McMillan stated she would recommend filling the position and that it would be helpful to have a Planning Commissioner on the interview panel. McMillan indicated she would also be willing to serve on the committee. Cornick asked if there are any things in the job description that might have led towards the resignation. Loftus indicated there was not. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve advertising the Community Development Director position. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *12. WESTERN COMMUNITIES ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) REQUEST FOR CDBG SUPPORT Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve sending a letter of support for the CDBG grant application being submitted by the Western Communities Action Network. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *13. ORONO POLICE GARAGE – PAY REQUEST NO. 5 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the payments to the contractors working on the Orono Police Garage Project as listed in an amount totaling $382,472.34. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 26, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 14 *14. LICENSES & PERMITS Annual Tobacco Licenses 1. John O’Sullivan – O’Sullivan’s Holiday #546 2420 Shadywood Road Navarre, MN 55392 2. John O’Sullivan – O’Sullivan’s Holiday #547 3340 Shoreline Drive Navarre, MN 55392 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the above-listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *15. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ATTEST _____________________________________ _____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor