Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2015 Council MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 1 of 19    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, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 4, 6, and 11 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 2 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2015 McMillan requested the minutes be corrected on Page 25 to read $24,000 rather than $2,400 under revenue for the golf course. Printup moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of February 9, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – DENISE LESKINEN, REPRESENTATIVE Leskinen stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS James Anderst, Narrows Saloon, indicated he is in the process of remodeling a portion of the building on his property to accommodate a restaurant. He has been informed by the Metropolitan Council that he is required to pay SAC charges in the approximate amount of $10,400. Anderst stated the building has been in existence since the late 1940s. A Laundromat, dry-cleaners, and hair salon once occupied the space where the restaurant is going. The Metropolitan Council has informed him that he needs an affidavit from the City of Orono indicating what was in that building. Anderst stated the City does not have records going back this far but that he has pictures of the building from the Gallery of Navarre that recently was published. Anderst indicated the pictures are taken in the 1950s. Anderst stated he now needs an affidavit from the City stating that this is what was in there. Anderst stated in his view he does not feel there should be SAC fees from the Metropolitan Council and that he is willing to fill out the affidavit if someone from the City will sign it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 2 of 19    PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) Anderst stated City sewer and water was installed during 1965, 1966, and 1967 but the City does not have records going back that far. McMillan stated she is not aware of how the Metropolitan Council computes their SAC charges but that it appears they are charging Mr. Anderst on a restaurant calculation. Senior Planner Gaffron stated the City does not have any indications as to whether or not a statement of what the occupants of the building were in 1955 would be useful to the Metropolitan Council, but if that is information Mr. Anderst can provide, Staff can look at it. Gaffron noted the City does not have water use data or square footage data going back before 2002 since it was not required to be kept. Gaffron stated to the extent the City can provide an affidavit that there were uses in the building in the past, they can do that, but whether it will resolve the SAC charges situation, he is not sure. Council Member Walsh stated the City could determine that by just generally verifying that with City records and talking with people. Gaffron stated the only records the City would have would consist of photographs and word of mouth. Walsh asked Mr. Anderst if the Metropolitan Council stated that the affidavit would help them make a determination even if the City cannot tell them how much water was provided. Anderst stated if there are no water usage records, it would be hard to prove that, but that he would just like an affidavit from the City saying this is what was in there. Anderst stated in his view there should not be a SAC charge on a building that has existed for 70 years. Walsh stated if the City provides an affidavit; it would be up to Mr. Anderst to work with the Metropolitan Council on the SAC charges. Council Member Levang asked if the City has business licenses from that period. Gaffron stated the City does not and that Staff has looked through a number of pertinent files that may contain that type of information but have not been able to locate any for this building going back that far. Council Member Printup stated it is reasonable and makes sense for the City to provide something since they are aware of what has been there. Gaffron stated prior to the 1960s, the City has virtually no records that are still in existence and that they would need to rely on photographs. Walsh asked if he has an example of something he would like the City to write. Anderst indicated he has provided that to the City Clerk. Levang noted the City Council does have a letter put together by the City Clerk with the information that Mr. Anderst provided. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 3 of 19    PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) Anderst stated in his view it does not make sense that someone should be penalized for owning a piece of property simply because the City does not have records. Council Member Cornick asked if the Metropolitan Council has said what they will do once they receive the letter. Anderst stated they have not and that he is merely asked for an affidavit stating what was in there. Levang asked if there is any other documentation that the book contains or that the author might have. Anderst indicated he just has what is in the book. Levang stated the author may have information her files that would be helpful and that he may want to consider getting in touch with her. Anderst stated the book has dates and pictures. Anderst stated at that time everybody was required to hook up to the sewer line. Walsh asked if the City has any issues with why they should not do something like that. Gaffron stated he does not see any issues with it but that he is not sure what value it would have. Loftus stated the City typically will verify something based on their records but that they could perhaps phrase the affidavit very generically. McMillan asked if the Metropolitan Council is saying that because this is a bar and restaurant that he is incurring more SAC charges than a beauty salon. Anderst stated he did not understand it to be that way either but that he needs to prove there were a hair salon and a laundromat in the building, both of which used water. Gaffron requested Mr. Anderst contact him this week in order to put something together. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 Gaffron stated the City Council reviewed a brief draft ordinance at their February 9, 2015 meeting and had a number of questions that have been addressed on Page 2 of Staff’s memorandum. Gaffron stated the questions primarily related to the level of construction of low retaining walls or planter beds and whether a person should be required to obtain a building permit. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 4 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) Gaffron stated until this piece of the code was misinterpreted last summer; it has not been an issue. Gaffron stated the City in the past has defined a retaining wall and the City Code scarcely addresses them. Gaffron stated this issue may have grown into something bigger than it needs to be, but that the City Council should go through some of the potential changes that can be made to the Code. One of the issues that have been discussed previously is the proximity of planter boxes and retaining walls to the property lines. Council suggested at the last meeting that a planter box up to two feet high and involving up to 20 cubic yards of fill be allowed as close as two to three feet from the side or rear lot line without a permit. Staff would be comfortable with allowing a 2-foot high wall or planter bed involving ten cubic yards as close as five feet from the lot line without a permit, but that in situations where there is less than a 5-foot setback, the wall is higher than two feet, and more than ten cubic yards of fill are involved, there should be an administrative permit. Staff’s reluctance to allow for less than a 5-foot setback without at least an administrative permit is that on narrow lots drainage can be a concern. Staff feels retaining walls and planter boxes need to be located and designed so as not to impede drainage between and across adjoining properties. In addition, while maintenance, safety, and visual impacts are less of an issue, they should be reviewed. Staff would also recommend that any wall or planter box to be located less than five feet from a property line or less than ten feet from the traveled roadway require an administrative permit to ensure review of the drainage and other potential neighborhood impacts and to determine whether a conditional use permit should be required. Another factor to consider is whether the retaining wall or planter box would be located in the shoreland. Gaffron stated shoreland regulations are pretty much the same in all cities and basically state that without a permit, someone is allowed up to 10 cubic yards on a steep slope or within the bluff impact zones without a permit and up to 50 cubic yards would be allowed outside of steep slopes or bluff impact zones. Gaffron noted Orono’s current code requires a permit to for that. In addition, current City Code functionally prohibits any amount of filling or earth movement without a conditional use permit. There is an exception to the conditional use permit requirement for earth movement of less than 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact existing drainage, but this still requires a land alteration permit for such activity. Gaffron stated if up to 10 cubic yards is going to be allowed to be placed for low walls or planter beds without a permit, and then it follows than 10 cubic yards of fill should be allowed without a permit anywhere in Orono. Gaffron stated in order to make this code change, the City will need to publish and hold a public hearing as this change was not anticipated or published as part of the original retaining wall as a non-encroachment proposed amendment. Gaffron stated in regards to encroachments within road right-of-ways, this is addressed to a great extent already in the City’s Code. Currently the public road is considered by definition the public property between lateral lot lines, and when the street is not platted, includes ten feet either side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface. City Code currently requires a permit for placement of any obstructions within a street. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 5 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) The use of an encroachment agreement or a “hold harmless agreement” has been commonly employed as a method of allowing encroachments within right-of-ways by placing limitations on the use and establishing that such improvements may have to be removed and are allowed at the owner’s risk. The intent of the current code revision was to merely reiterate that it is not acceptable to have retaining walls directly abutting the road right-of-way without City approval. Staff would suggest that the proposed wording be revised to include a clarification that walls cannot be within a platted or dedicated road right-of-way, and when the platted right-of-way is extremely narrow or is neither platted nor dedicated, walls may not be placed within ten feet of the traveled roadway. Gaffron stated if there is a need to define retaining wall, it would be to distinguish a retaining wall from other types of walls. A planter box functions to retain the earth inside it, so it functionally is a retaining wall and should be regulated as such. A wall that is open on both sides likely functions as a fence and should be regulated as a fence. A wall or fence greater than six feet in height that is open on both sides needs to meet principal structure setbacks. Gaffron stated Section 1 of the draft ordinance proposes the following: a. Retaining walls may be located in all required yards when all of the following conditions are met: 1. The structure is located at least ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway. 2. The structure is not located 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; 3. The structure creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate, or volume for adjacent properties. b. Retaining walls which do not exceed two feet in height above existing grade, which are located within the property and at least five feet from any property line, and for which the amount of imported fill associated with the structure does not exceed ten cubic yards, do not require a building or land alteration permit. c. Retaining walls exceeding two feet in height above existing grade or for which the amount of imported fill associated with the structure exceeds ten cubic yards or which are located less than five feet from a property line, shall require a land alteration permit and, upon recommendation of the building inspector, may require City Council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of Section 78-967. d. Retaining walls exceeding the allowed height of a fence in a given required yard shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for that yard. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 6 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) Section 2 would add the following definition of a retaining wall: “Retaining wall means a wall or similar structure designed and constructed to hold back and prevent lateral movement of earth or other landscaping materials. Gaffron stated the City Council should consider the draft ordinance and make whatever changes they feel are appropriate. Printup noted at the last meeting he asked about fences and that a fence is currently allowed right up to the lot line. Gaffron stated fences are allowed right up to the property line but not on it or over it. Walsh stated that is the dichotomy of the whole thing and that people are allowed currently to put a fence near the property line or a row of shrubs. Walsh noted at the last meeting the City Council had generally agreed that two feet from the property line would be okay and up to 20 cubic yards. Walsh stated it was his understanding the Council was going to discuss Item A (1) since it would technically prevent someone from placing a railroad tie there but yet someone could put a 6-foot high row of hedges. Walsh stated in his view there are some things that do not seem to make sense in terms of height. Printup stated that is why he asked the question about fences being allowed right up to the property line. Printup stated he would hope the Council would be okay with a 2-foot retaining wall. Printup stated in looking at what the other cities allow, Orono is not even close. Gaffron stated Orono’s Code has been more restrictive than other cities and that it has been frustrating for Staff at some level knowing that any grading on someone’s property technically requires a permit. Walsh stated two feet would allow someone to maintain it without stepping on the neighbor’s yard, which was the reason why two feet was felt to be okay. McMillan stated she has gone back and forth on this issue but that in her view five feet is necessary to protect that zone. Walsh stated five feet on either side would really impact a 50-foot wide lot. Gaffron stated it is the smaller lots that tend to have more issues with drainage. Levang stated the narrow lots are problematic since there needs to be room for drainage and that she is very comfortable with what Staff is recommending. Levang noted there have been a number of problems with drainage on Maple Place due to the narrow lots. Levang stated the ordinance is essentially saying ten cubic yards or one truck load is reasonable as well as five feet from the lot line. Levang stated in her view it will make Staff’s job easier as well as make it equitable for all citizens. Walsh stated he is receiving complaints from people who own small yards about not being able to use all of their yards. Walsh stated this ordinance would restrict those small lots even further. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 7 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) Levang stated that five feet allows for proper drainage and that the issue is to ensure someone has enough land so water can be diverted properly. Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards noted the proposed ordinance does not prohibit people from putting things in that area but that it requires an administrative permit, which allows Staff to review it. Edwards stated the number one call relates to the roads and that the number two call typically deals with drainage being diverted onto a neighbor’s property. Walsh stated the Code already addresses that. Gaffron stated the Code does not administer itself and that sometimes it is not possible to approve something without having a plan in front of you to review. Levang stated it sounds like Staff would like to review a plan to make sure something can be placed within five feet. Edwards stated a lot of the properties have drainage ways along the property lines and the ordinance would allow Staff to review the drainage. Edwards stated people sometimes innocently will do something in that area resulting in water going into the neighbor’s property. Walsh stated the ordinance would force people to come in for a permit for something that is very minor. Edwards stated a raised planter box does not typically create the issues that a retaining wall or a planting bed would. Edwards noted a properly installed fence has some clearance underneath it to allow water to go under it. Walsh stated a planter box would fall under the same definition as a retaining wall since it is holding the earth back. McMillan asked whether the language should say right-of-way easement in Item No. 2 rather than the structure is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement. Mattick stated in his view that would be covered by the other easement. McMillan stated she was attempting to figure out the right-of-way piece. McMillan stated on her street the south side has maybe a 15-foot right-of-way and the north side has five feet. McMillan asked if the ordinance would mean that no structure can be on the south side in that 15 feet if the right-of-way varies. Mattick indicated it would be from the edge of where the right-of-way shows up on paper and necessarily where the road is. Mattick stated everyone usually assumes the road is located in the middle of the right- of-way, which is not always the case. McMillan stated ten feet from a traveled roadway can be different from where the right-of-way is. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 8 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) Gaffron stated the intent is to not have obstructions, such as a retaining wall, within ten feet of the traveled roadway. Gaffron stated if the ten feet ends within the right-of-way or eight feet into someone’s property, the intent would be the same, which is to prevent obstructions in that area. Printup stated that has nothing to do with drainage but deals with the right-of-way. Gaffron stated it relates to snow plowing and storage. Printup stated that raises the issue again of allowing a fence in that area. Levang noted fences are not allowed in a front yard. Gaffron stated the Code says that ten feet past the pavement is considered the right-of-way and is an area where there should not be obstructions. Gaffron stated the Code does not deal with vegetative materials. McMillan asked how this would impact the application on Crystal Bay Road and whether an encroachment agreement would be required. Gaffron indicated that is an unusual situation since it is not a platted road but is a 20-foot wide traveled road. The applicants in that situation are going off a parking area that is eight to ten feet wide and 30 to 50 feet long and replacing an existing retaining wall system that has to be somewhere on the property to hold up the grade. Gaffron stated if there had not been a wall there previously, the City likely would be looking at it differently. McMillan asked what would happen under this ordinance if someone wants to replace an existing retaining wall. Gaffron stated it will likely trigger at least an administrative permit. Walsh asked if Public Works is comfortable with requiring the 10 feet. Edwards stated the ten feet is standard. Edwards stated sometimes items are within that right-of-way, but that the ordinance would provide the process of reviewing for obstructions and for the safety of people using that right-of-way or roadway. The Public Works Department does periodically have issues with nonstandard, unauthorized mail box structures that pose a hazard to people right next to the road and that sometimes the geography of the City says it has to be here. Edwards stated the ordinance would just require someone to go through the process so Staff can review it and that the Public Works Department has had to ask people to move landscape rocks and other structures that were placed next to the roadways. Walsh asked why ten feet is felt to be necessary. Edwards stated ten feet is a nice median but that there are places where the road does not sit in the middle of the right-of-way. Edwards indicated he does not have any hard and fast data that says 10 feet should be the number but that it is a nice median and easy to visualize. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 9 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) McMillan asked if Staff sees five feet as a problem. Gaffron stated the Code talks about what is considered a public road and that prohibition of items within the dedicated right-of-way or ten feet on either side of a paved road has been in the Code for decades. Gaffron stated he is not sure if five feet is better but that there might not be sufficient room to park a car on the side of the road if there is only five feet. Gaffron stated Staff will not require something be removed if it has existed for some period of time and is not currently an issue, but that this would prevent it from happening in the future. Edwards stated Staff will look at a plan to see what materials are being proposed for use and to determine the type of impact it will have if a vehicle hits it or if there is a utility located underneath it. Edwards stated nine times out of ten it may not be a problem, but that the ordinance at least gives Staff the opportunity to review it before it is put in that area. McMillan stated something should be included in the City’s newsletter about right-of-ways and what is allowed in that area. McMillan noted the City has received questions from people about whether they are required to fix culverts. Printup indicated he is okay with the ten feet since it has been on the City’s books for decades but that he is struggling with requiring the five feet on small lots, especially if they are only talking about a 2-foot flower bed. McMillan indicated she is okay with 20 cubic yards. Printup stated he would also be okay with the 20 cubic yards. Walsh stated he can live with the 10 feet in the front yard but that he has an issue with the five feet for the side yards since it really limits the ability of someone to utilize their land if they have a small lot. Mayor McMillan asked for public comments. There were no public comments regarding this item. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 139, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending Section 78-1405 of the Orono Zoning Code Regarding Retaining Wall and Landscape Structures as a Non-encroachment, subject to revising the ordinance to reflect 20 cubic yards rather than 10 cubic yards. Printup asked if she would entertain two feet from a lot line. Levang stated she would stick with the five feet. McMillan stated given the possible drainage issues, it should probably be left at five feet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 10 of 19    3. #15-3707 – AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5) CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS – ORDINANCE NO. 139 (continued) Walsh noted they are talking about potential problems that may or may not exist. Printup stated he would like to see it less on the smaller lots. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Walsh Opposed. 4. CASEY AND JILL HOEHN – 2325 GLENDALE COVE LANE – ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the encroachment agreement between Casey and Jill Hoehn and the City of Orono for the property located at 2325 Glendale Cove Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT 5. REPLACEMENT OF TRUCK NO. 424 Edwards stated before the Council tonight is a proposal to replace Truck No. 424 which is currently over 23 years old. The Public Works Department has gotten a number of years of use out of it but that it is ready to be replaced. Edwards noted over $20,000 in repairs has had to be done on this truck in the past few years and that it is the only City vehicle that failed the DOT inspections last week. Edwards stated they will need to do more repairs on it and that it will require a couple thousand dollars to bring it to the point where it passes the DOT inspection. Edwards noted the City’s big dump trucks are now coming due on the City’s CIP and that he is not sure whether they can stretch some of those out a little longer. Edwards stated the large dump trucks are critical pieces of equipment for the Public Works Department and will need to be replaced in the coming years. Walsh stated he did e-mail the Public Works Director earlier to get some additional information on warranties and other items. Walsh stated the easy option is to simply purchase a new truck but that there is another sub-market of used equipment out there and that he wants to make sure the City is looking at that whenever they require replacement of a vehicle. Edwards stated the City uses the state contract prices for their large purchases, which allows the City to use the contracts that have already been negotiated with the dealers on brand-new equipment. Edwards stated the City typically likes to purchase their big ticket items brand-new given the warranties but that on occasion the City has purchased used equipment but it is typically equipment that is not used routinely. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve replacement of Truck No. 424, a 1992 Ford L8000 with a 2016 Western Star 4700 with body and plow work to be done by Aspen Equipment. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 11 of 19    *6. GOLF COURSE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the hiring of the seasonal employees as listed in Staff’s memorandum dated February 23, 2015. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. APPROVE REHABILITATION OF LIFT STATION 8 AND LIFT STATION 15 Edwards stated the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has called for rehabilitation of two lift stations a year. The City currently has 47 lift stations in the system now, which means that each lift station will be rehabilitated approximately every 20 years. Edwards noted simply because it is included in the CIP does not mean they are automatically rehabilitated and that the Public Works Department periodically moves things around depending on their condition. Edwards stated based on their review of the City’s lift stations, these two lift stations were felt to require some rehabilitation and that he would recommend accepting the bid from Quality Flow. Walsh noted he e-mailed the Public Works Director on this item to obtain additional information on the warranty. Walsh stated the City would get a 5-year warranty, which is not bad. Walsh stated the other questions he had related to how the City went out getting the bids, etc. Walsh stated he would encourage the Public Works Department to go out and see if they can expand the number of bids to four or five in the future, with some of those bids being from outside the metro area. Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to accept the quote in the amount of $78,550.00 from Quality Flow Systems, Inc., to upgrade Lift Station 8 and Lift Station 15. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. BID AWARD FOR 2015 STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIALS Edwards stated the idea behind this annual process is that the City receives bids for bulk street maintenance materials that are used routinely by the Public Works Department. Edwards stated this process works very well for those supplies the Public Works Department uses, such as asphalt and aggregate. Walsh stated he did e-mail the Public Works Director on this item since the documents submitted by Staff did not include the actual specs for the materials. Walsh noted on a couple of the items there was only one bidder and that he does not want to be setting the City up so that they are the only approved vendor. Walsh stated to his understanding the City is not doing any reclamation work and that he did not understand why the City was getting this bid. Edwards stated the bid does not commit the City to any large projects and that he does not know why the City goes through this process for some of these items other than the fact that they have always done this. Walsh stated he just wanted to make sure the City was not committing to something. Printup asked whether the Public Works Director would like to review how this is done in the future. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 12 of 19    8. BID AWARD FOR 2015 STREET MAINTENANCE MATERIALS (continued) Edwards stated he has discussed this with some of the Public Works staff and that there are some items they will not obtain bids on next year. Edwards indicated he would leave the regular asphalt and aggregates that the City uses on the list. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to award the year 2015 materials bids to the entities listed in Staff’s memorandum dated February 23, 2015. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONTINUED Edwards reported the residents of Old Beach Road had a meeting and were okay with a trail gate at the CSAH 19 end of the trail and landscaping boulders on the cul-de-sac end of the trail; and that hopefully the gates will be installed this week. Edwards stated the City has had a series of water main breaks on the southern system that did take a considerable amount of time and effort over the weekend to resolve. McMillan asked if they were frost related. Edwards stated it is probably a combination of age and shifting from the cold. Edwards stated there were a few residents that were without water for the better part of a day as the repairs were being made. Edwards reported the contractor has finished the actual lining of the sewer pipes and that the manhole maintenance will take place before June of this year. Edwards stated the water plant rehabilitations are also being undertaken. Edwards stated the City may have a potential sewer backup on Briar at the very end of the service line and that as a precaution the Public Works Department will be jetting that sewer main to ensure the backup is not in the City’s part of the system. Edwards noted the City received multiple cleaning proposals for the City Hall facilities as well as the Public Works facility and expanded police garage. Edwards stated the contractor has agreed to lower their price down to the pre-police department expansion. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang stated this morning she met with the Navarre Initiative group about the demonstration project and that things are progressing well. Levang indicated she also spoke with the group about the banners and they indicated they are not interested in selling the banners. Levang indicated she also met with the Park Commission and that they went through the process of goal setting. The Park Commission was able to come up with a list of doable projects and that they are currently focusing on improving the City’s beaches. Levang stated the Public Works Department has been doing a wonderful job with cleaning up the parks. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 13 of 19    Levang reported the City Newsletter will be going out in the mail tomorrow and that it will also be available online. Levang stated an option that will be offered is to receive just the e-mail version. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 14 of 19    MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Levang stated the newsletter has a lot of information in it and that they will be starting on the June one probably in the next couple of weeks. Printup stated it is likely he has secured a donation of a table, bike rack or bench for Crystal Bay Park. Levang stated a couple of the picnic tables at that park are not in good shape and that it would be nice to be able to upgrade to new equipment. Levang noted the City’s donation policy is now online as well. Cornick indicated he attended the Highway 112 turnback meeting with Mayor McMillan and that the committee should be talking about Orono’s portion of the project in the near future. Walsh stated he attended the February Planning Commission meeting and that he heard a good discussion on the retaining walls. McMillan stated she attended the kickoff for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District comprehensive plan and that over 120 people were in attendance. McMillan stated comment cards were passed out at the meeting and that she would like the City to consider submitting some comments as part of that process. McMillan stated in her view it will likely be an 18-month process and that the Watershed District is focusing on developing partnerships and project flexibility in order to be able to take advantage of opportunities as they come up as well as having their normal long-term projects that are scheduled. McMillan stated she would like the City Council to come up with some ideas in the next year that can be submitted to the Watershed District since Orono does have a fair number of wetlands and the taxpayers contribute approximately a half million dollars to the Watershed’s levy each year. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 9. VIDEOTAPING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS City Administrator Loftus noted Staff has provided to the City Council some costs and staffing needs for videotaping the Planning Commission meetings and that the City Council should discuss whether they would like to go forward with this. Printup stated he is a proponent of this. Printup stated with the City now having their own in-house system and having experienced success with that from a community standpoint, the City now has the opportunity to expand that. Printup stated from the standpoint of transparency, videotaping the Planning Commission meetings would help people learn the process and engage the community. Printup stated he understands there has been some talk about privacy issues and the fact that people may be uncomfortable. Printup stated to address that, perhaps the cameras would not need to be focused on the residents as they address the Planning Commission but that in his view it is an important step to opening up City Hall to the residents. Printup noted it is a public hearing and public documents. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 15 of 19    9. VIDEOTAPING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS (continued) Walsh stated the Planning Commission is where a lot of the original vetting gets done on the issues and that it is interesting to see the passion that some people have in those discussions and the issues that were debated prior to it reaching the City Council. Printup stated it is also helpful to be able to watch it versus just reading the minutes. Printup noted at times there are items that are brought up at the Planning Commission that are not discussed at the City Council meeting. Cornick stated he did attend the February meeting and that the Planning Commission indicated they are neutral to negative on it and that in his view their input should be taken into consideration. Denise Leskinen, Planning Commission Chair, stated the Planning Commission did discuss this item briefly at their February meeting and that of the five Planning Commissioners who were present, two were neutral and three were opposed. Leskinen noted the points raised were the fact that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the Council and that any actual decisions are made at the City Council level. A question was raised regarding why the City would want to expend the money to videotape the Planning Commission meeting when the Council is where the decisions are made. Leskinen noted there were only five commissioners present at the meeting when this was discussed but that the consensus was opposed to videotaping. Leskinen stated if this is something the Council is seriously considering implementing, she would like to have the opportunity to discuss it when there is a full panel of the Planning Commission present in fairness to all of them but that ultimately it the City Council’s decision. Levang stated she raised this issue more than a year ago when the City was able to contract with Mediacom and when the City was looking at what could be done with the PEG channel. Levang indicated she did attend a Planning Commission meeting back then and asked them for their input but heard that they did not see any reason to add that in. Levang stated as she started to think about it a little more, she changed her mind and now feels that there is really no good reason to videotape the Planning Commission meetings since there would be redundancy with the applications. Levang stated when people come to their first planning meeting, the residents do feel intimidated and that this would add further intimidation. Levang stated the City wants people to participate in the process and that the residents are given ample notice of the meetings and asked to participate. Levang stated she was also informed by one of the Planning Commissioners that because they are appointed, they do not wish for the kind of scrutiny or the invasion of privacy like Council. Levang stated the City Council should respect that and that she is not in favor of videotaping the meetings. McMillan indicated she has never felt strongly one way or the other on this issue in the past but that the City now has the ability to videotape the meetings. McMillan stated she does have a couple of concerns and the first is that the City has a number of residential applications whereas Wayzata and Minnetonka, which film their Planning Commission meetings, have more commercial applications. McMillan noted MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 16 of 19    9. VIDEOTAPING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS (continued) Minnetonka is approximately 90 percent commercial applications with a few residential variances. McMillan stated she can see videotaping the meetings when a majority of the applications are commercial. McMillan stated she also looked back at 2014 and that the largest number of views was regarding the Lakeview application, which was a unique situation. McMillan stated perhaps on some of the more unique applications the City could film them, such as the Comprehensive Plan update, but that she does not see the need to videotape the meetings given the large amount of residential applications. McMillan stated it is likely some people will feel uncomfortable and that they are not familiar with appearing before the Planning Commission. McMillan stated the second item to consider is the fact that the City Council is elected versus being appointed. McMillan stated one of the reasons why the Council is taped is because they are elected officials and that the videotaping of the meetings gives the residents an opportunity to see how the Council acts. McMillan stated the third consideration is the fact that the Planning Commission really has all of their items as public hearings, with notice being given to the neighbors. McMillan stated in her view it is important for those neighbors to be in attendance at that meeting if they decide they want to say something about the application, which would not be possible if they simply viewed it at home. McMillan stated she would like to keep that public involvement. Printup stated more engagement could occur by videotaping the meetings and that it is a public meeting. Levang stated the Council should also listen to the input from the Planning Commissioners in making this decision. Printup asked if Council Member Levang would change her mind if the majority of the Planning Commissioners would say they were fine with it. Levang stated in her view she has a good sense of it already and that it would not change her mind. Levang indicated she has attended and watched a number of Wayzata meetings to see what is happening in their commercial district but that she is not interested in their residential applications. Levang stated people are more interested in commercial applications and that in her view not a lot of people are interested in individual residential applications. Walsh stated transparency is a key and that people volunteer to be on the Planning Commission. Levang stated videotaping the meetings was not what was agreed to when they accepted the position. Walsh noted the majority of what the Planning Commission is vetting is placed on the Consent Agenda at the City Council. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to videotape the Planning Commission meetings. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 17 of 19    9. VIDEOTAPING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS (continued) McMillan asked if the full Planning Commission should be asked to weigh in on this before the Council votes on it. Printup stated he would like the City Council to act on it. Printup noted there is a fair amount of turnover of the Planning Commission and that this is an opportunity for more transparency. Printup stated it would also give a lot of credit to the Planning Commission. Printup stated given the amount of vetting that happens at the Planning Commission, it is important that people have the opportunity to see that. McMillan stated in her view the Planning Commission meetings are an opportunity for public participation and that it is her feeling not that many people will actually sit down and watch it. Printup stated he also wants to error on the side of a person who is not able to attend the meeting, such as homebound people, people who are out of town or unable to attend because of work schedules. Printup stated it is important to open up the process. McMillan stated she would like to also have the Planning Commission discuss it further and that the Planning Commission may come to the consensus that they are fine with it. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, McMillan, Cornick and Levang Opposed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED 10. BUILDING OFFICIAL RETIREMENT/RECRUITMENT Loftus stated Building Official Lyle Oman has informed the City that he intends to retire in June of 2015 and that Staff is seeking approval to advertise for this position. Staff has provided a cost-benefit analysis for this position as well as a draft of the building official job description and a recruitment timeline. Printup noted he had mentioned a couple of weeks ago about making this position an in house position and doing the analysis. Printup stated in his view it is important to conduct that type of analysis every time a position opens up. Printup indicated he would be comfortable with keeping the position in house. Printup asked if the Council wants to discuss whether this position would be doing any supervising of other employees. Loftus stated the Building Official typically manages contract employees daily and that it is a pretty active contract this person is expected to manage. Loftus noted the City spends approximately $7,000 on it monthly so there is a need to have it supervised and that there is the possibility of having those inspectors in house at some point in the future. In that situation the Building Official would be the person to supervise those employees. Walsh stated the only question he had on the outsourcing comparison is that he did not understand the net savings losses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 18 of 19    10. BUILDING OFFICIAL RETIREMENT/RECRUITMENT (continued) Loftus stated if you look at in-house Step 1 that has revenue of $200,000 and expenditures of $80,000, which gives net revenue of $120,000. Loftus stated if you look at that in comparison to contracting, it would give the City net revenue of $54,000. Walsh stated that would be a net savings then and that he was confused by the parentheses. Printup stated that was a question he also had. Loftus stated the position would be advantageous in house as it relates to net revenue. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Building Official position for advertisement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Loftus stated the deadline for applying for the Community Development Director is this week and that the committee will be reviewing the applications next week. Loftus stated the City has received quite a number of applications that will need to be reviewed. Loftus stated the three council members who are on the committee will be receiving the applications early next week. McMillan asked how the City’s cloud backup project is coming along. Loftus stated a meeting has been scheduled for next week. Olson stated the City is about to reach the limit of their two backup tapes and that it will be necessary to go to three backup tapes in the near future. *11. 2014 GENERAL FUND BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the 2014 General Fund Budget Amendments as outlined in Staff’s memorandum dated February 23, 2015. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. CLAIMS/BILLS Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 23, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________   Page 19 of 19    ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:48 p.m. VOTE: Ayes, 5 Nays 0. ATTEST ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor