Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2015 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 26 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 City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, 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 CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 5, 8, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 2 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 26, 2015 Council Member Printup stated he would like to discuss the wood build-out with logo for the Council chambers as well as the building official position. Printup stated to his recollection the City has done analyses in the past with respect to keeping the position in-house versus outsourcing it and he would like to see a similar analysis done for the building official position. Council Member Levang noted the Council did discuss that at the work session. City Administrator Loftus stated based on the direction at the last Council meeting, the contractor was told to move forward on the project for the build-out. Printup indicated he would rather see some other things done before that. Loftus asked if she should attempt to cancel the work. Printup stated he would not be opposed to that. Council Member Walsh asked where in the process the work is. Loftus stated the wood piece is being produced and the logo for the front lobby and the build-out are also in the process of being completed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 26 (2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 26, 2015 continued) Levang stated she feels comfortable going ahead with the order since the City Council already discussed it and that they felt it would be a big improvement. Levang stated the improvements would help to readily identify the chambers for viewers. Walsh stated if the work is already in the process of being completed, the City should go ahead with it. Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session of January 26, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *3. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26, 2015 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of January 26, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – BRUCE LEMKE, REPRESENTATIVE Representative Lemke stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS Penny Rogers, 1380 Rest Point Road, stated it was her understanding the Council would be discussing the City Ordinance regulating wind turbines at this meeting. Rogers indicated she lives next door to someone who has four wind turbines on their property and that she would request the City Council to act on this as soon as possible. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 4. #14-3664 DAVID SCHMID AND ANGELA CILIBERTO, 3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AMEND VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR REVISED RETAINING WALL – RESOLUTION NO. 6483 Senior Planner Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting an amendment to their approved site plan in order to reorient the parking space that is adjacent to Crystal Bay Road and replace the pre-existing block and stone retaining walls with a boulder wall. The applicants’ original plan included removal of the underground garage at the northeast corner of the property and construction of some new retaining walls to allow for a straight-in garage orientation. Since that time the applicants have removed the existing retaining wall system and are now proposing a boulder wall system that would create a parallel parking stall rather than a straight-in parking stall. The Planning Commission and City Engineer have looked at this change and have determined that it is a better solution. Tonight’s request is an amendment to the conditional use permit and variances to allow this type of orientation to occur. Gaffron stated one of the important factors is that the proposed retaining wall will not be higher than four feet, which will eliminate the retaining wall above the parking area having approximately an eight-foot drop. Staff recommends approval of the request. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 26 (4. #14-3664 DAVID SCHMID AND ANGELA CILIBERTO, 3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AMEND VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR REVISED RETAINING WALL – RESOLUTION NO. 6483 continued) Levang asked if the existing cavity was filled with clean fill. Ciliberto indicated it was. Levang asked what will be on the surface beyond the boulders next to the road. Levang asked whether asphalt will be laid there or whether it will be sod or dirt. Gaffron displayed a picture of the property prior to the work being done. Ciliberto stated it will either be asphalt or gravel but that at this point they have not come to a decision. Ciliberto indicated they would be open to Council input if they have something specific in mind for that area. Gaffron stated in his view it would be difficult to grow grass in that area and that it is an area that either needs to be paved or gravel. Walsh noted it will be hardcover either way. Levang stated it is a much better plan and asked how they came to that decision. Ciliberto stated they knew if they kept it the way it was, they would need to back in and back out since it is a really tight space. Ciliberto stated to her recollection the Council provided some comments in that regard and that their neighbors also have some pull-up garages that are easier to access and park. Ciliberto stated they are attempting to make it easier to access and that they do not want people coming down the back since it is more of a private driveway. Walsh stated in his view it is a better plan and would help to eliminate cars parking on the road. McMillan stated aesthetically it looks very nice. Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6483, a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 6407, for the property located at 3309 Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *5. #14-3704 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY SERVICES – 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW – RESOLUTION NO. 6484 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6484, a Resolution Approving a Site Plan and a Hardcover Variance, and a Conditional Use Permit for a Building Addition Pursuant to Orono Zoning Code Chapter 78, Division 4, and Sections 78-348 and 78-1700, for the property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 26 6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW Gaffron noted at the January 26 meeting the Council questioned whether the 5-foot setback from a side or rear lot line for retaining walls was necessary and whether it would apply to low structures such as timber-cribbed planter beds or low decorative terrace walls. The Council requested Staff provide additional information on the impacts of this City Ordinance amendment and tabled the matter. Gaffron noted other cities’ codes regarding construction of retaining walls are widely varied and that a number of them do not require any permit for those less than four feet in height. Others, similar to Orono, require a land alteration permit for walls less than four feet high. For retaining walls at or above four feet in height, Orono requires engineering and a building permit, which appears to be common among cities. In addition, some cities require a permit for those less than four feet in height if they support fill above the wall. The sections of the City Code that establish a 5-foot setback evolved over time and have to do with land alteration. Gaffron indicated those sections can be confusing and difficult to interpret. Gaffron stated items or activities that are typical of any retaining wall installation are typically prohibited, but there are some exceptions that are allowed for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or newly constructed building or any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. The City Code also talks about those exceptions having the characteristic of an unusual land alteration and requiring a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated there were a number of things that were defined over the years as being unusual land alterations. One of them was grading or alteration that would propose any changes in elevation within five feet of an adjacent residential lot line except for drainage swales and ditches. The result of that is the City Code contains language stating that someone is not allowed to conduct grading within five feet of the lot line. Gaffron indicated Staff also looked at the definition of a retaining wall since one of the questions asked by the Council was whether a retaining wall should be defined. Staff’s report contains a number of different dictionary definitions and they basically talk about a wall that is built to resist lateral pressure other than wind pressure or to prevent earth or water from moving forward. In addition, the Council questioned whether a raised planter bed would be considered a retaining wall. Gaffron indicated Sketch A shows a retaining wall that is on the upside of the lot line with a 5-foot setback. Gaffron stated when the retaining wall is above the property next door; it needs to be maintained at some point in the future and the ability to maintain it without going on the adjoining property may not be possible without a 5-foot setback. Retaining walls also need to be designed and located so as to not impede the drainage along the property lines and across adjoining properties, which is another reason for a 5-foot setback. From a safety perspective, retaining walls need to be located so as to not create unsafe conditions for neighboring properties. Sketch B depicts a retaining wall located below the property boundary and is probably not as critical as the situation depicted in Sketch A in terms of the safety aspect. Gaffron stated with a 5-foot setback, it is unlikely that someone will be walking in that area. Gaffron stated visually retaining walls can have the same impact as an accessory structure by limiting sightlines. Gaffron noted the City currently allows a 4-foot retaining wall without engineer review, but a retaining wall that is higher than that needs to be reviewed by an engineer. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 26 (6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW continued) Gaffron stated the Council should also discuss the 10-foot retaining wall setback from a traveled right-of-way. The existing City Code talks about a 10-foot setback from the traveled roadway and states as follows: “Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map, the right- of-way shall not be less than ten feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. The intent of that language in the proposed City Ordinance is to clarify that it is not acceptable to have retaining walls directly abutting the road right-of-way without City approval. Gaffron indicated Sketch C depicts a raised planter bed that is less than five feet. Gaffron stated the impacts would depend on the drainage and the individual site. Gaffron stated while everyone likely accepts the fact that they can have a 1 or 2-foot high retaining wall next to the property line, technically the City Code as drafted would not allow that. Staff requests the Council discuss the issues and provide Staff direction as to any desired revisions to the draft City Ordinance. Printup asked how retaining walls compare with fences in terms of setback from a property line. Gaffron indicated fences can be right up to the lot line but not over it, which raises some issues with maintenance. In addition, fences can be anywhere between three to six feet high. Gaffron stated it is likely the neighbor would let someone on their property to maintain a fence since they also have to look at it. Gaffron stated the issue with an accessory structure being five or ten feet from the property line is the height of the structure and the visual impacts that can have. Gaffron stated a fence can also be built so it does not affect drainage; whereas, a retaining wall will likely impact drainage McMillan asked what process would need to be followed if a retaining wall needs to be within five feet of the property line. McMillan asked whether that would require a variance under the proposed City Ordinance. Gaffron indicated it would require a variance and potentially a conditional use permit depending on the amount of land being moved and whether it is near the shoreline. McMillan asked if a retaining wall would be considered an encroachment if it needs to be constructed within the right-of-way. Gaffron stated there would likely be an encroachment agreement required, but that it could require a variance or a conditional use permit depending on where it is located. Gaffron indicated an encroachment agreement is something that Staff can do administratively, but if it requires fill, Staff would likely bring it before the City Council as either a variance or a conditional use permit request. Walsh asked if there is already something in the City Code about not allowing runoff into the neighbor’s property. Gaffron stated to the extent the person can avoid doing that, that would be desired, but that the City Code says whatever drains off a property should not impact the neighbors. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 26 (6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW continued) Walsh stated to his understanding under the City Ordinance even one wheelbarrow full of dirt will require permission from the City. Gaffron stated technically that is true today. Gaffron noted the City Council recently approved an increase in the amount of fill allowed within the 0-75 foot zone from 10 cubic yards, which is essentially one dump truck load, to 50 cubic yards, which is approximately five dump truck loads to allow for top dressing or maintenance of that area. Gaffron stated technically the City Code talks about any grading or any fill from 0 cubic yards on up requiring an administrative permit. Gaffron stated depending on the amount, it could require a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated Staff has to use some reasonableness in determining whether an administrative permit or a conditional use permit is required since t here are things that people do to merely maintain their yard but that technically the City does require a permit. Walsh stated in his view there should be reasonable limits set that would cover 90 percent of the people and that he does not want to penalize everyone and be over reaching. McMillan stated the minor projects should not require a permit but that as the projects become bigger and more impactful, then more limits should be set. McMillan stated the question is what those thresholds should be, and that in her view it is not possible to have one size fit all. Walsh noted that currently someone cannot dramatically alter the land. Walsh asked if the threshold should be 0 to 10 cubic yards where someone would be allowed to do it, but then if there is a problem, Staff will need to figure out how to handle it. Walsh stated if someone stands on someone else’s property, that person is technically trespassing, and that when he installs an electrical substation, he is required to have a minimal amount of clearance to work with that. Walsh stated he could see the situation where the City allows up to a foot of height to do a wall or a planter bed, but that there need to be at least two or three feet from the property line to allow someone to maintain that without going into someone else’s yard. Walsh stated the City should set those types of standards. Walsh stated on the narrow lots, if a person is required to leave five feet untouched on each side, the lot becomes very narrow and that the person should have the right to use their property. Walsh stated he would like to see it narrowed down somehow to address the 80 to 90 percent of the population that follows the rules in order to give some leeway for the minor projects. McMillan stated the City wants to have reasonable rules and only require permits on the more impactful items. McMillan stated if the Council is comfortable in providing some thresholds that would give Staff some idea on what would be allowed. McMillan stated currently 4-foot retaining walls are the threshold for engineering. Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards stated that primarily relates to safety. McMillan asked if that applies to the tiered walls. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 26 (6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW continued) Edwards stated currently the City considers multiple walls to be a single wall if the distance between the two walls is not greater than twice the height of the upper wall. Edwards stated if the walls are really close together and staggered, they would still be considered one wall as far as the engineer requirement is concerned. Staff is primarily concerned about the wall failing and slumping and causing damage. Walsh stated if someone has a 3-foot high deck, they are required to have railings, which relates to safety. Walsh stated once you start getting to two to three feet in height, you could impact someone’s sightlines. He does not want to prohibit someone from constructing a 1-foot high retaining wall or planter box. Walsh stated his recommendations would be at least two feet from the property line and 12 inches high without the need for a permit. In addition, the person could go up to 20 cubic yards of dirt as long as it is not altering the slope and changing the runoff. Printup stated he likes the idea of a starting point in order to keep the process moving forward. Printup asked how long this process will take. Printup stated he has a concern for people who may want to have some work done due to the high water issues experienced last year. Gaffron stated he anticipates that Staff will have a draft ready in a couple of weeks for the Council to review. Gaffron stated unless the Council needs to see the draft three or four times, it should be done before spring. Levang asked if Staff would like some guidance on the retaining wall definitions and which ones the Council would prefer. Gaffron stated the definitions are different but yet basically the same. Gaffron stated most of the definitions talk about supporting earth and not supporting another material. City Attorney Mattick stated the situation gets complicated in part if a retaining wall is there for simply decorative purposes. Mattick stated from a definition standpoint, a planter box would seem to be the same as a retaining wall or other landscape feature. Mattick stated regardless of what it is, if it is 12 inches or higher from an existing grade, the City should set a threshold for regulating it. Walsh stated in his view that approach makes sense if the City chooses to define it. Mattick stated a planter box that is four feet tall might be just as offensive as a 4-foot tall retaining wall and that he would approach it from a performance standard and not a definition standpoint. McMillan stated she would be in favor of a 2-foot high retaining wall and 20 cubic yards of fill not requiring a permit. McMillan stated anything within the right-of-way would need to be approved by Staff regardless of height due to the fact that snow needs to be plowed and the impact it could have on sightlines. Gaffron stated from a side lot line or a rear lot line, the City Code has been at five feet. Gaffron stated it should be set at the point where the person can still walk around and maintain it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 26 (6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW continued) Walsh stated in his view two to three feet would allow some room. Walsh stated as it relates to the 10- foot issue that could take up a lot of room on a narrow lot, and that people should know that if something has to be removed within the right-of-way, it has to be removed. Walsh stated he is not sure the City has to regulate the footage within the right-of-way any more than they currently do with the 5-foot. Gaffron stated the original language does not talk about front yards. Currently the City allows very few encroachments in someone’s front yard and that people are allowed to do more in their side or rear yards. The current City Code does not allow anything in the front yard that encroaches. Gaffron stated it is likely there will be a situation where someone would like to construct a retaining wall in their front yard and that the City Council should discuss that. Gaffron stated if it is in the right-of-way, an encroachment agreement will be required. Walsh stated if the City starts regulating all kinds of planter boxes and stepping stones, that does not seem reasonable. McMillan noted oftentimes the road is not exactly in the middle and that it can vary, which is another factor. McMillan stated the City needs room for snow plowing and storage and that she would like the Council to look at the right-of-way issue a little further. McMillan stated she is not sure at this point whether ten feet is too much. Walsh stated if someone is permitted to plant a bush within the right-of-way, it can get into the issue of why can I do this but not this. Walsh noted he has hedges that are five feet high right on the street, which he is allowed to do. McMillan stated if something is in the right-of-way, a utility company could remove it if necessary and that a retaining wall is more of a permanent structure than a bush or hedge or tree. McMillan stated retaining walls also tend to be more costly than a shrub or a tree. Walsh stated the homeowner is taking that risk and that they should be aware of that risk. McMillan stated the City needs to do whatever is necessary to plow the snow. Walsh suggested the City Council look closer into what type of setback is necessary in the right-of-way. McMillan stated the question is what the thresholds should be that trigger an encroachment agreement. McMillan noted people will use boulders as a decorative feature and they are not designed for retaining the dirt. Walsh stated if the standard is set too low and it causes problems, the City can request it be removed or relocated. Walsh stated in his view the City needs to set up a standard to start with. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 26 (6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON- ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS – SECOND REVIEW continued) McMillan stated in her view there are a few separate issues to deal with and they include the right-of-way, property lines, possibly reducing the setback to two to three feet, and a limited height for a planter wall or retaining wall. McMillan indicated she is inclined to allow a structure less than two feet in height to be located two to three feet from the property line. Printup stated as long as it does not impact the runoff to the neighbor’s property. Walsh noted that is already covered in an existing City Ordinance. McMillan stated in her view it does not hurt to explain that in the new City Ordinance as well. Gaffron noted Staff does not know what people are doing if they are not required to obtain a permit for something, such as a fence. Gaffron asked whether someone should obtain a permit for something that meets these standards. Gaffron indicated he is okay with the idea that a person can do certain things without a permit, but that there should be a threshold set for when an administrative permit is required or a variance. Walsh stated it could also impact hardcover. Gaffron stated that is correct. Gaffron stated the amount of fill or grading should also be considered. Mattick stated the City wants to be accommodating but that something as simple as a retaining wall could take someone over on hardcover. Mattick stated if there is no City review, the property owner may not realize that. Walsh asked if retaining walls still count towards hardcover. City Planner Curtis stated they need to be beyond the 75-foot setback. Walsh noted anything within the 0-75 foot zone would need to come before the City Council, which would cover the issue with the hardcover. Walsh stated the Planning Commission approved the draft City Ordinance 6-1 and that he was in attendance at that meeting. Walsh stated in his view it is important to see someone discuss applications like this and the passion that they have when they are talking about it. Walsh stated videotaping the Planning Commission meetings would allow that. Gaffron stated Staff will draft something for the Council to review in a couple of weeks based on tonight’s discussion. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to table Application No. 14-3707, Amend Zoning Ordinance Text: Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachment Section Regarding Retaining Walls. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 26 7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE NO. 135 Edwards stated the purpose of this City Ordinance is to create Section 14-142 to provide for wellhead protection by prohibiting new private wells where public water supply is available. In October of 2013, the City adopted its Wellhead Protection Plan. The WHPP is a requirement of the Minnesota Department of Health under Minnesota State Statutes and is a method of preventing contamination of a public water supply well by effectively managing potential contaminant sources in the area which contributes water to a public water supply well. Edwards stated part of the plan was a series of improvements the City agreed to do to protect its wells. One of those requirements was to establish a City Ordinance to protect the wells by prohibiting new private wells within protection zones, which corresponds with the City’s water distribution system. If a person has a fully functioning well, they will not be required to be connected to the city water until the well becomes nonfunctioning or the building undergoes major remodeling resulting in an increase in water use that exceeds the capacity of the well. If it is not feasible to connect to a public water supply or if private on-site water supplementation is required as determined by the City of Orono, a well may be drilled in accordance with the specifications and provisions of the Minnesota Department of Health. At the time connection to the public water supply is completed, all existing private wells no longer in use shall be capped by a licensed well contractor. Printup asked if that means that if a private well fails, the property owner cannot drill another one or whether they are allowed to drill on an alternate site. Edwards concurred that there are numerous alternate sites for drilling another well on any particular property. Walsh asked if this is a mandate or a suggestion they would like the City to follow. Edwards stated it is a suggestion. Walsh stated he would want to be able to drill another well and that he does not want someone to cap their wells if they are able to fix it. Walsh stated that should be an option as well as allowing a person to be able to drill a new well for irrigation. Walsh stated in his view it seems like a land grab by the government to push people on City water and that he is not in favor of that. Edwards stated in his view the City Ordinance would allow people to make repairs to their well but that it would prohibit someone from getting a new well permit from the State and drilling a new well. Walsh indicated he would not be in agreement with that and that people should be able to drill a new well if they want to. Printup asked if a person could drill deeper if their well runs dry. Edwards stated the resident would be allowed to do maintenance on their well, but that if they need to drill a new well, the City Ordinance would require them to obtain a permit from the state. Edwards stated the City Ordinance would prohibit someone from getting that permit to get a new well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 26 (7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE NO. 135 continued) Consulting City Engineer Martini stated one thing to consider is the financial piece of expanding the City infrastructure. Martini stated it would be feasible to have that infrastructure if everyone hooks up. Martini stated the City makes assumptions as to how many users there will be when planning the infrastructure. Martini stated the property owner would not need to hook up now if they have a functioning well but that at some point in the future they will have to if their well fails. Walsh stated a resident can have a fair amount of money invested into a well. McMillan stated in general most people want to hook up to city water and that the important piece of the City Ordinance is wellhead protection to prevent contaminating city water and identify the areas that impact the City’s municipal water and the aquafer. Walsh stated the regulations for a new well are very specific and that if a well fails a person has to fill them with cement and cap them. Walsh stated in his view this City Ordinance is taking away someone’s rights to drill a new well. Printup stated his hang up is the idea of forcing someone to do it. Printup asked if there is a provision in the City Ordinance regarding a supplemental well. Edwards stated that is another exemption. Edwards stated if the municipal water supply cannot provide the adequate amount of flow or pressure for whatever that need was, then there would be an exception to allow them to a supplemental well. Council Member Cornick asked what the approximate hookup cost would be in general and what costs are associated with capping a well. Walsh stated to his knowledge it cost about $1,000 to cap a well five years ago because it has to be certified and there are a limited number of companies that can do it. Edwards said the State does have a grant program as part of the Wellhead Protection Program for capping old wells. Edwards indicated he is not exactly sure what the City’s hookup charges are but that it depends on the length of the line. Cornick asked if it is more than $5,000 to hook up. Martini stated it potentially could be and that it is site specific. Martini stated providing a shutoff and a service line could make it cost over $5,000. Cornick asked if there would be any sources of relief for a homeowner who had to hook up but did not have the money for it. Mattick stated one option would be for the City to assess the property if it is for a public project but that typically the City does not act as a bank for private projects. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 26 (7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE NO. 135 continued) McMillan asked whether the old well needs to be capped if a new well is drilled. Martini indicated that is correct. Walsh stated he knows people on the lake that are heating and cooling their entire house through their well. McMillan stated to her knowledge that is a separate piece. Edwards stated in those situations they are not drawing ground water and are self-contained. McMillan asked if there is any public comment regarding this item. There was no public comment. Printup stated he has a concern about the cost for a homeowner if they are forced to hook up to City water. Levang stated someone does not know how far down they will have to go with a new well, which is also costly. Printup stated that is a good point but that it is up to the homeowner to decide. Printup stated in his view very few people would not want to hook up to city water. Levang stated the City Ordinance is important because of the potential contamination issue and backing up the City’s wellhead protection plan. Edwards stated the principle behind the Wellhead Protection Plan is to protect the City’s water and that a zone around each of the City’s wells has been identified. Edwards stated the issue with private wells has to do with the fact that the more holes that go into the ground and into the aquifer, the more opportunity for the aquifer to become contaminated. Edwards indicated this is just one of many items that make up the City’s WHPP and that it is all about trying to keep contaminates out of the aquifers. Walsh asked how many wells have contaminated the aquifer. Walsh stated in his view this is just a straw man argument with no facts. McMillan noted Spring Park is experiencing some contamination. Edwards stated Spring Park has two of three wells that have become contaminated. Walsh stated the cost for the residents on Green Trees to hook up to City water was $16,000 apiece. Levang noted it was their choice in that situation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 26 (7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE NO. 135 continued) McMillan noted Green Trees was for connection to City sewer and not water. Levang moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 135, an Ordinance for Protecting the City’s Wellheads by Prohibiting New Private Wells Where Public Water Supply is Available. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Walsh and Printup Opposed. *8. #15-3715 AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SETION 14-134: SERVICE PIPES – ORDINANCE NO. 137 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 137, an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code by Revising the Responsibilities for Water Service Repairs. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW Gaffron noted the City Council first looked at this issue back in May of 2014 at a work session. In 2002 the City adopted a surface water management plan that serves as a guide for developing and management of the surface water system of the City. That surface water plan was updated in January of 2011. An element of the plan is an inventory of the existing surface water systems, which includes a variety of stormwater facilities such as storm sewer pipes, drainage ways, ponding areas, etc. In addition, the 2002 plan identified long-term system improvements that would be needed as the City becomes more fully developed to deal with stormwater management as it relates to water quality and water quantity. The 2002 had an estimated cost of nearly $11 million in 1998 dollars. The update of the surface water plan in 2011 acknowledged that there are difficulties in funding surface water management needs. The CIP categorizes planned expenditures in four specific areas. It talks about activities associated with meeting the City’s obligations towards its NPDES or National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, which includes educational materials, cleanup days, inspection programs for illicit sewer and septic system discharges, etc. A second element of the plan included capital improvement projects, such as implementation of the plan itself, water quality and water quantity projects for developing areas, wetland restorations, priority projects for developed areas, and ongoing operations and maintenance of the storm sewer system. It also included implementation of official controls, which are City Ordinances. Gaffron stated the annual planned City expenditures in these four areas total approximately $250,000 to $350,000 a year. Gaffron indicated there are a small number of funding sources to accomplish these goals and noted the level of funding needed for planned Capital Improvement projects is not fully covered by the stormwater utility or permit fees. Gaffron noted the City will likely have some issues with phosphorus reduction requirements since it is likely the total maximum daily load studies will suggest there are certain bodies of the water within the City that are going to require projects. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 26 (9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) Gaffron stated the funding sources for these projects are broken down into four components: 1. The stormwater and drainage trunk fee, which the Council is discussing tonight, that is charged to new developments. 2. The stormwater and drainage trunk fee that is charged to redevelopment or expansion. Gaffron noted the City has chosen in the past not to implement that because of the onerous aspects of it. 3. The stormwater utility fees which are collected quarterly from every property owner in the City that is part of the Stormwater Utility Program; 4. Grant monies that could be secured from various agencies. Gaffron noted the City received a grant from the Watershed District for a project on Ivy Place and another grant to conduct a project off of Tonkawa Bay Road for Stubbs Bay. Gaffron stated the stormwater and drainage trunk fee established in 2002 was considered a reasonable basis for establishing a dollar figure per acre that should be collected from new developments. That figure at the time was $2,670 per acre based on all property within a development. Methods for reducing that fee were also put in place. Gaffron noted the Council had some issues at the time with charging on a per acre basis for a 5-acre lot when a 5-acre lot is the least of the City’s concerns since it has a larger area that can absorb runoff. For the 5-acre zone, the City had established a reduction of up to 50 percent of the stormwater fee based on the percentage of the site that was put into drainage way buffer easements or perimeter easements where the buffer areas had to remain in a natural state. Gaffron noted that reduction only applied to the 5-acre zone and not the 2-acre zone and that it is the 2- acre properties that have brought the issue back to the forefront in the past year. Gaffron stated for the 5- acre zone, it was also established that any lot that was developed in that 5-acre zone only has to pay for five acres, and in the 2-acre zone any lot that exceeds four acres has to pay for four acres. Gaffron stated conceptually the City Ordinance also talks about potential reduction of the stormwater fee based on providing stormwater facilities that provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is required to serve that new development. The City has not formally established policies for that purpose but at least on one occasion in Stone Bay the City did give a rebate essentially for oversizing the pond along Highway 12. Gaffron stated there are a number of issues that have been identified and are as follows: 1. The lack of clarity for dealing with new development activity. 2. The City Ordinance as written requires payment of the fee for all of the acreage and there have been questions as to whether or not they should be paying for areas that are considered wetlands or areas that are stormwater ponding. 3. There are inequities in the calculation of the fee for redevelopment. The Council should review how the fee relates to hardcover levels and hardcover increases or decreases as well as the use of BMPs to minimize runoff leaving the site. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 26 (9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) 4. Provisions should be established and documented in the City Code with regard to past and future payments of the SW&DT fees. The Council should establish standards defining how past fees paid are credited for future development of a site. 5. Examine how the fee takes into consideration on-site stormwater improvements and consider adopting standards for fee credit for off-site improvements. 6. The need to analyze whether the triggers for charging the SW&DT fee for both new development and redevelopment are clear and appropriate. Staff is working on a number of options for the Council to consider in the future. In early January of 2014, Staff, in conjunction with the Planning Commission, looked at a number of questions that need to be answered. However, the Planning Commission did not spend much time on this. The analysis being prepared by Staff should be available in late February or early March for Council review. At this time the Council should provide input and direction on the materials included in their packets this evening. McMillan asked if Staff is looking for Council input on the direction the City should pursue. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron requested the Council review the Planning Commission memo and documents. Gaffron stated Staff hopes to have a potential solution or option to each of the elements to make it easier for developers to accept as it relates to new homes and remodels. Gaffron noted the City would have ended up under the current City Code with X number of dollars towards these CIP projects in the future as the development happens. Gaffron stated if the Council’s goal is to collect fewer dollars that will need to be a conscious decision. Another option that can be looked at is collecting the same number of dollars but devising a different system of collection. Gaffron stated the biggest question is how much revenue the City would like to collect from this source. McMillan stated it appears the City Council is looking at land that is being subdivided; vacant lots, which is land that is not subdivided; a redeveloped lot, such as a tear down and rebuild; and an addition to the structure. McMillan noted currently the City does not charge a stormwater fee on a redeveloped lot or a remodel. Gaffron asked if the City Council has a priority or whether she would like to look at them together. McMillan stated she realizes the City is experiencing some pressure on this issue with regard to subdivisions but that she would like to look at the other ones as well. McMillan indicated she would like to add the 50 percent reduction credit to subdivided land and that she would place the vacant land and redeveloped lots in the same category. McMillan indicated she is not interested in charging a stormwater fee on additions unless they are doubling the size of the house. Levang stated she likes those four categories, but as it relates to an addition, if it adds more bedrooms, that could result in an increase of usage and have an impact on the stormwater system. Levang stated in her view there should be a threshold established and that the City should look at what the stormwater impact is likely to be from that piece of land. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 26 (9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) Levang stated the Council also needs to figure out how they are going to get to the $11 million and that if the Council gives a 50 percent credit and allows the 2-acre lots to be calculated the same as the 5-acre properties, the City will be losing money. Loftus stated the fees were originally calculated based on a need. Printup stated in his view generating $11 million in stormwater fees is probably unattainable. Levang asked if it was determined to be unattainable at the time the City set the $11 million figure. Gaffron stated the Council should look at the time necessary to collect the $11 million and that Staff could look at the remaining land to be developed and the fees that will be generated from those developments. Gaffron indicated the calculation was based on potential future properties and what it would cost to do stormwater management for those developments. Gaffron stated to his understanding the previous Council never determined that those fees would arrive at $11 million. Gaffron noted since 2002, the City has collected $850,000 in stormwater fees. Levang noted the amount of land available for development is also shrinking. Gaffron stated the City is probably 80 to 90 percent developed at this point as it relates to undeveloped land. McMillan stated the City has two sources of revenue currently as it relates to stormwater fees: the subdivided land and the annual stormwater fee that is charged to the residents. Levang stated if the City looks at adding vacant lots, tear downs, and an addition at a certain threshold, the City would be adding two to three more sources, but if the 50 percent credit is given, it might be evening it out. Gaffron stated there is a lot of math involved in balancing that. Gaffron stated he agrees with the concept that if someone is doing an addition and adding 10 percent hardcover as opposed to doubling it, somewhere in between there might be a threshold point. Walsh stated in his mind the question about how much money the City needs and how much money the City should charge in stormwater fees are two separate questions. Walsh stated the questions the City should be asking is what a fair fee to be charged is and is the current system working. Walsh stated if the Council feels it is not working, then they should start over, and that in his view the City should start over. Walsh stated a fairly simple solution might be to have the fee be hardcover based. Walsh stated the City could have its standard fee for one or two acre lots based on 25 percent hardcover. The standard fee for a one acre lot could be set at $5,000, and if the person is over the 25 percent hardcover, they would pay more, and if they are under the 25 percent hardcover, they would pay less. Walsh stated the rates would then be $2,500 for a half acre, $5,000 for one acre, $7,500 for two acres, $10,000 for three acres, $12,500 for four acres, and anything above five acres would be $15,000. Walsh stated if the property has less than 25 percent hardcover; the fee would be less based on the percentage of hardcover. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 26 (9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) Walsh stated the same formula could be used for someone who adds a deck or an addition based on the amount of hardcover they are adding. Walsh stated in his mind this is really a hardcover issue and that the fee should be based upon that. Walsh stated after that formula is set, the City can then look at how much money is being raised and have another conversation about how much money is needed in the fund and how should the funds be raised. Walsh stated what the City is doing now is trying to get as much money as possible from people who are developing a lot or subdividing a lot. Walsh stated his solution would be having a sliding scale based upon the current limit of 25 percent hardcover. McMillan noted there are people who are currently over 25 percent. McMillan asked if Council Member Walsh is talking about when the lot gets developed and not subdivided. Walsh indicated he is. Walsh stated the water is not being displaced simply because the lot is subdivided. Levang noted that would delay money coming into the fund. Printup stated it sounds like the conversation has turned towards money and how the City needs this revenue. Printup stated in the coming weeks he would like to see a comparison of the four -tier breakdown and Council Member Walsh’s approach. Printup indicated he would like the discussion to keep moving forward since the Council is all in agreement that something needs to be done with the stormwater. Printup asked how much is currently in the fund. Olson stated he does not have that number currently but would mention it during the financial report. Mattick stated the fee discussion is a policy discussion for the Council to figure out, and that when fees are examined by outside sources, the City should not artificially create a number but rather identify the need based on something. Mattick stated the Council cannot say that three-quarters of Orono is already built out and so we are going to attempt to fund that with the one quarter that is left. Mattick recommended the Council keep in mind that the stormwater fund will probably be underfunded regardless of what system they come up with if they intend to fund all stormwater projects with only stormwater fees. Mattick stated regardless of what number is arrived at, there should be a rationale behind that number. McMillan stated given the fact that some of the stormwater mandates have not gone into effect yet, it is hard to know what the City’s future demands will be. McMillan stated at this point the City needs to determine whether the fee should be changed and the rationale for that change. McMillan noted the City has been charging this fee for the past 13 years and that they should look at it again. McMillan stated she is not aware of whether other cities charge a stormwater fee if someone adds a shed or a bedroom onto their house. Walsh stated the issue comes down to hardcover and how much of the land is covered, which directly impacts stormwater. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 26 (9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continued) McMillan suggested Staff check to see what other cities are doing and whether their fees are based on hardcover. Gaffron indicated he has looked at it from a hardcover standpoint on both a percentage and a square footage basis and that he will be presenting that to the Council in the near future. Gaffron stated in his view the Council will find that basing it on square footage makes more sense. Gaffron indicated Staff will continue to refine this based on Council’s comments tonight. McMillan stated as it relates to residential redevelopment, in Staff’s March memorandum on Page 5, the fee is per acre and that in her view the fee should be per lot. McMillan stated if someone is redeveloping their lot and adding up to 1,000 square feet of impervious surface, the chart could reflect what the fee is based on square footage. In addition, redeveloped lots should be limited to principal structures and not accessory structures or driveways. McMillan stated on some of the smaller lots, because they are small lots with over 25 percent hardcover, they would be required to pay more and that it may get to be very expensive. Walsh stated the issue is the hardcover. Levang stated a threshold would make sense based on the size of the addition. Gaffron indicated Staff will lay out a few options for the Council to look at. Walsh stated he would like to stay away from exemptions as much as possible since they tend to grow as time goes on. Walsh stated he would like to keep it as simple as possible. McMillan stated a good goal is to keep it simple, but that over time exceptions tend to start popping up, which may mean it is time to review it again. McMillan asked if there is any public comment on this item. Jeff Bryanshank, Source Land Capital noted Pat Hiller submitted a memorandum to the Council stating their position on this matter. In Source Land’s view, the fee is fairly large and that they are looking at the golf course in two ways: The amount of open space and conservation easements that are being created as part of this development and the investment that involves as well as creating oversized lots, both of which will lessen the stormwater impact. The City Council took no formal action on this item. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT 10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS Edwards reported the Navarre lighting project is nearly complete except for a few punch list items and site remediation that will take place in the spring. Edwards stated the streetlight posts the City had MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 26 (10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS continued) installed come with several attachments for decorative items. The poles can support banners, holiday lights and a flag. Thirty-two of the light poles can support decorations. Ten light poles have hanging flower basket attachments. Edwards noted light pole decorations are not currently budgeted and that funding options include soliciting decoration sponsorship from business/residents of the Navarre community or inclusion in the City Budget for 2016. Staff requests the Council provide guidance on a decorating scheme that best represents the Navarre area. Edwards stated he would recommend the decoration plan be kept simple with only a few changes throughout a normal year in order to reduce costs of installation and wear and tear to the light poles and attachments. Edwards indicated he attempted to lay out a seasonal plan for the attachments and that the prices for the various attachments are not definitive. The banners would cost $50 to $100, for a total cost estimated to be from $1,600 to $3,200 for 32 light poles; holiday lights would cost $450 apiece; the flags would cost $90 apiece; and the flower baskets would cost $90 apiece. Edwards stated he believes the Public Works Department can use their existing lift that they have to install the attachments but that it is a little more cumbersome than a bucket truck. Edwards noted if that does not work out, the Public Works Department may have to rent a bucket truck or look at changing out the attachments with a ladder, which would be more time consuming. As it relates to the flower baskets, those would require watering at least three days a week and an hour turnaround time each time. Edwards stated one option for the flower baskets would be that individual businesses adopt a plant and maintain it. Walsh stated it would be nice to experiment with a few things and see how they work and if there are volunteers to take care of the planter baskets. Walsh suggested the Navarre Initiative group be contacted to see if they are interested in perhaps maintaining the baskets. Walsh stated in his view it is a great idea to spruce up that corridor. Printup stated he was hesitant on the flower baskets in the beginning and noted that the banners were bought up by the Navarre businesses rather quickly. Printup stated if the Navarre Initiative Group would be interested in helping to maintain the baskets that would be great. Printup stated the two items that he would support at this time would be the flags and the holiday lights, followed by the banners and the flower baskets. McMillan asked how high the baskets would be off the road and whether it would be easy for a pedestrian to water. Edwards stated the baskets would sit roughly at the bottom of the flag and that someone with a hose and a wand would be able to water them, which is essentially what the Public Works Department would do. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 26 (10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS continued) Levang stated she is opposed to the baskets since the City does not really have one person that could be allocated to taking care of them all season long. Levang stated in her view the banners are a good idea given the City’s past success with those as well as the holiday lights. Levang indicated she is not sure about switching out the flags given the cost. Levang stated she would be in favor of the banners and the holiday lights, with just a few light poles being lighted. Levang stated one option would be to have people adopt a light pole to maintain and perhaps purchase the holiday lights. Levang stated she is not sure if the Navarre Initiative group will be able to take on this project since they are already committed to another project at the present time, which raises the question of who else could do it. Printup stated the one thing that has been mentioned to him by various residents in the past was flags. Walsh stated it is not like the City is adding people to perform this labor since they are already on staff and they are already being paid for the day. Walsh stated if the Public Works Department has time to do this, it would not really be an extra cost. Edwards stated it becomes an added cost if it becomes too repetitive. Edwards stated the installations would also be done during normal hours to avoid overtime. Loftus stated the only out-of-pocket costs the City might incur are due to the fact that the City does not have a bucket truck. The City currently borrows the school’s lift, which is not the most effective piece of equipment. Loftus stated the Council might eventually get a request from Public Works for a bucket truck. Walsh stated in his mind the flower pots will always be questionable given the amount of maintenance that is required. Cornick stated the flower baskets might be more susceptible to vandalism than the flags or banners. Cornick indicated he would be opposed to the flower baskets and that he is neutral on the other items. McMillan stated in her view the City should go ahead with the banners given the time of the year and then pursue possible funding from the Navarre community. Levang asked if the City would just go with a generic banner or a more customized banner. Levang stated if the banners are customized, it may be necessary to first ask which businesses are interested in purchasing one. McMillan indicated she was thinking of a generic banner. Walsh stated if the City went with a generic banner, they would be able to purchase a few extra ones to have on hand in case one of them gets torn. Levang stated she would support that idea. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 26 (10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS continued) McMillan stated she personally likes the holiday lights since they are more festive and that perhaps the City could look at that later. Walsh suggested the Navarre Initiative be asked and the Park Commission also be approached. Printup stated it sounds like the flower baskets are questionable and that he is okay with not having the flower baskets. Printup asked if the Mayor is also interested in the flags as well. McMillan stated she would like to go ahead with just the banners tonight and perhaps look at the flags and holiday lights later. Walsh stated the Council can always revisit this later and that it would be nice to get something going now. Printup stated as a starting point he is fine with the banners but that at some point he would like the Council to consider flags. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to purchase and display banners on 32 light poles in Navarre and to seek support from the Navarre Initiative and the business community to supplement purchase of the banners. Walsh asked if the Council is interested in purchasing some extra banners. McMillan noted Staff will be gathering estimates for the banners and that they can determine later whether extra ones should be purchased. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 11. NAVARRE STREET LIGHT AND SIDEWALK PROJECT – ENGINEERING FEE CHANGE REQUEST Edwards noted the Council authorized Bolton & Menk to oversee the construction of the Navarre lighting and sidewalk project for a fee not to exceed $54,050. Construction is now complete on the project less site restoration and minor punch list items. As a result of changed project conditions and timeline, Bolton & Menk is now requesting an additional $4,050 above the previously authorized not to exceed fee. Edwards stated even with the additional fee, the overall project is still projected to come in under budget. Walsh stated since the issues that came up were unforeseen given the transition in city engineers, he would be in favor of approving the additional fee, but that he will be a little tougher in the future. Martini stated in his mind there were enough issues that came up with this project that exceeded the initial amount. Martini noted there have been other projects that have exceeded the estimated oversight time and that Bolton & Menk has not charged for that. Martini indicated requesting additional fees are not something they will make a habit of. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 26 (11. NAVARRE STREET LIGHT AND SIDEWALK PROJECT – ENGINEERING FEE CHANGE REQUEST continued) Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the request by Bolton & Menk for an additional $4,050 above the previously authorized not to exceed fee for the Navarre lighting and sidewalk project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. UTILITY MAPPING IMPROVEMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORM SEWER Edwards stated this item relates to utility mapping and improvements for the City’s sanitary sewer/water distribution and storm sewer systems. At the present time Staff utilizes a GIS system to conduct routine planning and maintenance decisions. The system is used both by the Planning and Zoning departments as well as Public Works. The City has been on a GIS system since 2008 and that system has been developed and maintained by the City’s consulting firms. Edwards stated over the last 12 to 18 months, the Public Works Department has collected and verified the accuracy of the data and now that data needs to be put on the GIS system. Edwards stated the costly portion is rectifying that data with a GIS technician to ensure that they are the correct data points. Edwards noted some additional data still needs to be collected on the storm sewer system, and once that has been collected, it will also need to be rectified into the system. Staff would recommend that this be done on a continual basis as projects are completed by the City. McMillan asked if the City owns the collected information. Edwards stated the City owns it and the consulting firm maintains it on their server. Walsh asked if this is a 2-dimenional or 3-dimensional system. Edwards indicated it is 2-dimensional and shows contours. Walsh asked if it shows depths. Edwards stated it would show land elevations but not depths. Martini stated the as-built information for those structures are tied into the system, and that if someone clicks on a manhole, they would have the ability to access the as-built plans, which would give the elevations. Martini stated the mapping piece is 2-dimensional. Edwards stated the important thing to note is that the data attributes for any particular piece of infrastructure are provided. Walsh stated in his view this is an important system for the Public Works Department to have in order to see exactly what the infrastructure is rather than relying on old maps. Walsh suggested Staff look into what it would cost to upgrade it to a 3-dimensional system. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 26 (12. UTILITY MAPPING IMPROVEMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER, WATER DISTRIBUTION AND STORM SEWER continued) Cornick asked if the anticipated completion date is September 1 and whether the weather conditions will impact that. Martini stated in their view that is a comfortable completion date. Martini noted lack of data on the storm sewer system is the biggest gap in the system at the current time. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to authorize Bolton & Menk to update the City’s GIS system at a cost no to exceed $29,480. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. PUBLIC WORKS STEEL TOE BOOT REIMBURSEMENT Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to raise the maximum annual steel boot reimbursement to $175.00 per year. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT Edwards reported the Public Works Department has continued to clean up the parks and remove dead and/or fallen trees and limbs. Edwards noted the City is now entering into pothole season and that the Public Works Department has been applying cold patch to some of the streets. Edwards noted cold patch can really only be used in big potholes and not some of the smaller ones. Edwards stated Staff has also been in the process of tidying up the Public Works facility. Edwards reported Lift Station No. 6 experienced an electrical failure recently but that the City’s backup generator functioned as it was supposed to and kept the lift station functioning properly until the repairs could be made. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang thanked the Public Works Department for keeping the walking path around the City Hall facilities clear. Levang stated it is nice to have that trail available during the winter since the Dakota Trail is not plowed as well as many of the other trails. Levang stated she also noticed there were some trees trimmed up by the ball fields and that she appreciates the work being done by the Public Works Department. Levang noted a trail is also available during the winter at French Creek Preserve as well as the Highwood Nature Trail. Levang reported that Administrator Loftus, Council Members Printup, Cornick and she attended the follow-up session for the demonstration project, which then leads to a second smaller follow-up that was attended by herself and Council Member Cornick. Levang stated the community intends to go forward with the project but not apply for a grant at this time. The group hopes to have at least one demonstration project in September. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 26 (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT continued) Cornick stated he attended the training by the League of Minnesota Cities and that he is thankful for the opportunity to attend since it was well worth it. Walsh stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting in January and that in his view it is important to attend in person whenever possible. Walsh stated he would like to include on the next City Council agenda the issue about videotaping the Planning Commission meetings so a decision can be made on that. Walsh stated he realizes the City Council has reviewed a number of amendments and ordinances and that there are still a few that have not yet been placed on the agenda. Walsh stated it would be nice to get all of those finalized and get them in place. Walsh requested those be placed on the next agenda. Walsh noted the proposed language for the public comment has been reviewed a couple of times now and that he would like that to also be brought up for discussion at the next City Council meeting. Walsh stated the language would allow people to know that they will be asked for their input on applications as the applications are being discussed by the Council. Walsh stated the final item he would like to discuss is the fact that the City really lacks the enforcement mechanism necessary to collect fees for City Ordinance violations with the exception of threatening to take them court, which then becomes the City’s cost. Walsh stated in his view the City needs to have some language in place to handle those situations. Walsh stated in his view if a person does not pay the fee, it should be increased since a financial incentive is typically the biggest motive to take care of them. Walsh stated he would like to discuss this issue at the next work session. Mattick stated it is his understanding City Code enforcement is on the next work session agenda. Mattick stated he can discuss a re-inspection fee and what some of the other communities are doing to address this issue. McMillan stated she is fine with placing the videotaping of the Planning Commission meetings on the Council agenda. McMillan indicated she would prefer to discuss the language for the public comment section and City Code enforcement at a work session. Printup stated he also likes the idea of videotaping the Planning Commission meetings. McMillan stated she received an update from Hennepin County Transportation Department a couple of weeks ago on Navarre. Hennepin County should know in March whether they will be receiving the safety grant for the intersections of County Roads 15 and 19. If the grant is received, the Department of Transportation will start work on designing the intersection. McMillan indicated she also met with two board members of the Gillespie Center to talk about City funding. McMillan stated the Gillespie Center will be putting something together and submitting that prior to June. McMillan reported that Senator Osmek has been holding meetings with some of the local mayors to talk about his legislation related to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan. McMillan stated they also talked about Sunday liquor sales. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 26 (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT continued) McMillan stated while she personally has not spoken to any liquor store owners, she is aware that the mayor of Long Lake has spoken to some of the liquor store owners and they had indicated they were really not interested in being open on Sundays since they are a small business. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 14. 4th QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Olson stated the stormwater fund balance is currently $983,000, but approximately $270,000 has tentatively been earmarked to be spent on a new street sweeper, which would leave a little over $600,000 in that fund. Olson stated the numbers for the 2004 fourth quarter budget are still preliminary but are pretty solid. Olson noted there are still a few invoices coming in but that the amounts included in the report will not change significantly. Olson reported revenues for 2014 were up in every major category and is typically over 100 percent. The City did experience some years where it did not meet anticipated revenues but that this is the second year in a row where revenues came in over 100 percent of taxes. Olson indicated that happened because of some delinquent tax revenues being received in 2014. In addition, licenses and permits were well over budget as well as building permits. Other governmental revenues finished the year at 120.2 percent of budget, with a major portion of the overage being the result of higher than anticipated police state aid. Olson noted fine revenue for 2014 is only at 77.5 percent of budget due to the lack of a distribution from the drug task force in 2014. Olson reported the golf course came in $24,000 over budget for revenue. Olson noted the golf course still lost money for the year but that amount has been reduced from $45,000 down to $16,000. Overall General Fund expenditures are currently at 98 percent of budget or $150,000 under budget. Some departments were over budget, such as the golf course and parks. Olson noted parks were slightly over budget because the City Council had decided to pay more attention to cleaning up the parks in 2014. While some of the departments are over budget, such as inspection services and special services, t he remaining departments were either at or below budgeted amounts. Olson noted inspection services was almost $80,000 over budget as a result of the increased building activity in the City and special services charges are charged back to the person requesting the service. Olson stated at the end of the year, the City had approximately $7.6 million in CDs. Interest rates have remained pretty steady for the past three or four years, with the majority of the City’s investments receiving one to two percent. Olson stated if the City put its money in longer-term CDs; the interest rate would go up slightly. Olson stated the City had $3.7 million in money market accounts last year. Olson indicated that is slightly more than what normally would be in those accounts and was a result of the garage construction project going on, which required the City to have a little more flexibility with its money. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 of 26 (14. 4th QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT continued) The City also had $1.3 million of debt service due on February 1. The City’s total investments are $17.2 million, which is approximately where they were last year at this time. Olson stated budget adjustments for the departments that are over budget will be prepared for the Council’s approval as part of the February 23 meeting. The overall expenditure budget will not be increased and the increases to the individual department budgets will be offset by budget reductions in other departmental budgets. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT CONTINUED Loftus noted many of the budget overages were offset by increased revenues and overall the 2014 Budget is very positive. Loftus reported the Fire Advisory Board met approximately one week ago and that they discussed the upcoming Centennial celebration. Loftus indicated no specific plans have been set at this point. The fire department was at 99.27 percent of expenditures for the year and was partly as a result of reduced calls in 2014. Loftus noted the City has a couple of residents and Park Commissioners who are helping to host an intergenerational conversation about the future in Orono. That event has been scheduled for April 9 at 6 p.m. in the Council chambers. Loftus stated a fair amount of time at the meeting with Hennepin County was spent talking about the Kelly Avenue access. Hennepin County is very aware of Orono’s concerns and they are looking at intermediate short-term options. Loftus stated if the grant goes through, Hennepin County will be redesigning that intersection. *CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Fund Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:36 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST ___________________________________ ____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor