Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-22-2016 Council Packet
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 22, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda 1. Consent Agenda – Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes 2. Council Meeting of August 8, 2016* Presentation Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Public Works/City Engineer Report 3. Lift Station #2 Backup Generator 4. Sewer Extension Request 5. 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining – Pay Request No. 3-FINAL 6. 2015 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining – Pay Request No. 1 7. Wayzata Blvd/ CSAH 112 Phase 2 No Parking Resolution 8. Lurton Off Leash Park • 16-3832, City of Orono, Lurton Park Variances Public Safety Report 9. Amended and Restated West Metro Drug Task Force (Joint Powers Agreement) Planning Department Report – Planning Commission Representative – Denise Leskinen 10. 16-3851 Peter Bluth, 2413 Carman St., Variances 11. 16-3847 Shadywood Villas Comp Plan Amendment Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 22, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification 12. Peter Lanpher Application Fee Waiver Request 13. Sex Offender Preliminary Discussion Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 14. Permit − Gambling − Annual Gun Club Renewal − Massage Therapy 15. Claims/Bills * City Attorney's Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2016 09-05-16 – City Hall Closed in Observance of Labor Day Holiday 09-06-16 – Park Commission Meeting, Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 09-12-16 – City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09-19-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Dennis Walsh) 09-26-16 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 09-26-16 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 10-03-16 – Park Commission Work Session 1:00 p.m. 10-10-16 – City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 10-17-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Jim Cornick Jr.) 10-24-16 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 10-24-16 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 10-25-16 – LWV Candidate Forum 7:00 p.m. 11-07-16 – Park Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. 11-08-16 – General Election Polls Open 7 a.m. – 8 p.m. 11-11-16 – City Offices Closed in Observance of Veterans Day 11-14-16 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 11-21-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Lizz Levang) 11-28-16 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12-12-16 – Truth in Taxation 6:30 p.m. 12-12-16 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 22, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 17 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members James Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and Dennis Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, 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 Item Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 were added to the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2016 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of July 25, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF JULY 25, 2016 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session of July 25, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 4. GOLF COURSE AED PRESENTATION – ORONO LIONS DONATION AND CENTERPOINT GRANT – RESOLUTION NOS. 6655 and 6656 Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards reported the Orono Golf Course recently received two donations toward the purchase of an Automatic Defibrillator. Kevin Collver, Field Operations, stated on behalf of CenterPoint Energy, he is pleased to present their Community Partnership Grant for $750 to be used toward the purchase of the AED. Kurt Kaminski and Roger Adams stated on behalf of the Orono Lions, it is a pleasure to make a $750 donation to the Orono Golf Course for the AED to assist in emergencies. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 17 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6655, a Resolution Accepting a Donation from Orono Lions for Use at the Orono Golf Course. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6656, a Resolution Accepting a Grant from CenterPoint Energy for Use at the Orono Golf Course. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Peter Lanpher, 1380 Rest Point Road, stated he and his wife have applied for a variance on their fences and that they are requesting the City Council waive the standard application fee so they can proceed to the Planning Commission meeting. Lanpher stated this request is being made because it was suggested by the Orono fence viewing panel and that they have also incurred a number of expenses associated with the disputes they have been involved in with their neighbor. Lanpher stated in their view it is appropriate that the fee be waived at this time. Mayor McMillan asked if Mr. Lanpher is in the middle of the variance process. Community Development Director Barnhart stated the application is incomplete at this point and is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission next week once the fee has been paid. Barnhart indicated the application is incomplete at this time because the application fees have not been submitted. Council Member Walsh asked if the application fees are nonrefundable. Barnhart indicated they are. McMillan stated the Council will not be able to discuss this matter tonight since they do not know many details about the variance request. Lanpher stated the information is in the application and that he is attempting to get the fees waived prior to his application going to the Planning Commission. Walsh stated in order to move it ahead, he would vote to put it on as an agenda item for the next City Council meeting. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission could review the application in September and the fee waiver request could be heard by the Council in August. Barnhart stated what normally happens is the applicant pays the fee, and if the Council feels it is justified, they can refund that fee. Barnhart stated the fee is nonrefundable in the sense that if the application is denied, the fee is not returned to the applicant. McMillan asked if he would be agreeable to the Council reviewing this at their next meeting. Lanpher stated he is okay with that. Council Member Cornick asked if he would be interested in a reduction rather than a waiver. Lanpher stated there will be a firestorm regardless and that he might be interested in a reduction depending on what it is. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 17 PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT *5. MnDOT PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT – RESOLUTION NO. 6657 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the Master Partnership Contract between the City of Orono and MnDOT and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6657, a Resolution to Enter into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 6. FOX STREET FEASIBILITY REPORT Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards noted in December of 2015, the City Council approved the preparation of a feasibility study for Fox Street in order to evaluate improvements to the street. David Martini, Consulting City Engineer, stated the report was broken into three sections: The first section is entitled Section A and encompasses Fox Street from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive. Martini displayed picture of the roads included in Section A. Martini noted the aggregate in this section ranges from 9.5 to 4.5 inches currently. Option A involves the reconstruction of the roadway in the current footprint, creating an even width of 24 feet, construction of a pavement section that includes geotextile fabric, and ten inches of aggregate base and five inches of bituminous pavement. The cost for this option is $735,413. There would also be some culvert repair and ditch cleaning as well as replacement of the bollards with guardrail. Section B encompasses Fox Street from Willow Drive to Brown Road and is an MSA route. Option B involves the reconstruction of the roadway in the current footprint, creating an even width of 24 feet, construction of a pavement section that includes geotextile fabric, ten inches of aggregate base and five inches of bituminous pavement. Martini indicated this project is similar to the Baldur Park Road project. Also included in the project is replacement of some culverts, ditch cleaning, and installing a new guardrail. The cost for Option B is $643,545. Martini noted Section B is a designated MSA road and is therefore eligible for state funding. Based on current projects, sufficient funding will be available in the MSA account in 2017 for Section B. Sections A and C require funding from the Pavement Management Fund if either of these projects are to be completed in 2017. Martini stated not replacing the aggregate base in Sections A or B would result in the road not meeting its anticipated life expectancy. Section C encompasses Fox Street from Brown Road to Orono Orchard Road. Option C includes milling of the road and a three inch overlay with some segment patching at a cost of $418,271. This section is in the best shape out of all three sections. Martini indicated the total cost for all three sections is $1.8 million and that he is looking for Council approval to accept the feasibility report. Council Member Printup asked if less is more in relation to the swampy areas. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 17 6. FOX STREET FEASIBILITY REPORT (continued) Martini indicated the current thinking is to replace that soil with some lightweight materials. Walsh asked what the timeline is for the project. Martini stated it would run similar to the Watertown Road schedule. They would complete the survey work in the fall, proceed forward with preparation of the plans and specs, which would be finished near the first of the year, and then go out for bids in either February or March. Martini stated if that schedule is followed, they would be ready to go as soon as road restrictions come off in the spring. Walsh asked if the plans would be good through 2018. Martini indicated they should be and that he does not envision anything changing significantly between now and then. Walsh asked if the costs would be reduced if all the survey work for all three sections was done at the same time. Martini stated it would reduce the costs. McMillan asked if the City can submit a request for MSA funds at any time during the year. Martini indicated they can if the project meets MSA standards. Martini stated if there is some design criteria being requested as a variance, the board that reviews those standards only meets twice a year. Martini noted that is not the situation here and the City is not requesting any design standard variances. McMillan asked if Sections A and B would require different equipment than Section C. Martini indicated it would be pretty similar but the difference would be some excavation on Sections A and B. Levang noted on Section C they are looking at a 12-15 year life expectancy and that the City will need to be on top of the routine maintenance. Martini stated the issue with Section C is that the base moves around a bit due to the water level, which causes drainage issues and cracks in the pavement. Martini stated if the City were serious about providing a road that is built to last with a good foundation, it would cost at least a million dollars just for that section. Cornick commented he can remember that road being under water at times. Martini stated the hope would be on Section B to fix some of that. McMillan asked if anyone from the public would like to speak regarding this project. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 17 6. FOX STREET FEASIBILITY REPORT (continued) Walsh moved, Levang seconded, to accept the Fox Street feasibility report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. WATERTOWN ROAD AND STUBBS BAY ROAD REHABILITATION – PAY REQUEST NO. 2 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 2 to Valley Paving in the amount of $100,045.88 for the Watertown Road Phase 2 rehabilitation project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. 2016 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT AWARD Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to award the sanitary sewer improvements contract to Insituform for $215,177.90 and approve the Bolton & Menk construction management proposal for a fee not to exceed $17,900.00. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT, CONTINUED Edwards reported on the following work completed by the Public Works Department and the City’s contractors: • Final work is being completed by the contractor on Watertown Road • Utility work and paving is currently underway on Watertown Road • Repairs on Loma Linda have been completed • Sewer cleaning throughout the City is underway • Right of way mowing is being done • Tree removal on Brown Road was completed • Phase II of the Watertown Road project is currently underway • Culvert replacement was performed on Cherry Avenue • Curb replacement was performed on Bohns Point Lane • Erosion repair was completed on Loma Linda • 2016 sewer cleaning is underway • Well construction is underway • GIS mapping of Saga Hills has been completed • French Creek signage has been installed Edwards noted one of the City’s maintenance workers has resigned and that he is currently in the process of filling that position. PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT – Planning Commission Representative Bruce Lemke MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 17 *9. PHILLIPS WOODLAND TERRACE – PHILLIPS DRIVE OWNERSHIP CONSENT Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to authorize Mayor McMillan to sign the Consent Letter regarding Phillips Woodland Terrace. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. #16-3839 REVISION, LLC, ON BEHALF OF SHARON OLSON-HESBITT, 865 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6658 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6658, a Resolution Approving Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-305; 78-1279; and 78-1700, File No. 16-3839, for the property located at 865 Ferndale Road West. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. #16-3845 TIM AND JULIE DRUK ON BEHALF OF JAN AND LEONARD KENNEN, 1240 ARBOR STREET – VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6659 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6659, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 for Property Located at 1240 Arbor Street, File No. 16-3845. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. #16-3846 GREGG KATCHMARK, 140 LEAF STREET – VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6660 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6660, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-420, 78-1279, and 78-1680, for Property Located at 140 Leaf Street, File No. 16-3846. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 13. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and rezoning approval to subdivide three existing lots into seven single-family, detached homes. Access will be provided via a new public road off of Shadywood. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at their July meeting and felt that this proposed use and development was appropriate for the area. The Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Barnhart noted the house plans included within the Council packet are not what will necessarily be built but are merely sketch representations of what could be constructed on the lots. Barnhart displayed the layout of the development on the overhead and noted that the purple line is the proposed sanitary sewer line. All seven building sites will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. Barnhart stated the original plan showed storm water retention and stabilization methods that meet the City’s requirements. One of the issues observed during the review was that the grading and excavation removed quite a bit of existing vegetation toward the back of three of the lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 17 13. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING (continued) Upon hearing those concerns, the applicant has modified their plans in an attempt to minimize removal of the trees, and as a result of those revisions, it appears that 14 significant trees originally thought to be removed will be retained. Based upon a review by the City Engineer of the drainage, modifications to the plan include directing more of the storm water to the east, away from the Kelly Avenue wetland. Barnhart stated the applicant has submitted a landscape plan. Preliminary review of the plan shows a desire to retain the existing tree line between the building area and the wetland slope, which is near the rear edge of the homes on Lots 5, 6, and 7. The ability to retain these trees with the proposed grading will be reviewed. The developer is proposing to add 48 new trees as well as some small ornamental trees near the storm depression area and at the entrance monument. The Planning Commission also discussed the proposed density at their July meeting and recommended that the City identify other locations for higher density to satisfy the Metropolitan Council requirements. Overall the Planning Commission felt that the proposed density for this site was appropriate. Barnhart noted the City has received a number of comments regarding the proposal from the public, with the comments ranging from supporting the project to suggesting the City deny the project. These letters were provided to the Planning Commission and are included in the City Council packet as Exhibit H. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the rezoning request, and preliminary plat. Preliminary plat approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area, width and setback standards of the RPUD District. Hardcover will be limited to the assigned Tier 4 level of 50 percent on each individual lot. The 0.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot. 2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the findings included in the Conservation Design report, including the removal of buckthorn and invasive species on the site. 3. Significant trees to be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans. 4. The applicant is to confirm with SHPO that there are no archaeological sites within the property. 5. A 10 percent private recreational space requirement will not be required. 6. Park Dedication Fees and Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fees, as well as municipal sewer and water connection charges to be collected in full at the time of final plat approval. 7. Vacation of easements as appropriate through the site. 8. Provisions of drainage and conservation easement over wetland and storm water areas MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 17 13. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING (continued) 9. All items in the City Engineer’s memo dated July 21, 2016, shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City. Levang stated the revisions to the landscape plan were based on the feedback and that it is a very good plan. McMillan asked whether a trail easement along Shadywood should be obtained. Barnhart indicated there is not a trail easement being proposed by the developer. McMillan noted that side of Shadywood does not have any utility poles and that she is not looking at a trail going down to Tonka Bay but more of a local trail for the residents of Navarre. McMillan stated in her view the trail should go on the west side of Shadywood, which would allow pedestrians to walk up to Lunds and the surrounding area. McMillan stated the City should require an easement along there. Walsh stated the City should obtain an easement just in the event a trail might ever be constructed. McMillan stated in her view this trail is more likely to be constructed. McMillan commented the wetland area is very important to the residents on Kelly Avenue, and that the way it is proposed now, the wetland will be part of the lots located on the western edge. Barnhart indicated the wetland will be part of Lots 5, 6 and 7. McMillan stated she is concerned about the long-term maintenance of that area and being kept natural. McMillan recommended Staff look at that to see how that can be better addressed. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, stated he understands the trail issue and that one of the questions he has is whether the trail would be constructed 100 percent of their property or some in the right-of-way. Barnhart indicated Hennepin County will also need to be involved with the trail. Denman stated the question is whether the County will ever make it a four-lane road. If not, there is room to construct the trail in the right-of-way. McMillan stated Hennepin County will provide comments on that piece to the City. Denman indicated the retaining wall could be built if there is a trail but that the berm needs to go up at a 3:1. There will also be trees on top of the berm. Denman stated at that point there should be room for a trail since there is a 66-foot right-of-way unless Hennepin County is planning to construct a 4-lane road. Denman stated if the wetland was a dedicated outlot to the City, it would not be a problem. Denman noted with a 35-foot buffer, none of the buckthorn will be cut down and that the view from the Kelly Avenue side will stay the way it has been. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 17 13. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING (continued) Denman noted there will be a homeowners association and that the individual homeowners will be responsible for maintaining the pervious pavers. Denman indicated they did have an open house to speak with the neighbors and that he did speak with Mr. Masserano about erecting a fence along the property line. Denman indicated they are willing to chip in $2650 towards the cost of the fence. Denman indicated he is not sure how long the fence will be. Cornick asked if the density will be impacted if the City takes over the wetland area. Barnhart indicated it will not be. Walsh commented he likes the outlot idea. McMillan noted the homeowners association would be responsible for the outlot. Mattick stated the City could also maintain it if the Council so chooses and that it is more preservation than maintenance. Cornick asked if Hennepin County is now okay with the access. Barnhart stated Hennepin County forgot about the discussion concerning the Freshwater parcel when they reviewed this development initially and that Staff has reminded them of the possibility of future development of that area. Upon hearing that, Hennepin County indicated they were okay with that and with the proposed access point for this site. Levang asked if any landscaping will be done on the Kelly Avenue side. Mr. Stonek, landscape architect, stated they will stay out of the buffer and that the back of the homes will be landscaped. Denman asked if they can remove the buckthorn in that area. Levang stated in her view buckthorn removal is important. Barnhart stated generally the City likes the invasive species removed, but if it was removed in this situation, it will be noticeable. If the Council does not want any visible change, he would suggest the buckthorn not be removed. Walsh suggested replacement vegetation of some type be planted in that area. Stonek stated the leaves on the buckthorn are the first ones out in the spring and the last ones off in the fall. Stonek indicated the south property line will be cleared of buckthorn and it will just be kept on the Kelly Avenue side. Stonek stated as long as the yards are maintained, the buckthorn will not spread. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 17 13. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING (continued) Walsh commented other damage might be done if the buckthorn is removed. Stonek stated they would remove the thistle and other weeds that might spread. Walsh commented this is probably the best proposal for this site that the City has seen and that he likes the single-family concept and the buffer along Kelly Avenue. Walsh stated there are no huge red flags that jump out with the development. Mayor McMillan asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on the application. Frank Masserano, 2560 Kelly Avenue, stated he lives right next to this development and that the church property is just east of it. Masserano commented the reputation of the builder and developer is high. Masserano indicated he frequently sees deer, turkey and fox almost every day crossing their lot into the wetlands and that removal of the buckthorn would likely destroy their habitat. Masserano stated when he erected the fence on his property, it was built with artificial wood and was quite expensive. The developer has indicated he could put a fence on the berm and run it down the side but that he is a little unsure what it will be exactly. Masserano indicated a 43-foot deck built out of cedar was $12,000 and that a manmade product is almost three times more expensive than cedar. Masserano stated he personally likes the fence and that it should be brown rather than white. Masserano indicated he would like to have more conversation with the developer about the fence. In addition, there are some large trees along the property line and that he would hate to see them come down. Mark Howry, Outdoor Scapes, stated they plan to spade in some Blackhill spruce, and that once those are planted, there will be instant privacy. Masserano stated he is disappointed they cannot keep the large trees. Masserano asked if they would be able to move the entrance over a little bit. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, noted they have moved the road five feet south. Denman stated they will offer a minimum of $2,650 for the fence but that they are proposing to spend quite a bit of money putting greenery in there that will be there yearlong. Denman indicated he would be willing to walk the property with Mr. Masserano to see where he would like the fence. McMillan stated when this application comes back before the City Council, hopefully some of the fence details will be worked out. McMillan asked whether there needs to be a new preliminary plat drawing if the wetland is put into an outlot. Barnhart indicated he would like to see it incorporated into the preliminary plat. It was the consensus of the City Council to place the wetland into an outlot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 17 13. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING (continued) Barnhart stated he is hearing general support for the plan from the Council and that he can prepare a resolution and bring it back to the City Council in the near future. Barnhart stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment can be voted on at the same time as the preliminary plat resolution. McMillan asked whether Staff has any recommendations regarding the City’s overall density number. Barnhart stated he included a possible solution to the City’s density issue in the staff report. Barnhart stated the City’s Comprehensive Plan is somewhat confusing because mixed use is defined in some places as six units and in other places as four. One solution would be to increase the mixed use to six units overall. Barnhart indicated he would like Staff to come forward with a recommendation to adjust the mixed use density, which would be part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. It was the consensus of the City Council that the rezoning of this property to RPUD is acceptable. Barnhart noted the rezoning would not occur until the time of final plat. Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to direct Staff to prepare an approval resolution for preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh noted last Tuesday, August 2, was National Night Out and that he rode with Police Chief Farniok and Senator Dave Osmek. Walsh stated there were lots of people out and getting together. The highlight of the evening was the landing of the big helicopter and the kids being able to get their picture taken in the helicopter. Cornick reported he attended a Navarre Community Initiative meeting regarding the Navarre Festival and that he will be handling the bike rodeo. Levang stated things are going well with the Navarre Community Initiative and that they have quite a few businesses that are very excited about it. In addition to the bike rodeo, there will be a Heart Safe Initiative, and that they will be asking residents to preregister for that. Levang commented it will be a great opportunity for the residents to come and receive that training. The training is free, will last around 30 minutes, and the participants will receive a certificate. Printup noted Long Lake Corn Days is this weekend. Printup stated in looking at the minutes from two weeks ago work, he would like to propose that the City Council discuss the Metropolitan Council reform issue further. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to have the Metropolitan Council issue placed on the August 22 City Council agenda. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 17 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) McMillan stated she would prefer not to have motions made during the mayor/council report and that they can talk about it in a work session. Printup amended his motion to place the Metropolitan Council issue on the September City Council work session agenda. Loftus noted the majority of the September work session will be taken up with the variance training and that other items on the agenda include the Big Island fire response and the City’s preliminary budget. Loftus asked whether it could wait until October. Printup stated he would simply ask for 15 minutes to get the conversation going and gather some ideas. Staff would also have an opportunity to gather information on it. Printup stated other communities are talking about it, which is why he is advocating for a discussion on it. McMillan stated the City could perhaps invite their Metropolitan Council representative in to talk to them rather than taking a more adversarial role right from the beginning. McMillan stated the Council can try to spend a little time at the end of the August work session to talk about how they want to proceed. McMillan stated the Council has to deal with the Big Island issue and the budget but that they can spend a little bit of time on the Metropolitan Council issue. McMillan noted the City Council has not met their representative yet and that that should perhaps be the first step in the process. Walsh seconded the motion to place the Metropolitan Council issue on August City Council work session. Printup withdrew his motion. Printup stated the other piece that he would like to discuss at a future work session is the sex offender concept of an ordinance and seeing what the City can do to regulate people convicted of a sex offense that live in the community. Printup suggested this be placed on the August agenda. Levang stated she would prefer that topic be discussed in November when there is a joint meeting with the Planning Commission. Levang noted the City does not have any applications before them currently for a reform facility. Levang stated she has spoken to citizens in the city and other cities about the sex offender issue and that she does not hear Orono’s police chief or administrator saying that it is a problem in the city. Levang stated the Council has a lot of other issues to deal with first and that she would prefer to talk about it at a future time. McMillan stated sex offenders are generally released to a home and not a treatment center. Printup stated he likes the idea of having the discussion with the Planning Commission and that in his view the City Council should also look at it. Levang stated she does not want the discussion to be about fear and that the August work session is not the proper time. Walsh asked if Council Member Printup is okay with putting it on the November work session. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 17 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Printup indicated he is. Printup stated Staff could then look at it and compile different ordinances in the meantime and that it could be completed in November. McMillan stated the question is whether it rises to a priority level. McMillan stated the Council could wait until November and then discuss it with the Planning Commission. McMillan noted typically areas next to schools and parks are regulated and that Staff could provide a little background on things as well as a sample ordinance. Walsh noted this is more of a City Council decision and that they will be deciding whether the Planning Commission should review it. Barnhart stated treatment centers are more of a land use question and that the sex offender ordinance would be more of a policy question. McMillan suggested Staff think about what process should be followed and that they can talk about it briefly in August at the work session. McMillan requested Staff find out whether it needs to go before the Planning Commission. Walsh stated he would like to see it on the August work session agenda. McMillan stated if they determine it needs to go before the Planning Commission, they can place it on the October meeting agenda. Walsh stated the City Council will make the decision about whether it should go before the Planning Commission right here and that they can put it on the August 22 agenda to discuss whether it should go before them. Mattick indicated he did provide Staff with a sample ordinance that was challenged and withstood legal challenge. Mattick noted this is a relatively new issue and that one of the reasons that ordinance withstood legal challenge was that it was not put into their zoning section of the code but it was placed in the public safety section. Mattick stated generally only zoning issues go before the Planning Commission. Mattick stated in terms of the process, it will depend on where the ordinance is placed and how big of an issue it is. Walsh stated in his view it does not need to go to a work session and that they can either make a decision to send it to the Planning Commission or simply place it on the City Council agenda. McMillan stated they can put it on the Council agenda whenever Staff is prepared to discuss it. Printup commented it will start the conversation and get things moving. Cornick stated he would be totally opposed to the ordinance since the current state protection system protects the residents and anything the City does can be challenged in court. Cornick noted he ran the sex offender registration program in Orono and that it works. Cornick stated in his view everything else is overkill and subject to litigation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 17 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Printup commented neighbors likely would want overkill on it. McMillan stated she does not know a lot about it and that the City needs to do some work on it and not just try to pass it quickly. Loftus stated she has the Metropolitan Council reform matter on the August 22 work session and that the treatment center will be on the list of priorities in November. McMillan stated the Council also needs to be cognizant of the other items Staff is working on. Loftus indicated Staff will place it on a City Council agenda as soon as possible. McMillan stated she was invited to the Stone Bay National Night Out and that she had a wonderful chat with the residents of Stone Bay who indicated they are happy with their development and the trails. The residents also stated they appreciate City Staff being accessible, the work that the Public Works Department does, and the Orono Police Department. McMillan reported the Long Lake Rowing Crew invited her to their recognition dinner and that they wanted the City Council to know that they appreciate the Council’s support of their club. McMillan stated the club is doing very well. McMillan thanked Rick Meyers for his donation of a bench at Livingston Tower Park and his wonderful work on making the park beautiful. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 14. SCHOOL SUBCOMMITTEE City Administrator Loftus noted at the July 25 Council meeting, Council Member Walsh requested the City consider establishing a subcommittee to meet regularly with the Orono School District. This topic was also discussed three months prior to that at a work session. Loftus indicated Council Member Walsh has sent some suggestions for how the subcommittee should operate and include the following: The subcommittee should meet as needed, at least once every six months. The purpose of the subcommittee is to keep both parties informed of each other’s plans and issues. Council Member Walsh has also indicated that both he and Council Member Printup would be willing to serve on this subcommittee through the end of 2016, with the appointment then being added to the regular annual appointments in January. McMillan asked if Staff has heard anything from the School Board regarding this subcommittee. Loftus indicated she has not. McMillan suggested sending the superintendents from the Orono and Westonka School Districts a letter asking if they would like to address the City Council during a work session to discuss the issues and then decide whether a subcommittee is necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 17 14. SCHOOL SUBCOMMITTEE (continued) McMillan noted Superintendent Borg used to address the Council yearly, which is another option the Council can pursue. McMillan stated she would rather the City be inclusive and invite everyone together than trying to put together the subcommittee first. Walsh stated he is not trying to be exclusive with the subcommittee and that this conversation has been going on for a while. Walsh noted he has heard a lot from the school and that they would love to have dialogue on a consistent basis. Walsh stated the City could also reach out to the Westonka School District. Walsh commented both school systems are very good and are good draws for the community base and tax base and that it makes sense to have one. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to create a school committee as presented. Levang stated she likes the Mayor’s approach and that subcommittees are not as transparent as having the school representative appear at a Council meeting. Levang stated if the City is really moving towards transparency, they should have a dialogue that includes the public coming to either a work session or a Council meeting. Cornick asked if there was a subcommittee in the past. Levang stated there has not been. Cornick stated his question is, if there was one, why did it go away. Cornick asked whether it would be more appropriate for the school to be communicating with Staff and not individual Council Members. Loftus stated City staff speaks with school staff on a weekly basis about different items and that she does not feel there is a lack of communication. Cornick stated a subcommittee might involve more conflict. McMillan stated the subcommittee would be rather exclusive rather than inclusive. Cornick stated he would support sitting down with the superintendents and hearing what their comments are. Cornick indicated he would have liked the request to have come from them. Walsh concurred Staff has a lot of discussions with school staff but that when you bring in the boards, you get a higher level of discussion on issues. Walsh stated he would like the subcommittee to look at long-term issues and how the parties can work together. Cornick commented that seems to be more of a school board discussion. Walsh stated in his view there is no reason not to have it. Walsh stated in his view this is not a work session issue and that the individual Council Members either support a school committee or they don’t. McMillan stated there should be specific issues for the committee to handle and that she would like to reach out to the school first since they did not request it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 17 14. SCHOOL SUBCOMMITTEE (continued) McMillan noted the subcommittee should be addressing certain issues, which is unknown at this time, and that they need to know who is going to be in the group. McMillan noted typically committees are structured with certain stakeholders. McMillan noted there was nothing in Council Member Walsh’s memo that addressed that. McMillan stated she has seen in the past where the City has had a couple of people work together and a lot of things got started as well as engineering costs incurred before Council approval. McMillan stated there also has to be a mission to the subcommittee. McMillan reiterated she would rather start out with a meeting of the superintendents and see if there is something that everyone wants to work on. McMillan stated she does not want to have subcommittee meetings just to have meetings and that they should have something concrete to work on. Walsh requested the Mayor show him the mission statement for the Parks Commission, the Police Commission, and other committees in the City. Walsh stated in his view the Mayor is trying to put up road blocks and that he doesn’t appreciate it. McMillan stated at every police commission meeting the police chief goes through a specific agenda and brings everyone up to speed on certain things. McMillan noted those types of committees have been set up and have been meeting for a long time. McMillan stated there needs to be some structure around the subcommittee and that she would like to start out as a whole group to get everybody up to speed so what direction the subcommittee should take can be determined. VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CREATE A SCHOOL SUBCOMMITTEE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Cornick, Levang and McMillan Opposed. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize City Administrator Loftus to draft a letter to be sent to the superintendents of the Westonka and Orono School Districts inviting them to come in 2017 to at least one Council meeting. Printup stated it is a good idea to reach out and that he is supportive of the subcommittee idea. Printup stated in his mind some bridge building is needed and that he is not sure what the fear of a subcommittee is. Cornick stated it is important to note that nobody on the Council has said they are against the subcommittee but that there needs to be a process to create the subcommittee. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *15. ACCEPT DONATION – LIVINGSTON PARK – RESOLUTION NO. 6661 Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6661, a Resolution Accepting a Donation from Rick Meyers for Use at Livingston Park. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 8, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 17 *16. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED Loftus noted the City of Spring Park had asked the City for an estimate of what it would cost for Orono to provide routine maintenance. Spring Park also obtained a bid from a third party contractor. Loftus reported Spring Park has decided that instead of hiring someone in house or contracting with Orono, they would try a third party contractor. That arrangement will begin September 1. Loftus reported Accountant Peter Zimmerman has accepted a position as senior accountant with a private company and will be leaving in the near future. Loftus stated he had been with Orono for ten years and will be missed. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Cornick seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:10 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: ________________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 3 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam T. Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director City Engineer’s Report Item Description: Lift Station #2 Backup Generator List of Exhibits A- Design Excerpt B- Engineer’s Estimate 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval to solicit bids for a backup generator for Lift Station #2. 2. Background. Lift Station #2 is a critical lift station collection sewage from the area from the Crystal Bay area, Weber Hills area and Heritage Lane. It then coveys that sewage into the Met Council sewer main. Under current load the lift station can backup within 20 minutes of a loss of power. The City has had aspirations of providing a backup generator for the lift station for some time however was unable to acquire access to land immediately adjacent to the lift station. This summer the City was approach by the owners of the 1955 Shoreline Drive, offering to provide space/easement for the placement of a backup generator for LS #2. In addition in July 2015 the City received a letter and petition from area residents requesting a backup generator for LS #2. In September 2015 the Council authorized the design and engineering of the backup system. Since then the system has been designed and city has been working with property owners to secure easements. 3. Project Scope. Adding a permanent, natural gas driven, generator; installing electrical distribution cabling under CSAH 15 and potentially replacing the existing control panel 3. Cost. The engineer’s estimated cost for this project is $175,785. 4. Funding. This project will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the design and authorize solicitation for bids. ENGINEERING ESTIMATE LISFT STATION NO. 2 UPGRADES City of Orono, Minnesota BMI Project No. C13.110847 Item Estimated Unit Total No.Bid Item Unit Quantity Price Amount 1 MOBILIZATION & TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 REMOVALS: 2 SALVAGE EX CONTROL PANEL & ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS EACH 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 3 SAWCUT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT 30 $3.50 $105.00 4 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 10 $10.00 $100.00 5 REMOVE EX CONCRETE SLAB LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00 6 CLEAR & GRUB TREES & SHRUBS LUMP SUM 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 7 SALVAGE FENCE LIN FT 30 $12.00 $360.00 8 SALVAGE & REINSTALL SIGN EACH 2 $250.00 $500.00 ROADWAY & DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION: 9 COMMON EXCAVATION (P)CU YD 4 $30.00 $120.00 10 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV)CY YD 2 $40.00 $80.00 11 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION REPLACEMENT (CV)CY YD 2 $35.00 $70.00 12 SUBGRADE PREPARATION (P)SQ YD 10 $2.50 $25.00 13 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V (P)SQ YD 10 $2.50 $25.00 14 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 - 100% CRUSHED (CV)CY YD 2 $35.00 $80.50 15 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) 2.5" THICK TON 2 $150.00 $300.00 16 TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (2,B) 1.5" THICK SQ YD 10 $18.00 $180.00 17 AGGREGATE SURFACING - CLASS 5 - 100% CRUSHED (CV)CY YD 29 $35.00 $1,009.56 LIFT STATION COMPONENTS 18 CONTROL PANEL AND CONTROL STATION LUMP SUM 1.0 $43,500.00 $43,500.00 19 ELECTRICAL UPGRADES & WIRING LUMP SUM 1.0 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 20 GENERATOR LUMP SUM 1.0 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 21 4" SCHEDULE 80 CONDUIT, DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED LIN FT 133 $44.00 $5,852.00 22 CONCRETE CONTROL PANEL PAD & CONTROL BOX VAULT PAD SQ FT 168 $15.00 $2,520.00 23 BOLLARDS EACH 7 $250.00 $1,750.00 RESTORATION & EROSION CONTROL: 24 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW CY YD 11 $30.00 $329.26 25 PERMANENT SEEDING (25-151 SEED MIX)SQ YD 176 $3.25 $572.29 26 SILT FENCE, TYPE HD LIN FT 30 $5.00 $150.00 27 SILT CURTAIN LIN FT 40 $10.00 $400.00 28 REINSTALL FENCE LIN FT 30 $20.00 $600.00 29 LANDSCAPNG ALLOWANCE ALLOWANCE 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:$140,628.60 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, ADMIN (25%): $35,157.15 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:$175,785.75 City of Orono - C13.110847 May 18, 2016 © Bolton Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards, P.E. JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______ _______________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 2801 Fox Street Sewer Extension ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Location map showing potential sanitary sewer extension. B- Cost Estimate 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gather Council approval on extending a sewer main to service 2801 Fox Street and waiver of sewer connection fees. 2. Background. The homeowner at 2801 Fox Street, Mr. Richard Noland has requested the City extend the municipal sewer to service his property. The property’s existing septic site has failed. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and the SAC fee has been paid. The nearest city sewer main is a low pressure forcemain that extends to the intersection of Farview Lane and Old Crystal Bay Road. 3. Sewer Connection Fee. Per the City Fee Schedule the sewer connection fee for the Farview Lane Sewer is $10,650.00. The estimated cost for the sewer main extension is $15,250 (see Exhibit B). In light of the cost to extend the main exceeding the connection fee cost the home owner requests the City waive the Connection fee. 4. Funding. All cost associated with the construction of the sewer main and service line will be paid by the resident. Upon completion and acceptance by the city, ongoing maintenance of the Sewer Main portion of the project will be the City’s responsibility. 5. Impact on Cities Sewer Density Calculation. The property is included in the MUSA. Met Council guidelines call for extensions to service area with a minimum of 3 connections per acre. This extension would provide potential service to 1 connections of a 2 Acres lot or 0.17 connection per acre which is well below the standard. 6. Way Forward. If the council approves of the project the follow steps would follow: • Resident will acquire the necessary permits Permit process (MPCA, MCES, MCWD, Hennepin County) • The City will complete the Design review • Resident will construct the sewer main and service line. • City will inspect and then accept the sewer main. 7. Staff Recommendation. After consideration of the proposed project, it is my recommendation to approve the sewer extension and to waive the connection fee. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the sewer extension and whether to waive the connection fee. 28 2.2 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Sewe Exteansion to 2801 Fox Street This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 8/16/2016 9:10 AM 198 Feet Sanitary Manhole Sanitary Lift Station Sanitary Clean Out Sanitary Termination Valve Sanitary Isolation Valve Sanitary Grinder Station Sanitary Gate Valve Sanitary Flushing Valve Sanitary Curbstop Air Release Manhole Sanitary Pipe Sanitary Service Pipe Sanitary Forcemain Railroad City Limits Parcels (2-1-2016) Lakes & Ponds REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam T Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______ _______________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining – Pay Request No. 3-FINAL ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 3 1. Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request #3 of the 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project. 2. Background. At the August 11, 2014 Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract for the 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project to Insituform in the amount of $230,921.50. The project consists of CIPP lining of approximately 4,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipes, manhole reconstruction, and lid replacement. 3. Status. Insituform has completed the project. This pay request reduces the retainage to $0. 4. Funding. This project is being funded from the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. 5. Recommendation. Public Works and Bolton & Menk and have reviewed the pay request, verified the quantities and recommends payment in the amount of $11,958.37. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve Pay Request No.3 for the contractor Insituform in the amount of $11,958.37 for the 2014 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam T Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______ _______________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 2015 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining – Pay Request No. 1 ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 1 1. Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request #1 of the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project. 2. Background. At the January 11, 2016 Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project to Insituform in the amount of $266,234.90. The project consists of CIPP lining of approximately 4,915 feet of sanitary sewer pipes, manhole reconstruction, and lid replacement. 3. Status. Insituform has completed the majority of project. 4. Funding. This project is being funded from the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. 5. Recommendation. Public Works and Bolton & Menk and have reviewed the pay request, verified the quantities and recommends payment in the amount of $233,888.46. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve Pay Request No.1 for the contractor Insituform in the amount of $233,888.46 for the 2015 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation & Manhole Lining Project. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards ATE JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Wayzata Blvd/ CSAH 112 Phase 2 No Parking Resolution ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Draft resolution B- Excerpt from Draft CSAH 112 Construction Plan 1. Purpose. City Council to adopt a resolution prohibiting parking on Wayzata Blvd within the City of Orono’s jurisdiction from Old Long Lake to Wayzata Blvd West. 2. Background. Hennepin County intends to improve CSAH 112 from Highway 12 to 6th Avenue in joint effort with Long Lake and Orono. The overall project is broken into three phases. Currently we are in the design portion of phase two which includes the stretch of CSAH 112 from Wolf Point Trail to Wayzata Blvd West. As the design moves forward for state approval, documentation supporting the chosen design must be included. As the final design does not allow for parking along the road except for a short stretch in downtown Long Lake, no parking resolutions from both communities must be included in the overall design packet. 3. Recommendation. Adopt attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to adopt the attached resolution designating the sections of Wayzata Blvd within the City of Orono’s jurisdiction from Old Long Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd West Road as no parking. A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON WAYZATA BOULEVARD FROM OLDLONG LAKE ROAD TO WAYZATA BLVD WEST WHEREAS, Wayzata Boulevard, CSAH 112, is currently being redesigned as a part of a turnback process between the State Of Minnesota and Hennepin County; and, WHEREAS, the new road will be a multi-lane major county collector transiting the cities of Long Lake and Orono; and, WHEREAS, the parking along edge of the road would cause a safety hazard for motorists. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council, that those portions of Wayzata Boulevard within the City of Orono’s jurisdiction from Old Long Lake Road to Wayzata Blvd West Road shall be designated “No Parking”. ADOPTED this 20th day of August 2016, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor S T O C K PI L E F L A G F L A G F L A G FLAG FLAG FLAG SCHOOL MONTESSORI ORONO850 323 331 339 342 345 338 336 341 340 345 1145 1135 1117 1075 1055 1045 305 300 965 945 925 915 920 970 925 965 985 1005 1000 1070 1120 1138 1144 1176 1188 1200 315 303 292 330 318 306 289 333 325 320 330 328 335 328 335 323 322 ASSISTED LIVING TRAILS OF ORONO875 THE LAKE BIRCH'S ON1310 M B M B M B M B MB M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B 1601 1595 1345 CITY OF LON G LA KE CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF ORONO CITY OF WAYZATA 2000100 scale in feet 36" X 93" - 100 SCALE PRELIMINARY WAYZATA BOULEVARD (CSAH 112) PHASE 2 LAYOUT SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3/10/2016 PRELIMINARY LEGEND RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS PAVED SHOULDERS PAVED ROADWAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS RETAINING WALL GUARDRAIL PROPOSED PONDING LOCATION (TOE OF SLOPE) PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION "BY OTHERS" WETLANDS CONCRETE SIDEWALKS & TRAILS H:\Projects\8483\CAD_BIM\Layout\Phase_2\PH_2_loa.dgn SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3/10/2016 PRELIMINARY LEGEND RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS PAVED SHOULDERS PAVED ROADWAY EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS RETAINING WALL GUARDRAIL PROPOSED PONDING LOCATION (TOE OF SLOPE) PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION "BY OTHERS" WETLANDS CONCRETE SIDEWALKS & TRAILS H:\Projects\8483\CAD_BIM\Layout\Phase_2\PH_2_loa.dgn 1 2 0 5 1155 1160 1165 1170 1175 1180 1185 1 1 9 0 1 1 9 5 1 2 0 0 1210 1215 1220 405 1210 1215 SECTION C TYPICAL SECTION C TYPICAL SECTION D TYPICAL SECTION D TYPICAL SECTION A TYPICAL SECTION A TYPICAL S E C T I O N F T Y P I C A L S E C T I O N F T Y P I C A L S E C T I O N E T Y P I C A L S E C T I O N E T Y P I C A L SECTION B TYPICAL SECTION B TYPICAL SECTION G TYPICAL SECTION G TYPICAL SPEEDLIMIT40 S P E E D L I M I T 3 0 SP EE D L I M I T 45 S P E E D L I M I T 4 5 S P E E D L I M I T 4 0 LONG LAKE W O L F P O I N T E T R . G L E N M O O R L A. H E A T H E R L A . R US S E L L L A. GRE E N HILL L A. OLD LONG LAKE RD. LI N D A W O O D L A. LUCE LINE TRAIL CSAH 112 US 12 WAYZATA BLVD. BNSF RAILWAY CSAH 112 C E M E T E R Y R D . CIR.U N D ERHILL S P E E D L I M I T 45 Y O U R S P EE D LONG LAKE CITY TRAIL L ONG L A K E C R E E K (30 MPH) LOW SPEED e = NC 150' R (40 MPH) AASHTO (4%MAX) e = 3.64% 840' R (45 MPH) AASHTO (4% MAX) e = 3.08% 1700' R (45 MPH) AASHTO (6% MAX) (MATCH EXISTING) e = 5.90% 750' R Y O U R S P E E D (45 MPH) AASHTO (6% MAX) (MATCH EXISTING) e = 5.90% 750' R CSAH 112 LC B624 C&G 4.0% THRU VAR LC GRADE PROFILE LT. TURN 12.0'2.0'-14.0' E.B. CSAH 112W.B. CSAH 112 CSAH 112 VAR B624 C&G VAR (1:4) (OR FLATTER) LC THRU 11.0' GRADE PROFILE 2.0%2.0% THRU 11.0'11.0' 2.0%2.0% CSAH 112 4.0%4.0% LT. TURN 8.0' SHLD DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH TYPICAL SECTION E DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH TYPICAL SECTION G CSAH 112 LC THRU 12.0' GRADE PROFILE 2.0%2.0% THRU 12.0' CSAH 112 4.0%4.0% 8.0' SHLD 8.0' SHLD DESIGN SPEED = 45 MPH TYPICAL SECTION F LC THRU 11.0' GRADE PROFILE 2.0%2.0% THRU 11.0'11.0' 2.0%2.0% CSAH 112 4.0%2.0% LT. TURN 8.0' SHLD 8.0' SHLDBLVD 8.0' TRAIL 30.0' CLEAR ZONE B624 C&G CSAH 112 2.0' GUARDRAIL DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH TYPICAL SECTION A 2.6'-7.0'5.0' 5.0' VA R ( 1 : 4 ) (OR F LATTE R ) 5.0' VAR (1:4) (OR FLATTER) VAR (1:4) (OR FLATTER) 5.0'5.0' VAR ( 1 : 4 ) (OR FLA T TE R ) ( O R F L A T T E R ) V A R ( 1: 2 ) 30.0' CLEAR ZONE CLEAR ZONE 30.0' V A R. ( 1: 2) ( O R F L A T T E R) VAR ( 1 : 4 ) (OR F LATTE R ) 2.0' LC THRU 11.0' GRADE PROFILE VAR THRU 11.0'11.0' VAR CSAH 112 LT. TURN 8.0' SHLD 8.0' SHLD 8.0' SHLDBLVD 7.0'8.0' TRAIL 30.0' CLEAR ZONE 8.0' SHLD B624 C&G CSAH 112 DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH TYPICAL SECTION C 5.0' CLEAR ZONE 30.0' LC THRU 11.0' GRADE PROFILE 2.0%2.0% THRU 11.0'11.0' 2.0%2.0% CSAH 112 4.0%2.0% LT. TURN 8.0' SHLD BLVD 8.0' TRAIL 30.0' CLEAR ZONE B624 C&G CSAH 112 DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH TYPICAL SECTION B 5.0' V A R. ( 1: 2) ( O R F L A T T E R) 2.0' CLEAR ZONE 30.0' RT. TURN 13.0' 2.67' VAR ( 1 : 4 ) (O R F LATT ER ) 2.0' (OR FLATTER)VAR (1:3) 5.0' VAR (1:3) V A R ( 1: 3 ) VARVARVAR LC THRU 11.0' GRADE PROFILE VAR THRU 11.0'11.0' VAR CSAH 112 VAR 8.0' SHLD 30.0' CLEAR ZONE CSAH 112 DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH TYPICAL SECTION D 5.0' CLEAR ZONE 30.0' VAR (1:4) VA R ( 1 : 4 ) VARVAR VAR. (1:2) (OR FLATTER) 22.0' MEDIAN B624 C&G 14.0' RT. TURN 2.0% GUARDRAIL 5.0' 2.0' 8.0' SHLD GUARDRAIL 5.0' 2.0' ( O R F L A T T E R ) V A R ( 1: 2 ) (OR FLATTER)VAR (1:2) 8.0'-20.0' MEDIAN 14.0' RT. TURN VAR 8.0' SHLD 12.0' THRU VAR ( 1 : 4 ) (OR FLAT TER ) 22.0'30.0' CLEAR ZONE 30.0' CLEAR ZONE VAR VAR (1:4) (OR FLATTER) VAR ( 1 : 4 ) (OR FLA TTER ) (OR FLATTER)VAR (1:2) ( O R F L A T T E R) V A R ( 1: 2) (OR F L A T TE R ) GRADE PROFILE (OR FLATTER) ( O R F L A T T E R ) (OR FLATTER)4.0% REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Lurton Off Leash Dog Park ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A. Revised Project Design B. Wetland Delineation C. Revised Cost Estimate D. Rules E. Ordinance Changes F. Park Operations 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain council approval for the construction, rules, and ordinances of Lurton Off Leash Dog Park. 2. Background. Since its reestablishment, the Orono Park Commission has been looking for ways to establish an off leash dog park within the Orono park system. Last fall the Lurton family approached the City with the idea of exploring possibilities to improve the public’s usage of Lurton Park by transitioning the park into an off leash dog park. City Staff and the Parks Commission developed a plan to transition the Park. At the March 7th Park Commission meeting the Commission endorsed the Off Leash Dog Park Plan. At the April 25th Council meeting the Council approved the design/master plan for the off leash park. Since then the process of gaining the required variances for the fence has resulted in changes to the layout of the park. At their July 5th meeting the Park Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revised design. At the July 11th meeting Council directed the Staff and Park Commission to make changes to the park design by adjusting the northern boundary of the fence south; to get the wetlands delineated; to revise the park rules and regulations; and to include the well and other park improvements that had been removed at the April council meeting back into the design. 3. Fence Layout Changes. The fencing layout was adjusted at the July 11th council meeting. (See Exhibit A) This revised layout was used to solicit quotes from fencing contractors. Prior to the installation of the fence the fence line will be staked for any final input and modifications per direction for the July 11th Council meeting. Exhibit B depicts a wetland delineation of the site. 4. Project Cost. The estimated cost of the project is $146,591.00. (See Exhibit C) This estimate included the low quotes for both fencing and well construction as well as the re-inclusion of the items previously removed from the project. 5. Fence Quotes. The City solicited quotes from three local fencing contractors. Northern Specialties, Inc. provided the only quote which was for $79,754.00. 6. Well Quotes. The City solicited quotes from three local well drilling contractors and received two quotes. TL Stevens Well Company was the low quote for $11,141.00. 7. Park Rules. The Park Commission and Staff revised the Park Rules. (See Exhibit D) In addition to the rules the Park Commission and Staff are developing a list of dog park etiquette suggestions to be displayed on park signs and handouts. 8. Ordinance. To accommodate an off leash dog park, two sections of the City Code require amendment, a section of code specifically addressing off leash parks should be added and the Fee Schedule amended. The recommended ordinance changes are based on existing ordinances in other municipalities with off leash dog parks and feedback from the Council at the 25 April council meeting. (See Exhibit E) 9. Park Operations. A draft Dog Park Operations is included at Exhibit F. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: 1. Move to accept the quote from Northern Specialties, Inc for 79,754.00 for construction of fencing and gates from the park. 2. Move to accept the quote from TL Stevens for $11,141.00 for a construction of a well. 3. Move to authorize staff to procure and install the items included in the design and cost estimate. 4. Move to adopt the ordinance amendments pertaining to dogs in an off leash park. Revised Project Estimate Item Description Qty Unit Price Total 1 Perimeter Fence 2686 2 Wood Post Fence 1776 3 Improved fence with Top Rails 400 4 Pedestrian Gate 5 5 Vehicular Gate 2 $79,754 6 Parking Expansion (Double/addn 400 SY) 1 $ 17,250 $17,250 8 Dog Waste Station 1 $ 325 $325 9 Porta Potty Pad 1 $ 400 $400 10 Information Signs 2 $ 770 $1,540 12 Trail Signs 10 $ 20 $200 13 Road Sign 1 $ 200 $200 14 Well 1 $ 11,200 $11,200 15 Bench 1 $ 310 $310 16 Picnic Table 1 $ 2,130 $2,130 17 Shade Sails 3 $ 2,950 $8,850 Total Cost $122,159 20% Contingency $24,432 Total $146,591 Exhibit C. Project Cost Estimate Lurton Off Leash Dog Park Rules The City of Orono has specific policies for the Lurton Off Leash Dog Park. For the safety of all park users, please adhere to these policies. Violation of any of these rules and conditions can lead to a citation and/or revocation of your pass. The City reserves the right to reject or cancel passes and will restrict days or times of use as necessary. • Park hours are 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM daily. • Vehicles must display a Lurton Park Pass. • Patrons must be in possession of an annual pass. • Dogs must have a current rabies vaccination. • Dogs must be attended and under control at all times. No exceptions. • No aggressive behavior. • Dog waste must be picked up and disposed of in a sanitary manner. • No more than 3 dogs per handler. • No handlers under the age of 16. • Adults must supervise children and instruct them in proper behavior around dogs. • No firearms or devices considered firearms under Federal Law. • No dogs under age 4 months. • No dogs in heat. • All other Park Ordinances apply. Exhibit D. Park Rules ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO DOGS IN AN OFF LEASH PARK THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 22-95 (1) Animal regulations is hereby amended to read as follows: No person shall: (1) Except as provided in Minn. Stat. § 256C.02, bring or keep an animal owned or under his control into or upon a park. This subsection does not prohibit dogs or cats that are on leashes or dogs in an area designated as an off leash area provided that the person having custody of the animal: is present with the animal; has a current off leash permit; and is acting in compliance with the rules and regulations of the off leash areas SECTION 2. Chapter 22 Parks and Recreation is amended by adding the following: Sec. 22.102 - Off leash dog areas; permits and regulations. (a) Dogs may be unrestrained by chain or leash in areas designated for off leash activities by the City. No person shall use a designated off leash area without first having obtained a permit for each dog using such an area from the City of Orono. A dog deemed a dangerous animal under Code 62-102, or as a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog as defined under Minnesota Statute 347.50, is not permitted to use off leash areas. (b) The annual fee for an off leash area permit shall be set City Council and published in the Annual Fee Schedule. A permit may only be issued upon verification of rabies vaccination. Permits shall be valid from the time they are issued until December thirty-first after the date of issuance. (c) Upon application for a permit, the applicant shall be provided with the rules for use of off leash areas. As a condition for the issuance of a permit, the applicant shall sign and agree to abide by these rules. (d) Feces clean up. Any person having the custody or control of any dog or domestic animal shall have the responsibility for cleaning up any feces of the animal and disposing of such feces in a sanitary manner. It shall furthermore be the duty of any person having custody or control of any dog or domestic animal on or about any public place to have in such person's possession suitable equipment for picking up, removal and sanitary disposal of animal feces. Violations of this provision may result in an administrative fine. (e) The person responsible for a dog must have the dog restrained when entering and leaving an off leash area. If so directed by a law enforcement officer, animal care and control officer, or animal warden, persons using an off leash area must immediately restrain their dogs and remove them from the off leash area. (f) Enforcement. Exhibit E. Ordinances (1) Compliance required. All persons shall comply with the park signs and markers installed by the City of Orono (2) Enforcement authority. Designated city officials and law enforcement authorities shall have the jurisdiction to enforce any violation of these rules and any state or local laws which occur on park property. (3) Violation a misdemeanor. Any infraction of a duly adopted park rule constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable by law or through and administrative offence fees. Fees are listed in the City Fee Schedule. (4) Permit revocation. A permit may be revoked for failure of the applicant, or any person who takes the dog into an off leash recreation area, to abide by these rules, or for violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or ordinances that occur within an off leash area. SECTION 3. Section 62-104. - Running at large prohibited is hereby amended by adding the following: It is unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such animal to run at large. Any dog shall be deemed to be running at large with the permission of the owner unless: (6) In an area designated as an off leash area provided that the person having custody of the animal: is present with the animal; has in his/her possession the required off leash permit; and is acting in compliance with the rules and regulations of the off leash areas SECTION 4. Section 2-171 Fee Schedule effective during the calendar year 2016 is amended by adding the following to the Licenses and Miscellaneous changes section OFF LEASH PARK PASSES Fee Applicable Code Section Annual Pass (Resident) $ 25.00 Sec. 22.102 Annual Pass (Non-Resident) $ 35.00 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE FEES (POLICE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTERED) Applicable Code or Application Type Fee MN State Statue (MSS) Number Park Violations No Permit $60 22-102 Feces Clean Up $60 22-95, 22-114 & 22-102 SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2016 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2016. Park Operations The intent is to operate the Off Leash Park in the same manner as all other Orono City Parks, Beaches and Nature Area with the following additions: 1. Permit. Use of the off leash park will require an annual permit which will be available for a reasonable fee. a. The fee will be set by the City Council annually as part of the Fee Schedule process. b. Permits will be issued by the administrative staff at Orono City Hall during normal business hours. c. Applicants must provide proof of vaccination for each dog. d. Permits will be in the form of a rearview mirror hanger and an accompanying business size card pass. The hanger must be on display and the card pass in the handler’s possession when using the off-leash area. e. Permit enforcement will be conducted by random patrols of the Orono Police Department (OPD). Orono Park Maintenance personnel will also report any violations to the OPD for action. 2. Maintenance. a. The intent is to continue the current maintenance practice of the park. (1) The Prairie will continue to be maintained by contractors and funded from the Lurton Park Fund. (2) Designated areas will be mowed by Orono’s lawn mowing contractor and funded from the Parks general fund. (3) Trails will be maintained through a combination of volunteers, contractors and the Public Works Department. b. New facilities preventive maintenance. (1) Fence. The fence and gates will be inspected annually. (2) Well. The well will be inspected annually. (3) Shade Structures. Shades sails will be removed and stored each winter. c. Dog Waste. (1) Park Rules will require handlers to remove and dispose of dog waste in a sanitary manner. (2) The City will provide “waste bags” and trash receptacles. In addition, the park will be added to the City’s Park Trash collection contract. (3) Park signage will encourage patrons to self-police and remove any waste found lying on the ground. (4) As a last resort, should large amounts of dog waste be found in the park, the park will be closed until volunteer groups or city staff can remove the hazard. 3. Information. In addition to the normal park amenity descriptions provided on the City website, the city will create and provide the following: a. A handout/ brochure of Park rules, Dog Etiquette and other off leash park information. Park Signage including a summary of rules and etiquette. Exhibit F. Draft Park Operations Lurton Off Leash Park Design Main off Leash Area ~2686 ft Small Dog Area ~1776 ft ~400 ft Improved fence On Leash Area Pond Wetland Setback Lakeshore Setback Improved Fence w/ toprail Fence wood and T post mix Fence w/ Wood Post only W OLD HIGHWAY 12 C O U N T Y R O A D 6 C O U N T Y R O A D 6 M a p D o c u m e n t : H :\O R N O \C 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 7 \L U R T O N O F F L E A S H P A R K \G I S \E S R I \L u r t o n P a r k _E x B -D e l i n e a t i o n .m x d D a t e S a v e d : 8 /3 /2 0 1 6 7 :4 5 :0 4 A M LURTON PARK City of Orono Exhibit B: Wetland Delineation August, 2016 Information Lurton Park Wetlands were delineated by:Mark Perry, Bolton & MenkJuly 20 & Aug 1, 2016 Legend Wetland Boundary Orono Parcels 0 300Feet I Source: Storm Pond Wetland 2 Wetland 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: 16-3832, City of Orono, Lurton Park Variances Application Summary The Council directed staff to draft a resolution granting a variance to the wetland and lake yard setbacks at their meeting on July 11th. This motion was approved 4-1, with the Mayor voting no. At that same meeting, the Council directed certain changes to the final plan, to be reviewed at an upcoming meeting. The Council also directed the City Engineer complete a delineation of the wetlands on the property, these wetlands are incorporated into the final plan, and are generally consistent with the boundaries identified by staff. As directed, the plan has been modified, and are shown in Exhibit B. The resolution formally approving the variance is attached at Exhibit A. Action Requested: Approve by motion the resolution as drafted. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft resolution Exhibit B. Final park master plan Exhibit C. City Council minutes from July 11, 2016 Exhibit D. Staff memo to City Council dated July 11, 2016 Page 1 of 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3580 WAYZATA BLVD WEST - FILE NO. 16-3832. WHEREAS, The City of Orono, (hereinafter the “Owners”) are owners of the property located at 3580 Wayzata Blvd West within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the North Quarter corner of said Section 32; then ce on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 12 seconds East along the West line of the said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 165.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of described Line; thence South 20 degrees 32 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 400.00 feet along the easterly right-of-way line of Trunk Highway No. 12 (B23 to B16224) per MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 27-162, according to the recorded plat thereof (Document No. 8519996), Hennepin County Records; thence southeasterly along the northerly right- of-way line of Trunk Highway No. 12 (B16224 to B5) per MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 27-163, according to the recorded plat thereof (Document No. 8519997), Hennepin County Records for the following three (3) courses: South 35 degrees 32 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 500.00 feet, South 55 degrees 32 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 400.00 feet and South 78 degrees 32 minutes 09 seconds East a distance of 612.72 feet to the East Line of the said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and there terminating. Subject to a permanent wetland easement as delineated on said MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 27-163. Subject to easements & restrictions of record, if any.; and Council Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 WHEREAS, the Owners made an application to the City for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 in order to allow the construction of fencing with a lake setback of 70 feet where a 150-foot setback is normally required; and with a wetland setback of 10 feet where a 35-foot setback is normally required; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016 after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0 recommended denial of the variances as presented; and WHEREAS, on July 11, 2016, the Orono City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: A1. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200’. A3. The Property is 21.8 acres in area, being 1,700 in width at the Ordinary High Water Line. A4. The Owners are planning to construct a series of fences for a planned off leash park. The fences are intended to blend in visually to the environment. These fences are located to avoid impacts to existing trees, topography, and incorporate existing improvements, including some trails. A5. The Owners are requesting a number of variances as a portion of the fence system will encroach into the lake yard on the east side of the property, and into the wetland setback/ buffer area in the south east corner of the property. Page 3 of 6 A6. The Owners have made several modifications to the plan since the Planning Commission review. The wetlands have been delineated, the fences do not encroach into the wetland, the fence has been removed from the buffer area of the wetland in the NW corner of the site. Further, to address concerns given by neighboring properties, the fence has been pulled south from the north property line. A7. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: B1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain a rural, natural character adjacent to the lake. The fence is placed to minimize impacts to the lake, and is of a design intended to blend into a rural character. B2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The global intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a certain character of the City, while establishing minimum standards for health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The fence proposed is consistent in character with minimal lake impact, and accomplishes certain health, safety general welfare goals identified by the City by offering expanded recreational opportunities. B3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property is currently a park. The improvements proposed are consistent with a park, which is a permitted use (publically owned parks and playgrounds). b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The fence location is preferred to avoid invasive work within the wooded area. The trees were not planted by the property owner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The fence design is intended to blend into the park character which is rural. The fences are designed to blend into the landscape and will be minimally visible from the street and off the property. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: Page 4 of 6 B4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property is used as a public park. This classification is peculiar to the subject parcel and not applicable to other lots in the zoning district. B5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The unique conditions do not generally apply to other land or structures in the district. The majority of land developed within the wetland and shoreline districts are single family residential. Approving a variance for public park improvements would not apply directly to other land uses. B6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The ordinance provisions were drafted primarily to apply to the predominant land use in the city, single family residential. Applied to a park use, the enjoyment of the property is threatened because the ideal park and open space incorporates vegetation, slopes, wetlands, and water features. The fencing proposed is the minimal amount necessary to grant relief from the ordinance while preserving a substantial right of the property owners. B7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The fence as proposed will not block views from neighboring properties, and due to its design and distance from the lake, will not be visually impactful from the lake. The fence is not located along the northern property line, further negating any impact to these property owners and maintain wildlife passage. B8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Location of the fence at the setback and at the necessary height is not merely a convenience, it is the planned efficient use of city resourc es to create a desirable experience for park users. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 in order to allow the construction of 47 inch high, woven wore fences with metal or wooden posts within the150’ lake yard and within the 35 foot wetland setback and buffer area, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey/site plan submitted by the Owners and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the approved survey/site plan and building plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Page 5 of 6 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by completing the fencing work described in Exhibit A within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (August 22, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 22nd day of August, 2016. ATTEST: _______________________________ _______________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A Site Plan Council Exhibit D 8-22-16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 7a Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: 16-3832, City of Orono, Variances Application Summary The variances, if approved, would allow the placement of wire fencing closer than 150 feet from Lake Classen and closer than 35 feet from wetlands on the east side. The fencing is necessary for an off-leash pet area planned for Lurton Park. The Council originally reviewed this application during their meeting on May 23rd, where public comment was received. The Council elected not to waive the Planning Commission review, so in addition to the public hearing on May 23rd, the Planning Commission reviewed the application at their meeting on June 20th and held a public hearing. Since the original city Council meeting, and again after the Planning Commission, the Park Commission has altered the plan from the original plan. The planned fence is now at least 35 feet from the wetland in the NW corner of the property, the fence is greater than 35 feet from the north property line to maintain wildlife routes, and the fence is beyond the wetland setback on the east side. These adjustments have reduced the overall off leash area from 14 acres to 9.92 acres. Variances are necessary because the fence as proposed is closer than 150 feet from Lake Classen on the east side, and a portion of the fence encroaches into wetland buffer on the extreme east side of the lot. The Planning Commission staff report and exhibits dated June 20, 2016 more completely describe the project and are incorporated by reference. The staff report is attached as Exhibit D. Public Comment Staff has received written opposition to the application, primarily from neighbors to the north. These concerns were more generally directed at the off leash pet designation, rather than the setback variances. Planning Commission Recommendation After the public hearing on June 20th, the Planning Commission did not support the variances, recommending denial 5-0. Commissioners struggled with the practical difficulty aspect of the variance, and some felt the off leash park could be accomplished without the variance. Planning Staff Recommendation The placement of a fence in a park must be viewed as a principal structure, and the impacts prevented by the ordinance must be viewed against this type of improvement, rather than more typical building construction. Staff’s analysis of the practical difficulty statement showed that practical difficulty could be satisfied, summarized below. The corresponding numbers from the practical difficulty form are in parenthesis. The use of the property is a reasonable use (1), unique circumstances exist because the property is operated as a public park (2), and the variance wouldn’t alter the character of the locality (3). The fence location is chosen to provide more benefit to the public, and is in fact more expensive than staying within the ordinance (4). The special conditions are perhaps the strongest argument, in that there is no principal structure on the property, the fencing system serves as the principal improvement, and its’ construction is far less obtrusive to the goals of the ordinance than a building (8). The variance granted, for an off leash public park would not apply to other properties in the zoning district (9), and the variances allow the expansion of the public benefit of the park (10). The improvements being proposed are intended to blend into the landscape, and will not impair the health, safety, morals of the public, nor circumvent the zoning ordinance (11). Lastly, the fencing is not proposed as a convenience, but as a means to maximize the benefit to the public (12). Items 5-7 do not apply. Because the practical difficulty can be met, Staff recommends approval of the variances. Action Requested: Direct staff to prepare a resolution based on Council decision. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Revised Park Plan dated July 1, 2016 Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Form Exhibit C. Correspondence received Exhibit D. Planning Commission staff report Exhibit E. Draft PC Minutes ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 22, 2016 Item No: 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Correy Farniok JML Public Safety Title: Police Chief ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Amended and Restated West Metro Drug Task Force (Joint Powers Agreement) ______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION: On July 27, 2004 Orono Police Department along with Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, Medina Police Department, West Hennepin Department of Public Safety, and Mound Police Department entered into a joint powers agreement and formed the West Metro Drug Task Force (WMDTF). As of August 15, 2016, the Minnetrista Police Department will be joining the WMDTF. The amended agreement reflects the addition of the City of Minnetrista entering the joint powers and removes the City of Mound (Mound Police Department) from the agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the Amended and Restated West Metro Drug Task Force (Joint Powers Agreement). 1 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 AMENDED AND RESTATED WEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED WEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made this ___ day of ___________, 2016, by and among the undersigned units of government who are responsible for the enforcement of controlled substance laws in their respective jurisdictions. WHEREAS, the parties hereto previously determined to create a regional joint powers entity for the purpose of enforcing the laws of their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a joint powers agreement creating the West Metro Drug Task Force dated July 27, 2004 (the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to amend and restate the Agreement to add additional parties, remove original parties, and make other administrative changes. NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the covenants herein contained the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Name. The parties hereby establish the West Metro Drug Task Force. (WMDTF). 2. General Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the Governmental Units with respect to the duties and activities performed by the Task Force throughout the term of the Agreement. 3. Members. The members of this Agreement are the following Governmental Units: Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office City of Medina City of Minnetrista City of Orono West Hennepin Department of Public Safety 3.1. The Governmental Units shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure that the various provisions of the Agreement are fulfilled. The members agree in good faith to undertake resolution of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 4. Term. 4.1. The term of this Agreement shall be for one year, commencing August 15, 2016 and terminating August 14, 2017, unless terminated earlier pursuant to section 12.3 of this agreement. This Agreement shall be automatically extended for successive one-year terms 2 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 upon the same terms, conditions, and covenants, unless the Task Force is dissolved prior to expiration of the initial or successive term. 4.2. Upon termination of this Agreement, all property owned jointly by the Task Force members shall be sold or distributed to the members of the Task Force at the time of dissolution in proportion to the "full-time equivalent" contributions of each member of this agreement as approved b y the Board as of the date of dissolution. Personal property shall return to the agency/owner. 5. Administrative Board. 5.1. The governing board of the Task Force shall be a Board of Directors consisting of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO), or designee representing each participating unit of government. The chief law enforcement officer or designee of each agency shall be hereinafter referred to as a director. All directors shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority. 5.2. Directors shall not be deemed employees of the Task Force and shall not be compensated by it. 5.3. The Board will delegate the authority and responsibility of carrying out the purpose of the Task Force to the Task Force Supervisor. 5.4. The Board shall meet as needed to evaluate the progress of the Task Force. A meeting may be called by any Director, or the Task Force Supervisor. 5.5. The Board may approve contracts, including agreements for the rental of real property, incur expenses and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and consistent with its powers. 5.6. The Board may recommend changes in this Agreement to its members. 5.7. The Board may receive real or personal property by grant, devise, or bequest for the use of the Task Force. 6. Powers and Duties of the Task Force 6.1. To accomplish the objectives herein, all Task Force members shall assign at least one peace officer licensed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, §626.84, subd.l, to the Task Force who must have a minimum of one year prior experience in law enforcement. 6.2. Each officer/deputy must be assigned to the Task Force on a full-time basis for at least one year unless he/she is reassigned by the head of the officer/deputy's agency upon the recommendation of the Task Force supervisor. 3 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 6.3. The Task Force Supervisor will direct investigative activities based on intelligence provided by the task force members with priority given to case investigations that directly impact the jurisdictions represented by the member agencies. 6.4. While assigned to the Task Force, all personnel shall be under the direct supervision and control of one Hennepin County Sheriff's Office detective supervisor or his/her designee, who shall be responsible for the following duties: which shall include, but not be limited to: a. scheduling assigned personnel; b. providing input on employee evaluations, if requests; and c. allocating overtime work, if necessary. 6.5. The Task Force Supervisor may cooperate with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to accomplish the purpose for which the Task Force is organized. 6.6. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office shall cause to be made an annual audit of the books and accounts of the Task Force and shall make and file a report to its members which includes the following information: a. The financial condition of the Task Force; b. The status of all Task Force projects; c. The business transacted by the Task Force; and Financial Activity Report System (FARS) Report; d. Quarterly financial report; e. Other matters which affect the interests of the Task Force. 6.7. The Task Force's books, reports, and records shall be open to inspection by its members at all reasonable times. 6.8. The Task Force members may not incur obligations or approve contracts that extend beyond the calendar year in which the contract is made or which will require the expenditure of funds in excess of funds available. 6.9. Nothing herein is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting one of the participating Government Units as the agent, representative or employee of another Task Force member for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Personnel assigned to the Task Force by one of the participating 4 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 Governmental Units shall not be considered temporary or permanent employees of any other participating Government Unit or the Task Force for any purpose whatsoever or be entitled to tenure rights or any rights or benefits by way of workers compensation, re-employment insurance, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, severance pay, PERA or any other right or benefit of another participating Government Unit. 6.10. Participating Government Units acknowledge that it is their sole responsibility to provide all salary compensation and fringe benefits to employees. Benefits may include, but are not limited to, health care, disability insurance, life insurance, re- employment insurance, FICA, Medicare, and PERA. 7. Insurance and Indemnification 7.1. The Task Force will maintain liability coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust with a limit of at least $2,000,000 per occurrence, under standard LMCIT liability coverage forms. Alternatively, the Task Force may maintain equivalent private liability insurance coverage. Such coverage may be provided through separate policies for commercial general liability and law enforcement liability. Such private liability insurance policies must comply with the following requirements: • Each policy shall have a limit of at least $2 million per occurrence. If the policy contains a general aggregate limit, the general aggregate limit shall not be less than $2,000,000. • The CGL insurance shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, products-completed operations, personal injury and advertising injury, and contractually-assumed liability. • Each member, and each member's officers, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional covered parties on each policy for all claims arising from Task Force activities or operations. 7.2. The Task Force may in its discretion procure coverage for auto liability and damage to or loss of property. If the Task Force at any time hires employees, it will immediately acquire and maintain workers' compensation coverage. 7.3. The Task Force agrees to defend and indemnify its members for any liability claims arising from Task Force activities or operations, and decisions of the Task Force Board. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the statutory limits on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 or a waiver of any available immunities or defenses, and the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 for some or all of the parties may not be added together to 5 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 determine the maximum amount of liability for any party. 7.4. Nothing herein shall be construed to provide insurance coverage or indemnification to an officer, employee, or volunteer of any member for any act or omission for which the officer, employee, or volunteer is guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. 7.5. Any excess or uninsured liability shall be borne equally by all the members, but this does not include the liability of any individual officer, employee, or volunteer which arises from his or her own malfeasance, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. 7.6. Each member shall be responsible for injuries to or death of its own personnel. Each member will maintain workers' compensation insurance or self-insurance coverage, covering its own personnel while they are assigned to the Task Force or are otherwise participating in or assisting with Task Force operations or activities. Each member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not, bring any claim or suit against the Task Force or any other member for any workers' compensation benefits paid to its own employee or dependents, that arise out of participation in or assistance with Task Force operations or activities, even if the injuries were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other member or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 7.7. Each member shall be responsible for damages to or loss of its own equipment. Each member waives the right to, and agrees that it will not, bring any claim or suit against the Task Force or any other member for damages to or loss of its equipment arising out of participation in or assistance with Task Force operations or activities, even if the damages or losses were caused wholly or partially by the negligence of any other members or its officers, employees, or volunteers. 7.8. All insurance policies and certificates required under this Agreement shall be open to inspection by any member and copies of the policies or certificates shall be submitted to a member upon written request. 8. Finances 8.1. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, through its Accounting Division, shall serve as sole administrator of all funds contributed by Task Force member agencies and in such capacity is authorized to receive all funds for deposit and make disbursements therefrom in accordance with standard Hennepin County practice and procedure. In conjunction therewith, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Accounting Division shall maintain current and accurate records of all obligations and expenditures of Task Force funds pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles. It shall also produce a quarterly financial report which shall be disseminated to the Task Force supervisor and all member agency heads. Such reports and related records shall be maintained by the Hennepin County 6 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 Sheriff’s Office Accounting Division for a period of three (3) years after termination of the Task Force. 8.2. The Board shall approve an annual operating budget for the Task Force. The Board may amend the budget as necessary. 8.3. The Task Force’s funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with this Agreement in a manner determined by the Board. In no event shall there be an expenditure of Task Force funds from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office depository except per the approved budget. 8.4. The Board may not incur debts. 8.5. The Board shall receive a quarterly statistical report and a financial report on all activities conducted by the Task Force. 8.6. Task Force operations will be financed from grant funds, drug forfeitures, and any funds voluntarily contributed by any member. Members will provide agents for the Task Force but will not otherwise be required to provide funds without the prior amendment of this Agreement approved by all members. 9. Agent. 9.1. Each member shall assign experienced, licensed peace officers/deputies (agents) to serve on the Task Force. Assignments for the year 2016 are as follows: Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (2 FTE) – 1 Supervisor City of Medina (1 FTE) City of Minnetrista (1 FTE) City of Orono (1 FTE) West Hennepin Department of Public Safety (l FTE) For each subsequent year, each member will advise the Board, prior to October 1st, of the number of employees which that member will provide in the subsequent calendar year. 9.2. All personnel assigned to the Task Force shall comply with rules of conduct prescribed by the Task Force supervisor developed in consultation with the head of Task Force member agencies and in recognition of the rules of their respective agencies. The Task Force supervisor, or his designee, shall refer disciplinary matters involving assigned personnel to the respective agency for investigation and disposition unless, based on the judgment of the Task Force supervisor, or his/her designee, a particular matter represents prima facie grounds for the issuance of a criminal complaint, in which case the matter shall be referred directly to an external law enforcement agency for investigation provided the appropriate Task Force agency head(s) is(are) notified in advance thereof. 7 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 9.3. Agents will be responsible for drug investigation, including intelligence management, case development, and case charging. Agents may also assist other agents in surveillance and undercover operations. Task Force agents will work cooperatively with assisting agencies. Assigned officers acting under this agreement in the jurisdiction of another party to this agreement are acting in the line of duty and in the course of employment and are authorized to exercise the powers of a peace officer therein. 9.4. The Governmental Unit appointing the Agent shall furnish the Agent a weapon, vehicle, computer, and pay any lease payments, insurance, major maintenance, and/or other equipment. Clerical assistance will be furnished by member agencies and/or through the annual budget. 10. Forfeiture, Seizures and Fines. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,§ 609.531, the Task Force members are entitled to money or proceeds from the sale of forfeited property after payment of seizure, storage, forfeiture and sale expenses and satisfaction of valid liens against forfeited property. It is agreed by Task Force members that forfeiture monies and proceeds shall be distributed equally after deduction of all costs and expenses herein stated. The receipt and disbursement of forfeiture sale proceeds shall be referenced in the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Accounting Division's quarterly financial report disseminated to the Task Force supervisor and member agencies in accordance with 6.6. 11. Headquarters. The Task Force is physically located in separate offices at a location agreed upon by the Board. Rent shall be paid from Task Force funds. All utilities, including electricity, heat, air conditioning, and the like shall be included in the cost of rent. 12. Additional Members and Change in Membership 12.1. Any City sharing a common boundary with any department listed in paragraph 3 may join the Task Force and become a member upon approval and execution of a copy of this Agreement by such department and approval by a majority of the Directors. 12.2. In any case in which a City identified in paragraph 3 joins the Task Force after the effective date of this agreement or any other City joins the Task Force pursuant to paragraph 12.1, contributions by and reimbursement to such members shall be equitably determined and adjusted by the Board to reflect the participation by that member for less than one full year. The decision of the Board shall be final. 12.3. Each Governmental Unit, upon ninety (90) days' written notice to all member agencies, may withdraw and cancel its participation in this Agreement. The members by mutual written consent may abolish this Agreement at any time. 8 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 13. State and Local Assistance for Narcotics Control Program. 13.1. A member agency, acting on behalf of the West Metro Drug Task Force and its members, may apply for Federal, state, or local narcotics enforcement. The member agency shall be the "authorized official", as defined in the general policies and procedures for the program. 14. Media 14.1. Media coverage of Task Force activities, including the dissemination of all press releases must reference each Task Force member agency, and shall be coordinated through the HCSO Public Information Officer or designee. 15. Evidence 15.1. Except for seized motor vehicles, all evidence/property seized by licensed Task Force personnel, while acting within the scope of this Agreement, shall be inventoried and stored temporarily at a secure, designated area within the West Metro Drug Task facility that is under the exclusive control of active agents/officers/deputies of the Task Force. Such inventoried evidence/property shall be subject to subsequent transfer to the HCSO Crime Lab Property Room for safekeeping pending lawful release or to another facility at the discretion of the Task Force Supervisor. Seized motor vehicles shall be stored in an impound area designated by the Hennepin County Sheriff until lawfully released. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of their governing bodies, have caused this Agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes § 471.59. 9 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 CITY OF MEDINA The Medina City Council duly approved this Agreement on the _______ day of ______________, 2016. City of Medina By: Its Mayor And: Its City Administrator 10 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 CITY OF MINNETRISTA The Minnetrista City Council duly approved this Agreement on the _______ day of ______________, 2016. City of Minnetrista By: Its Mayor And: Its City Administrator 11 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 CITY OF ORONO The Orono City Council duly approved this Agreement on the _______ day of ______________, 2016. City of Orono By: Its Mayor And: Its City Administrator 12 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE The ________________________ duly approved this Agreement on the _______ day of ______________, 2016. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office By: Its: And: Its Approved as to form and legality: Hennepin County Attorney 13 484259v3 AMB MN415-1 WEST HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY The __________________________ duly approved this Agreement on the _______ day of ______________, 2016. West Hennepin Department of Public Safety By: Its And: Its Approved as to form and legality: West Hennepin Department of Public Safety Attorney Date Application Received: 07/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/28/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/26/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 22, 2016 Item No. 10 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3851, Peter Bluth, 2413 Carman Street, Variances – Resolution Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance and a rear yard setback variance to permit a 2nd story addition over the existing detached garage. The garage is a legally non-conforming oversized accessory structure. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct an addition to the home which would result in a separation of 9 feet from the garage where a 10 foot separation setback is required. Planning Commission Recommendation On August 15th the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 4 to 0 on a motion to approve the variances contingent upon the owners signing the oversized accessory structure covenants. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. A draft approval resolution has been provided for Council’s consideration which incorporates the OAS covenants. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Survey and Plans Exhibit B. Draft Resolution Exhibit C. PC Action Notice Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes – 08/15/16 Exhibit E. PC Staff Report – 08/09/16 Exhibit F. PC Exhibits SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-17/5/2016Main Floor Plan, Existing 1/4"=1'0" DW W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 3 W0 3 W0 3 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W03 W03 W03 W03 W03 W03 W0 3 W0 3 W0 3 UP UP UP 3 ' - 2 " 5' - 6 " 3 ' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 1 8 ' 14 ' Main Floor Plan, Proposed SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-27/5/2016 1/4"=1'0" W07 W07 W07 W0 8 W0 8 W0 8 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W04 W04 W04 W04 W04 W047'13'-9"13'-7" 15 ' - 9 " 1 4 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 4 " WI N D O W S C H E D U L E NU M B E R L A B E L Q T Y F L O O R S I Z E W I D T H H E I G H T D E S C R I P T I O N W0 1 1 6 4 0 F X 1 1 1 6 4 0 F X 1 7 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " F I X E D G L A S S W0 2 2 0 2 0 S C 3 2 2 0 2 0 S C 2 3 1 / 2 " 2 3 1 / 2 " S N G L C A S E M E N T - HR W0 3 2 0 4 0 D H 4 1 2 0 4 0 D H 2 3 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 4 2 0 4 0 D H 4 2 2 0 4 0 D H 2 3 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 6 2 6 4 0 D H 2 1 2 6 4 0 D H 2 9 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 7 3 0 3 0 D H 1 2 3 0 3 0 D H 3 5 1 / 2 " 3 5 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 8 3 0 3 6 S C 1 2 3 0 3 6 S C 3 5 1 / 2 " 4 1 1 / 2 " S N G L C A S E M E N T - HR W0 9 3 0 5 0 D H 3 1 3 0 5 0 D H 3 5 1 / 2 " 5 9 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-37/5/2016Second Floorplan, Proposed 1/4"=1'0"1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-47/5/2016South/ East Elevations, Comparison 1/8"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-57/5/2016North/West Elevations, Comparison 1/8"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-67/5/2016Exterior Perspective N.A. SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-77/5/2016Living Room Cross Section 1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-87/5/2016House Cross Section 1/4"=1'0" UP UP 12 ' - 1 " 22 ' - 8 " SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-97/5/2016Garage Main Floor Plan 1/4"=1'0" WI N D O W S C H E D U L E NU M B E R L A B E L Q T Y F L O O R S I Z E W I D T H H E I G H T D E S C R I P T I O N W0 1 3 0 4 0 D H 3 2 3 0 4 0 D H 3 5 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 2 3 0 4 0 S C 2 2 3 0 4 0 S C 3 5 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " S N G L C A S E M E N T - HR DN DN W01 W01 W01 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 6' - 9 " 6' - 9 " 1 3 ' - 1 " 14 ' - 1 " 72 " t o t o p 72 " t o t o p SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-107/5/2016Garage Second Floor Plan 1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-117/5/2016Garage Elevations 1/8"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-127/5/2016Garage Perspective N.A. SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-137/5/2016Garage Cross Section 1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-147/5/2016Garage elevations, Comparison 1/8"=1'0" NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE: 16-3851 DATE OF NOTICE: 19 August 2016 TO: Peter & Nell Bluth 2413 Carman St Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES via email: Peter Bluth TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 15 August 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested contingent upon the property owner signing the oversized accessory covenant as noted within the staff memo. VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, August 22nd This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. Council Exhibit D 3. #16-3851 PETER BLUTH, 2413 CARMAN STREET, VARIANCES, 7:18 P.M. – 7:25 P.M. Peter Bluth, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting side and rear setback variances in order to add a second story to the existing non-conforming garage to allow for storage and living space. The garage exceeds 1,000 square feet and is therefore defined as an oversized accessory structure requiring additional setbacks. The applicant also proposes to construct an addition to the home over an existing grade-level deck where a screen porch currently exists which would result in a separation of approximately nine feet from the garage where a 10-foot separation setback is required. The property is a corner lot and by definition Shoreline Drive is defined as the front. The south lot line is the rear, which requires a 30-foot setback from the existing garage. The side setback variance is requested to allow expansion of the second story over the garage 28.4 feet from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. In addition, a variance is requested to allow expansion 11.9 feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. The 10-foot code required separation between buildings is for the purpose of reducing massing and bulk on properties. The existing screen porch structure is ten feet from the nearest garage corner. However, the applicants are proposing to construct the addition in line with the west line of the home, which would result in a 9-foot setback. Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the garage constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The proximity of the house to the garage further limits options. The encroachment of a corner of the garage by one foot into the separation distance is minimal and does not appear to be impactful as a full wall encroachment from a crowing standpoint. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Staff would recommend the applicant be requested to enter into the standard Oversized Accessory Structure covenant. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Peter Bluth, Applicant, stated he can answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Thiesse asked if the applicant understands that the oversized accessory structure cannot have a bathroom and that he will be asked to sign an agreement to that effect. Bluth indicated that is correct. Schoenzeit asked if the current garage has footings. Bluth indicated it is slab on grade. Thiesse stated he cannot attach it to the house but he can go up. Thiesse asked if the screened-in porch is on posts. Bluth indicated it is and that it is a deck with a screened-in sunroom. Thiesse asked how the front line is defined. Curtis indicated it would be the narrower of the two street frontages. Thiesse noted there is no way he would ever be able to construct a driveway in that area. Thiesse asked if anything would change if it was defined otherwise. Curtis stated with respect to the requests he is making today, he would still need to meet the 30-foot setbacks. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Thiesse noted for discussion purposes that the porch is a clean slate and that it should be in conformance if at all possible. Thiesse asked if the one foot relates to the fire code. Curtis indicated it relates to the massing and that they do meet the fire code required separation. Schwingler stated in his view it is a great addition. Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3851, Peter Bluth, 2413 Carman Street, granting of side and rear setback variances and a structure-to- structure setback variance, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 07/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/28/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/26/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 9 August 2016 Subject: #16-3851, Peter Bluth, 2413 Carman Street Variances Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Applicable Code Sections Exhibit G. Site Photo Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Public Comments Exhibit J. Property Owners List Exhibit K. Plat Map Background The applicant is requesting a side yard setback and a rear yard setback to permit an expansion upward of the existing 1,014 square foot garage which based on the size and existing setbacks is a non-conforming oversized accessory structure (OAS). Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct an addition to the home over an existing grade-level deck where a screen porch currently exists which would result in a separation of approximately 9 feet from the garage where a 10 foot separation setback is required. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting side and rear setback variances in order to add a second story to the existing non-conforming garage, and a structure-to-structure setback variance in order to construct an addition to the house less than 10 feet from the garage. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sections 78-350, 78-1434, 78-1435, 78-1438, & 78-1439 - Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Variance Needed? Front (Shoreline Dr) House = 30’ OAS = 30’ House=49.7’ OAS=102’ House=49.7’ OAS=102’ No Rear (south) House = 30’ OAS = 30’ House=65’ OAS=11.9’ House=54.2’ OAS=11.9’ Yes, OAS Side Street (Carman St) House = 15’ OAS= 30’ House=45.2’ OAS=84’ House=45.2’ OAS=84’ No West Side House= 30’ OAS= 30’ House=65’ OAS=28.4’ House=65’ OAS=28.4’ Yes, OAS Separation between House and OAS 10’ separation House/porch & OAS = 10’ separation New Addition= 9’ Yes Section 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’’ Actual 21,149 s.f. (0.48 acre) 140’ Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 21,149 s.f. (0.48 acre) Allowed: 3,172 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,171 s.f. (10%) Proposed: 2,267 s.f. (10.7%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 2 21,149 s.f. 6,344 s.f. (30 %) 4,708 s.f. (22.6%) 4,972 s.f. (23.5%) FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 3 of 5 Applicable Regulations: Rear and Side Yard Setback Variances (Code Section 78-1434) The property is a corner lot. By definition, as the short side, Shoreline Drive is considered the “front” yard for setback purposes; the south lot line is the rear. The garage exceeds 1,000 square feet and is therefore defined as an oversized accessory structure (OAS) requiring additional setbacks. The property owner would like to construct a second story over the OAS, an upward expansion, to allow for storage and living space on the second level. Because the OAS does not meet the required 30-foot setbacks from all property lines, variances are required. A side setback variance is requested to allow expansion of the second story 28.4’ from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback is required; additionally a variance is requested to allow expansion 11.9’ from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. Building to Building Separation Variance (Code Section 78-1438) The code requires a 10-foot separation between buildings to reduce the appearance of massing. The existing screen porch structure is 10 feet from the nearest garage corner, however the property owner proposes to construct the addition in line with the foundation of the west side of the house to the extent of the existing deck. This results in a one foot encroachment into the 10’ separation requirement from corner to corner. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed addition and second story on the garage are residential in nature. There is adequate space for light air and open space between the proposed addition and garage; the proposed second story addition will not further encroach into the rear or side setbacks. The variances are in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of improvements to a single family residence and residential garage in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 4 of 5 a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of additions to the existing garage, an oversized accessory structure, within the 30 foot side and rear setback areas appears to be reasonable as the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. The proposed setback between the house and the garage at 9 feet is a corner -to-corner measurement. The encroachment will not create an unreasonable perception of additional massing. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The size of the garage, and the size and orientation property were not the result of actions by the landowner. The neighboring home is set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between the garage and the home; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed additions to the garage and home will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The existing home plus detached garage to be expanded are set back sufficiently from Carman Street and it does not appear that a second story addition on the existing garage will adversely impact the neighbor to the south who has provided supportive comments. The structures on adjacent lots are set back 62 feet for the home and 27 feet for the detached garage to the north; and the home to the south is over 84 feet from the property line. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant’s home is a corner lot with a defined front yard on Shoreline Drive with the functional front facing Carman Street. The garage, constructed in 1975, is in a nonconforming location on the property. The proposed improvements to the garage will not increase the nonconformity. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The nonconforming location of the garage and the corner lot status make this property unique in the neighborhood. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The location and size of the garage as well as the garage’s proximity to the home create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the Owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. FILE # 16-3851 9 Aug 2016 Page 5 of 5 Septic System Status The property is served by city sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the garage constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The proximity of the house to the garage further limits options. The encroachment of a corner of the garage by one foot into the separation distance is minimal and does not appear to be impactful as a full wall encroachment from a crowding standpoint. Public Comments The public comments received are included as Exhibit I. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances as requested. Staff would also suggest the applicant be requested to enter into the OAS covenant which states: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-17/5/2016Main Floor Plan, Existing 1/4"=1'0" DW W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 6 W0 3 W0 3 W0 3 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W0 9 W03 W03 W03 W03 W03 W03 W0 3 W0 3 W0 3 UP UP UP 3 ' - 2 " 5' - 6 " 3 ' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 1 8 ' 14 ' Main Floor Plan, Proposed SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-27/5/2016 1/4"=1'0" W07 W07 W07 W0 8 W0 8 W0 8 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 2 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W0 4 W04 W04 W04 W04 W04 W047'13'-9"13'-7" 15 ' - 9 " 1 4 ' - 7 " 19 ' - 4 " WI N D O W S C H E D U L E NU M B E R L A B E L Q T Y F L O O R S I Z E W I D T H H E I G H T D E S C R I P T I O N W0 1 1 6 4 0 F X 1 1 1 6 4 0 F X 1 7 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " F I X E D G L A S S W0 2 2 0 2 0 S C 3 2 2 0 2 0 S C 2 3 1 / 2 " 2 3 1 / 2 " S N G L C A S E M E N T - HR W0 3 2 0 4 0 D H 4 1 2 0 4 0 D H 2 3 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 4 2 0 4 0 D H 4 2 2 0 4 0 D H 2 3 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 6 2 6 4 0 D H 2 1 2 6 4 0 D H 2 9 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 7 3 0 3 0 D H 1 2 3 0 3 0 D H 3 5 1 / 2 " 3 5 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 8 3 0 3 6 S C 1 2 3 0 3 6 S C 3 5 1 / 2 " 4 1 1 / 2 " S N G L C A S E M E N T - HR W0 9 3 0 5 0 D H 3 1 3 0 5 0 D H 3 5 1 / 2 " 5 9 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-37/5/2016Second Floorplan, Proposed 1/4"=1'0"1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-47/5/2016South/ East Elevations, Comparison 1/8"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-57/5/2016North/West Elevations, Comparison 1/8"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-67/5/2016Exterior Perspective N.A. SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-77/5/2016Living Room Cross Section 1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-87/5/2016House Cross Section 1/4"=1'0" UP UP 12 ' - 1 " 22 ' - 8 " SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-97/5/2016Garage Main Floor Plan 1/4"=1'0" WI N D O W S C H E D U L E NU M B E R L A B E L Q T Y F L O O R S I Z E W I D T H H E I G H T D E S C R I P T I O N W0 1 3 0 4 0 D H 3 2 3 0 4 0 D H 3 5 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " D O U B L E H U N G W0 2 3 0 4 0 S C 2 2 3 0 4 0 S C 3 5 1 / 2 " 4 7 1 / 2 " S N G L C A S E M E N T - HR DN DN W01 W01 W01 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 W0 1 6' - 9 " 6' - 9 " 1 3 ' - 1 " 14 ' - 1 " 72 " t o t o p 72 " t o t o p SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-107/5/2016Garage Second Floor Plan 1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-117/5/2016Garage Elevations 1/8"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-127/5/2016Garage Perspective N.A. SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-137/5/2016Garage Cross Section 1/4"=1'0" SHEET:PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY:SCALE:Orfield Drafting Services 3507 W 50th St.Minneapolis, MN 55410 (952)-454-2705 , Bluth Residence 2413 Carman St Orono, MN 55391 , -DATE:SHEET TITLE:A-147/5/2016Garage elevations, Comparison 1/8"=1'0" Page 1 PC Exhibit F Sec. 78-350. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-1C district shall exceed 2½ stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. _____ (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area (acre) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (feet) Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 0.5 100 30 10 30 15 (Code 1984, § 10.25(6); Ord. No. 18 3rd series, § 3, 9-27-2004) _____ Sec. 78-1434. - Area restrictions. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following nonroofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 square feet footprint area are not considered as oversize accessory structures, but are subject to the special setback restrictions of section 78-1404. a. Tennis courts and sport courts. b. Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding nonencroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 square feet. c. Paddocks or arenas. (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Lot Area (acres) Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Page 2 Footprint Area (square feet) Areas* on a Property (square feet) 0—1.99 1,000 2,000 2.00—3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01—3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51—4.00 1,600 3,200 4.01—4.50 1,800 3,600 4.51—5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01—6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01—7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01—8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01—9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01 or more 3,000 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. (3) Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a. No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b. The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c. Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time Page 3 period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(C); Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 24, 6-10-2013) Sec. 78-1435. - Location. Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of section 78 -305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(D); Ord. No. 52 3rd series, § 2, 11-24-2008; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 25, 6-10-2013) Sec. 78-1436. - Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(E)) Sec. 78-1438. - Crowding principal building. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory building. (Code 1984, § 10.03(12); Ord. No. 165 3rd series, § 1, 3-14-2016) Sec. 78-1439. - Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 fee t or more from the property line when the doors face on a public alley or street. (Code 1984, § 10.03(13)) Aerial View 2015 Pictometry Subject Property Oblique facing north Oblique facing East REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 11 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: 16-3847 Shadywood Villas Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Summary The property owner seeks approval of a land use amendment from the mixed use designation to facilitate the development of 3.64 acres (2.129 net) into 7 single family homes. The approval of the resolution would direct staff to initiate a formal amendment for review by the Metropolitan Council. Previous Council discussion The Council, at their meeting on August 8th, supported the development of Shadywood Villas as proposed, directing staff to draft a resolution approving the preliminary plat. The Comprehensive Plan amendment resolution was to be presented at the same time as the Preliminary Plat resolution. There remains some minor engineering issues to be resolved; staff proposes to move the Comp plan amendment forward, to allow the Met Council to review the amendment. The Preliminary plat resolution is expected by September 12. To offset the reduction in mixed use area, and the reduction of general density through the development of the Orono Preserve and Eisinger Meadows projects, the Council seemed to support the amendment to the mixed use category, raising the minimum density from 4 units to 6 units per acre. No additional mixed use areas are proposed at this time. Analysis Previous discussions proposed a land use category of low-medium density (2-3 units per acre) for the two lots fronting Shadywood, recognizing that the overall density would be higher than that (3.28 acres). The subject property is in the MUSA, re-guidance of land within the MUSA to densities lower than 3 units per acres is not expected to be approved (The Met Council only considers the lowest density within the range). Therefore, staff recommends approval of an amendment to the Medium density category, 3-7 units per acre. The parcel fronting Kelly Avenue will remain unchanged. Re-guiding the mixed use areas from 4 to 6 units per acre would add an additional 60 housing units to the Navarre area, based on approximately 30 acres of mixed use. This will also benefit the city in reestablishing the density buffer, allowing our lower density single family along the lakeshore to be served by sanitary sewer. Action Requested: Approve resolution directing staff to submit a Comp Plan Amendment increasing the mixed use density from 4-6 units an acre minimum, and an amendment removing 2535 and 2545 Shadywood from the mixed use to Medium density residential. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Shadywood parcels comp plan guidance Exhibit C. Navarre mixed use areas Page 1 of 5 A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #6 OF THE ORONO 2008-2030 COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN: 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD FILE #16-3847 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter “City”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, in September 2010 the Orono City Council adopted the 2008- 2030 Orono Community Management Plan (hereinafter “CMP” or “the Comprehensive Plan”) to provide for the orderly development of the City, in compliance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 and Minnesota Statutes Chapters 462 and 473; and WHEREAS, an important element of the 2008-2030 CMP is the Land Use Plan, which identifies areas of the City which have been guided for residential use in a wide range of densities in order to provide a variety of housing options for Orono residents; and WHEREAS, the properties at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road (hereinafter “Property”) within the City of Orono are approximately 3.67 acres in gross area, of which 1.33 acres is delineated wetland and 0.211 acres are proposed wetland buffers, leaving 2.129 acres of net buildable area; and WHEREAS, the Property was incorporated into the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) prior to the adoption of the 2008-2030 CMP, and WHEREAS, the Property consists of three parcels with differing Land Use guidance: The western most lot (2525 Shadywood Rd) is guided Low-Medium Density Residential (at a density of 2-3 units per acre) and the eastern most lots (2535 and 2545 Shadywood Rd) are guided for Mixed Use (4-15 units per acre); and WHEREAS, the 2008-2030 CMP guiding of the Property for higher density was a result of the City’s intent to meet Metropolitan Council goals for housing diversity and affordability while allowing the Shoreland areas of Orono already within the MUSA to be developed at the low densities commensurate with preservation of the water quality of Lake Minnetonka; and Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, the City is in the process of reviewing a development proposal for the Property which would result in construction of 7 single family homes on 2.129 currently developable acres for a net density for the site of 3.29 units per acre, which does not achieve the 4-15 units per acre density for which the eastern half of the property is guided; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the development proposal and finds that it meets a number of goals for housing as established within the Housing element of the CMP, including: - Provides opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for a broader range of ages, family groups, lifestyle needs and levels of income to the greatest extent practical. - Provides housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the developer has made a formal application to the City for an amendment of the CMP density requirements for this site in order to develop at the proposed density; and WHEREAS, in light of the above noted facts the Orono Planning Commission pursuant to published and written notice held a public hearing on July 18, 2016 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended that the 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan be amended to re-guide the property from Mixed Use Residential (4-15 units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (3- 7 units per acre); and WHEREAS, the impact on Metropolitan Growth forecasts by re-guiding the property for 3-7 units per acre and approving the proposed 7-unit development at 3.28 units per acre is relatively minimal, resulting in an over all decrease of homes, 7 units from 10.22 prescribed by existing density; and WHEREAS, with the proposed density reduction, the density within MUSA service area in the city is less than 3.0 units per acre; and WHEREAS, development of Mixed Use areas identified in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan will likely require redevelopment with developers and property owners seeking densities higher than 4 units per acre to off-set the higher capital costs inherent with redevelopment, Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, it is anticipated based on calculations by the City that development of this property at the proposed 3.28 units per acre density can be approved through a Metropolitan Council administratively-approved amendment to the CMP. The amendment should be considered as exempt from the 60-day comment period by adjacent jurisdictions because it is less than 40 acres in area, it does not change any Metropolitan Growth Forecasts, and is further from adjacent jurisdictions than the City’s standard notification distance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council conditionally approves the following amendments of the 2008-2030 Community Management Plan: a. to re-guide the subject Property for a density of 3-7 units per acre to allow for development at a density of 3.28 units per acre rather than the 4-15 units per acre density for which the Property was guided in the 2008-2030 CMP, and b. an amendment to the Mixed Use category, supporting density ranges from 6 units to 15 units per acre, up from the 4 to 15 units per acre as currently guided. and directs City staff to prepare such amendments and submit to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 22nd day of August, 2016. ATTEST: _________________________________ Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor ____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road Page 5 of 5 Exhibit B Navarre Mixed Use Areas Blue: Mixed Use Lt Yellow: Low-Med Density Res Blue: Mixed Use Lt Yellow: Low-Med Density Res Dk Yellow: Med Density Res Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Council Exhibit B Navarre Area - Proposed Residential Mixed Use Sites City of Orono Minnesota . 0 830 1,660 Feet Source: City of Orono, Bonestroo, Northwest Associated Consultants. Date: May 19, 2010.MAP 3B-6b Existing Zoning Map Proposed Mixed Use Designations Open Water City Limits Parcel Railroad ZONING DISTRICTS C a s c o P o i n t R d D u n w o o d y A v e Shoreline Dr K elly A v e S h a d y w o o d R d Crystal Pl Livingston Ave Lyric Ave B l a i n e A v e N a v a r r e A v e C a r m a n S t Frederick St Olive Ave Ba yview Pl B-5 - Limited Neighborhood LR-1B - One Family Lakeshore Residential - 1 Acre LR-1C - One Family Lakeshore Residential - 1/2 Acre LR-1C-1 - One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict - 1/2 Acre PRD - Planned Residential Development B-3 - Shopping Center B-1 - Retail Sales B-4 - Office/Professional REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 12 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: Peter Lanpher Fee Waiver Request Application Summary Peter Lanpher, 1380 Rest Point Road, requests the Council waive the $700 application fee associated with his request for a fence variance. Background Application fees are established by the City Council annually, and are intended to be collected from the applicant to offset the costs incurred for the review of a development application. These costs include publication costs (paper, and mailing costs), staff time to research, draft reports, resolutions, and action notices. The Council has established this fee for variances at $700 so that general taxpayers do not have to pay for private development and services. Mr. Lanpher has requested this fee waived, noting that “it was suggested by the fence viewer panel” and that the Practical Difficulties Statement and Documentation explains the situation. No other information was provided. Analysis It was noted during the fence viewer inspection that that the fence is taller than the ordinance permitted 42 inches in the street yard area and had been constructed some years before. The fence viewers suggested that a variance would be necessary to keep the fence at the existing height and location, there is no documentation that suggests that the fee be waived. The formal review of the practical difficulties statement may support a fence height variance, but the same criteria does not support a waiver of the fee. Staff can find no history, including a review of the accounting software to 2009, where the application fee has been waived for a project that has been reviewed by the Planning Commission or Council. In 2013, the Council waived the after-the-fact portion of a fee for a variance because ‘the applicant was not at fault in this situation’, however, the application fee was paid. Action Requested: Staff recommends denial of the fee waiver request. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Letter of Request from Lanpher dated Friday, August 12, 2016 Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties statement Exhibit C. Practical Difficulties documentation Exhibit D. Court Order Filed May 15, 2012 188652v1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 13 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart, JML Planning Soren Mattick Title Community Development Director, City Attorney Item Description: Sex Offender Issue Application Summary Information presented for information and Council direction only. Issue The Council has recently questioned the regulation of released sex offenders into the City of Orono. Minnesota Law defines “predatory offenders” to include individuals convicted of murder, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct, indecent exposure, abuse of a vulnerable adult, false imprisonment, prostitution offenses, and sex crimes involving a minor. Predatory Offenders include both offenders whose victims were children and offenders whose victims were adults. Before a predatory offenders’ release, a Corrections committee applies a risk level: • A predatory offender whose risk assessment score indicates a low risk of re-offense is a Level I • An offender whose risk assessment score indicates a moderate risk of re-offense is a Level II • An offender whose risk assessment score indicates a high risk of re-offense is a Level III The Council has questioned whether it would be appropriate and enforceable to regulate the dwelling locations of these offenders. There is some concern that these released sex offenders may re-offend, impacting the public’s health, safety and general welfare. Some communities have enacted ordinances that restrict the dwelling locations of level 3 offenders to a specific minimum distance from schools, parks, and day care centers. The intent with these regulations is to keep sex offenders away from areas where children congregate. Big Lake has an ordinance (Exhibit A) which applies to all Level III predatory offenders, regardless of victim age or type of predatory offense. Lindstrom has an ordinance (Exhibit B) which applies to Level III predatory offenders who have been convicted of certain sex offenses, regardless of victim age. The state of Iowa passed a statute (Exhibit C) which applies to all offenders who committed a sex offense in which the victim was a child. Those in support of residency restrictions argue that sexual interest in children and access to victims increase the likelihood of recidivism. One study (Exhibit E) of Arkansas sex offenders found that a larger portion of offenders with child victims chose to reside in close proximity to schools, day care centers, or parks. Opponents of sex offender residency restrictions argue that research shows that sex offenders are unlikely to reoffend close to their homes and that residency restrictions create a false sense of security within a community. A 2008 study of recidivism by Minnesota sex offenders (Exhibit D) found no 188652v1 evidence that housing restrictions would have a deterrent effect on sex offender recidivism, given that (1) only 35% of sex offender recidivists victimized strangers (as opposed to victimizing relatives or people they met through wives, coworkers, friends, or acquaintances), and most of those victims were adults, (2) when sex offender recidivists did victimize juvenile strangers, they usually did so more than a mile away from their own residence, and (3) of the few offenders who victimize juvenile strangers within close proximity of their own residences, none did so near a park, school, or playground. Additionally, as a result of Iowa’s sex offender residency statute, the number of offenders who failed to register/could not be located more than doubled. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/us/iowas-residency-rules- drive-sex-offenders-underground.html. The constitutionality of a law limiting the residency of convicted sex offenders has been a topic of debate in state and federal courts. In 2015, California’s Supreme Court and a Federal District Court in Michigan both struck down such legislation. However, in 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the Iowa statute referenced above. The question for any court would be whether a law is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. When a law bans residency near parks, schools, and playgrounds, there is a stronger legal argument to support it if it is limited to offenders with child victims. The Council has been provided a number of news articles further describing this issue, most recently for the July 25th workshop. During the August 8th meeting, there was discussion regarding the role of the Planning Commission in the review of the ordinance. Staff envisions a process where the Council identifies a problem, and directs staff to recommend a solution. This solution could be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a public hearing, even if one is not required, could be held there. Action Requested: Provide Staff direction. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Big Lake Ordinance Exhibit B. Lindstrom Ordinance Exhibit C. Iowa Statute Exhibit D. Duwe, Donnay, and Tweksbury Report Exhibit E Walker and Golden Report Exhibit F. Draft Ordinance Exhibit G. Tonka Bay news article 188652v1 EXHIBIT A Big Lake City Code Section 596 – Sexual Predator Residency Restrictions 596.01 Findings and Intent. A. Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present a n extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. B. It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by establishing areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers, wherein certain sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. 596.02 Definitions. The following words and terms when used in the Section shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: A. “Day Care Center” – A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota in which care, supervision and training for individuals under the age of 18 is provided for part of a 24-hour period. B. “Designated Offender” – Any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state. C. “Park or Playground” – Any land, including improvements, operated by the city for the use by the general public as a recreational area. D. “Permanent Residence” – A place where a person abides, lodges or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. E. “School” – Any public or non-public educational institution that offers educational instruction to individuals under the age of 18. F. “Temporary Residence” – A place, other than a person’s permanent residence, where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year or four or more consecutive or non - consecutive days during any month. 596.03 Residency Prohibition; Penalties; Exception. Subd. 1 Residency Prohibition. A. It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, day care center, park or playground. B. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence of the Council Exhibit A 188652v1 designated offender to the nearest outer property line of a school, day care center, park or playground. Subd. 2 Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by confinement for a term not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and confinement. Each day a person maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation. Subd. 3 Exceptions. A. A designated offender residing within a prohibited area as described in Subdivision 1 does not commit a violation of this section if any o f the following apply: i. The designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166, § 243.167, or successor statute, prior to the effective date of this section. ii. The designated offender was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. iii. The designated offender is a minor. iv. The school, day care center, park or playground within 2,000 feet of the designated offender’s permanent residence or temporary residence was designated or opened after the designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166 or § 243.167, or successor statute. 188652v1 EXHIBIT B Lindstrom City Code Chapter 96: Sexual Offenders and Sexual Predators § 96.01 FINDINGS AND INTENT. (A) Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. (B) It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by creating a civil, non-punitive regulatory scheme, establishing areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers, wherein certain sexual offenders and sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. § 96.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. CHILDREN. Persons age 16 and younger. DAY CARE CENTER. A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota in which care, supervision and training for children is provided for part of a 24-hour period. DESIGNATED OFFENDER. Any person who has been convicted of a designated sexual offense, regardless of whether adjudication has been withheld, in which the victim of the offense was less than 16 years of age, or has been categorized as a Level III sex offender under M.S. § 244.052 or successor statute. DESIGNATED SEXUAL OFFENSE. A conviction, adjudication of delinquency, commitment under M.S. Chapter 253B, or admission of guilt under oath without adjudication involving any of the following offenses: M.S. §§ 609.342; 609.343; 609.344; 609.345; 609.352; 609.365; 617.23; 617.246; 617.247; 617.293; successor statutes; or a similar offense from another state. PARK or PLAYGROUND. Any land, including improvements, operated by the city for the use by the general public as a recreational area. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. A place where the person abides, lodges or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. SCHOOL. Any public, private or parochial educational institution that offers educational instruction to individuals under the age of 18. TEMPORARY RESIDENCE. A place where the person abides, lodges or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year, and which is not the person's permanent address or a place where the person routinely abides, lodges or Council Exhibit B 188652v1 resides for a period of four or more consecutive or on consecutive days in any month, and which is not the person's permanent residence. (Ord. 11-11-01, passed 11-17-11) § 96.03 SEXUAL OFFENDER AND SEXUAL PREDATOR RESIDENCE PROHIBITION; PENALTIES; EXCEPTIONS. (A) Prohibited location of residence. It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, licensed day care center, place of worship that provides regular educational programs, park or playground. (B) Prohibited activity. It is unlawful for any designated offender to participate in a holiday event involving children under 16 years of age, such as distributing candy or other items to children on Halloween, wearing a Santa Claus costume on or preceding Christmas, or wearing an Easter Bunny costume on or preceding Easter. Holiday events in which the offender is the parent or guardian of the children involved, and no non-familial children are present, are exempt from this division. (C) Measurement of distance. For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence to nearest outer property line of a school, day care center, park, playground, place of worship, or other place where children regularly congregate. The City Clerk shall maintain an official map showing prohibited locations as defined by this chapter. The Clerk shall update the map at least annually to ref lect any changes in the location of prohibited zones. (D) Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by confinement for a term not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and confinement. Each day a person maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation. (E) Exceptions. A designated offender residing within a prohibited area as described in § 96.03(A) does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: (1) The person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166, § 243.167, or successor statute, prior to November 17, 2011. (2) The person was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. (3) The person is a minor. (4) The school, place of worship, park or day care center within 2,000 feet of the person’s permanent residence was designated or opened after the person established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166 or § 243.167. 188652v1 (5) The residence is also the primary residence of the person's parents, grandparents, siblings, spouse or children. (6) The residence is a property owned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. (7) The person's conviction for the designated offense was reversed on appeal. (8) Nothing in this provision shall require any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any real property acquired or owned prior to the conviction restricting residency under this chapter. (Ord. 11-11-01, passed 11-17-11) § 96.04 PROPERTY OWNERS PROHIBITED FROM RENTING REAL PROPERTY TO CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENDERS AND SEXUAL PREDATORS; PENALTIES. (A) It is unlawful to let or rent any place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, with the knowledge that it will be used as a permanent residence or temporary residence by any person prohibited from establishing such permanent residence or temporary residence pursuant to this chapter, if such place, structure, or part thereof, trailer or other conveyance, is located within a prohibited location zone described in § 96.03(A). (B) A property owner's failure to comply with provisions of this section shall constitute a violation of this section, and shall subject the property owner to the code enforcement provisions and procedures as provided in § 93.20 of this code. (C) If a property owner discovers or is informed that a tenant is a designated offender after signing a lease or otherwise agreeing to let the offender reside on the property, the owner or property manager may evict the offender. 188652v1 Iowa Code Section 692A.114. Residency restrictions 1. As used in this section: a. “Minor” means a person who is under eighteen years of age or who is enrolled in a secondary school. b. “School” means a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school. c. “Sex offender” means a person required to be registered under this chapter who has been convicted of an aggravated offense against a minor. 2. A sex offender shall not reside within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a school or a child care facility. 3. A sex offender residing within two thousand feet of the real property comprising a school or a child care facility does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: a. The sex offender is required to serve a sentence at a jail, prison, juvenile facility, or other correctional institution or facility. b. The sex offender is subject to an order of commitment under chapter 229A. c. The sex offender has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002. d. The sex offender has established a residence prior to any newly located school or child care facility being established. e. The sex offender is a minor. f. The sex offender is a ward in a guardianship, and a district judge or associate probate judge grants an exemption from the residency restriction. g. The sex offender is a patient or resident at a health care facility as defined in section 135C.1 or a patient in a hospice program, and a district judge or associate probate judge grants an exemption from the residency restriction. Council Exhibit C http://cjb.sagepub.com Criminal Justice and Behavior DOI: 10.1177/0093854807313690 2008; 35; 484 Criminal Justice and Behavior Grant Duwe, William Donnay and Richard Tewksbury Recidivism Does Residential Proximity Matter? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/4/484 The online version of this article can be found at: Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology can be found at:Criminal Justice and Behavior Additional services and information for http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/35/4/484 Citations at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 484 DOES RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY MATTER? A Geographic Analysis of Sex Offense Recidivism GRANT DUWE WILLIAM DONNAY Minnesota Department of Corrections RICHARD TEWKSBURY University of Louisville In an effort to reduce sex offense recidivism, local and state governments have recently passed legislation prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance (500 to 2,500 feet) of child congregation locations such as schools, parks, and daycare centers. Examining the potential deterrent effects of a residency restrictions law in Minnesota, this study analyzed the offense patterns of every sex offender released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002 who was reincarcerated for a new sex offense prior to 2006. Given that not one of the 224 sex offenses would have likely been prevented by residency restrictions, the findings from this study provide little support for the notion that such restrictions would signifi- cantly reduce sexual recidivism. Keywords:sex offenders; recidivism; deterrence; offense patterns; residency requirements I n light of the perception that sex offenders pose a major threat to their communities because they are highly incorrigible, local and state governments have recently enacted policies that restrict where sex offenders are allowed to live. For example, 22 states have passed legislation that may prohibit sex offenders from living near schools, daycare centers, parks, and other areas where potential vulnerable victims may be present (Nieto & Jung, 2006). In some states, local governments have passed ordinances restricting the placement of sex offenders. In Minnesota, for example, local governments in Taylors Falls and Wyoming have both passed such ordinances. Designed to enhance the safety of children, residency restrictions are targeted mainly toward child molesters, who often gain access to their victims through marriage, occupation, or the neighborhood in which they live (Walker, Golden, & VanHouten, 2001). Because resi- dency restrictions are intended to prevent child molesters from making direct contact with children, they are primarily applicable with the third type of access—neighborhood (Walker et al., 2001). But are such policy measures consistent with the reality of sexual recidivism? That is, are sex offenders highly likely to recidivate? And, when they do reoffend, are they likely to do so by selecting victims who reside in close proximity to where they live? CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 4, April 2008 484-504 DOI: 10.1177/0093854807313690 © 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology AUTHORS’NOTE:The views expressed in this study are not necessarily those of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The authors wish to thank Karl Hanson and Michael Miner for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article and Nicole Hansen from the Minnesota Department of Corrections for her work in collecting and entering the data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Grant Duwe, Minnesota Department of Corrections, 1450 Energy Park Drive, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55108; e-mail: GDuwe@co.doc.state.mn.us. at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from LITERATURE REVIEW SEX OFFENDER RECIDIVISM Prior research has clearly indicated that sex offenders are, compared to other offenders, among the least likely to reoffend (Harris & Hanson, 2004; Langan & Levin, 2002; Sample & Bray, 2006). Moreover, when sex offenders recidivate, they are much more likely to do so with a nonsexual offense. Examining recidivism among 9,691 sex offenders released from prison in 1994, Langan, Schmitt, and DuRose (2003) found that only 12% of the rear- rests in the 3-year postrelease period involved a sex offense. However, despite the fact that sex offenders are among the least likely to recidivate in general, they are still, compared to other offenders, more likely to reoffend sexually (Langan & Levin, 2002). When sex offenders recidivate with a sex offense, at least 75% victimize individuals (both adults and children) whom they already know (Greenfield, 1997; Snyder, 2000). A number of factors influence recidivism, and the same factors are not equally influential on all varieties of sex offenders (Levenson & D’Amora, 2007). Existing research has demon- strated, for example, that the risk of sexual recidivism is significantly greater for offenders who have an antisocial orientation (i.e., history of rule violation), deviant sexual interests, a history of victimizing strangers, conflicts in intimate relationships, an emotional identifi- cation with children, and prior noncontact sex offenses (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2004). Conversely, the risk of sexual recidivism is less for incest offenders, first-time sex offenders, those older than the age of 50, and those who target female children rather than male children (Harris & Hanson, 2004). Consequently, such research has led to the conclu- sion that “not all sex offenders should be treated the same” (Harris & Hanson, 2004, p. 1). However, when considering sex offender registration and accompanying residency restric- tions, all are treated the same. RESIDENCY AND OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS OF SEX OFFENDERS Recent research has shown that sex offenders—at least those who have been previously identified, convicted, and placed on sex offender registries—are likely to live in certain types of locations. Specifically, registered sex offenders are especially likely to live in neighborhoods that have high levels of social disorganization, greater proportions of youth, and lower proportions of high school and college graduates, more minorities, fewer owner- occupied homes, and lower housing values and household incomes (Mustaine, Tewksbury, & Stengel, 2006a, 2006b, in press); these factors are especially salient for African American sex offenders. Most also live in single family homes but do not live in neighborhoods with a posted neighborhood watch (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2006). Other research, (Stengel, Tewksbury, & Mustaine, in press) has shown that sex offenses are not associated with most measures of proximity to pools of available suitable targets of victims. Although sex offenses are more likely in census tracts with larger proportions of children younger than age 10 and more daycare centers, the presence of schools, youth with disabilities, and women living alone is not associated with a greater number of sex offenses (Stengel et al., in press). Although Walker et al. (2001) reported that registered sex offenders in one Arkansas county may be likely to live near schools, daycare centers, and parks, other research has suggested that sex offenders are highly unlikely to reoffend close to their homes (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004; Minnesota Department of Corrections, Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 485 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 2003). In addition, a higher concentration of registered sex offenders residing in a neigh- borhood has been shown to have no statistical relationship with the number of sex offenses in a community (Stengel et al., in press), and sex offenders who recidivate are no more likely than nonrecidivating sex offenders to live near schools or day care centers (Colorado Department of Public Safety, 2004). A slightly different conclusion, however, is reached by the one study to assess where sex offenders known to have offended against child victims reside (Tewksbury & Mustaine, in press–a). Child-victimizing sex offenders tend to live in less socially disorganized neigh- borhoods than do other sex offenders. Research has shown that such offenders, when com- pared with communities in general, tend to live in neighborhoods with greater proportions of youth in the population, more minority residents, more residents with high school and college educations, more female-headed households, and higher household incomes and housing values. Scholars generally believe that the residential locations of registered sex offenders are caused by a process of social and economic relegation, facilitated by low levels of social cohesion and social capital in communities where known sex offenders do reside. Such com- munity conditions leave these community members with few (if any) resources to discourage sex offenders from moving into such communities. Most known sex offenders do change residences, often frequently (Mustaine et al., 2006b; Turley & Hutzel, 2001). When they move, they typically go to a more socially disorganized neighborhood than where they lived previously (Mustaine et al., 2006b). Overall, economic factors, not proximity to pools of available, potential victims are what appear to drive where registered sex offenders reside (Tewksbury & Lees, 2006; Tewksbury & Mustaine, in press–b). THE IMPACT OF REGISTRATION AND RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS ON OFFENDERS Other research has examined the impact of registration on offenders themselves, includ- ing a focus on where registrants can, and do, live. As Mustaine et al. (2006a) point out, sex offenders are frequently relegated to neighborhoods and communities marked by social dis- organization and economic deprivation. Furthermore, residency restrictions often force offenders to move from their residences. Levenson and Cotter (2005) surveyed 135 sex offenders in Florida who were subject to residency restrictions that prohibited them from living within 1,000 feet of a school, daycare center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate. Levenson and Cotter found that 50% of the 135 offenders, of whom 97% were child molesters, reported being forced to move on account of the 1,000-foot rule. In addition, the results indicated that the housing restrictions also led to increased isola- tion, decreased stability, and greater emotional and financial stress. In addition, in jurisdictions with residency restriction laws, registered sex offenders may have extremely limited options regarding where they may legally live (Tewksbury, 2007; Zandbergen & Hart, 2006). Using mapping technology, Zandbergen and Hart (2006) found that less than one quarter of all housing in Orange County, Florida is not within a restricted zone. If school bus stops were added to the list of locations included within a restriction zone, only 4% of all housing in the county would be available to registered sex offenders. When residential restriction laws are in place, there are numerous accompanying negative consequences and an intensification of collateral consequences of sex offender registration in general (Tewksbury, 2007). 486 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from One of the clearest findings of this body of research is that residency restrictions and, more generally, sex offender registration create a hardship for sex offenders. However,despite both registration and residential restrictions being focused on promoting community safety, the impact of such laws on sexual recidivism remains unclear. Given that the residential proximity issue has not been fully addressed empirically, there may be truth to the notion that when sex offenders reoffend sexually, they are likely to do so very close to where they live. If so, then policies restricting where sex offenders live may have merit in terms of enhancing public safety. THE JOURNEY TO CRIME A growing literature addressing where criminal offenders commit their offenses has consistently shown that the number of criminal offenses that an offender commits decreases as distance from an offender’s residence increases (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984; Rengert, 2004; Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999). However, for violent offenders (including sex offenders), this pattern typically does not hold. Confrontational offenders—who actually encounter their victims personally—seek offending locations where they are unlikely to be recognized (and therefore apprehended). Data from 565 rapes committed by serial rapists showed that offenses occurred an average of more than 3 miles from offenders’ homes (Warren et al., 1998). Also focusing on serial rapists, Canter and Gregory (1994) found that 86% of the offenders they studied did not offend against victims who lived nearby, but instead they “marauded” outward into an area of an average of 180 square miles. In New Zealand, serial sexual assault offenders committed their offenses an average of 3 kilometers (1.86 miles) away from their residences (Lundrigan & Czarnomski, 2006). For other types of violent crime, Groff and McEwen (2006) reported that homicide offenders committed the offense, on average, 0.69 miles from their homes. In addition, Tita and Griffiths (2005) showed that across 9 years of homicides in Pittsburgh, homicide offend- ers rarely killed in their own neighborhoods. Also, they found that characteristics of events and relationships were more important than characteristics of victims and opportunities in determining where offenses took place. THE PRESENT STUDY: RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS IN MINNESOTA In a 2006 report, Nieto and Jung identified 22 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia) that have residency restriction legislation for sex offenders. Of these, how- ever, 4 (New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, and Minnesota) do not have statutory language specifi- cally prohibiting sex offenders from living within a certain distance of a child congregation location. In New Mexico, schools must be notified of sex offenders living within a 1-mile radius, but the law does not restrict where they can live. In Oregon and Texas, a government body (e.g., Department of Corrections or the Parole Board) is responsible for determining where and how close a sex offender can live to a child congregation location. In Minnesota, Nieto and Jung (2006, p. 21) reported that “the Parole Commissioner determines if and where a level II and III sex offender may reside within 1,500 feet of school zones.” Nieto and Jung’s (2006) description of Minnesota’s residency restriction statute is flawed, however. First, the actual statute does not mention a Parole Commissioner nor does the State Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 487 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from of Minnesota actually have one. Second, and more important, there is no mention in the statute of either Level II offenders or restrictions about living within 1,500 feet of school zones. Instead, the statute, which was enacted in 1999, indicates that for offenders given a Level III assignment, the End of Confinement Review Committee (ECRC) “shall determine whether residency restrictions shall be included in the conditions of the offender’s release based on the offender’s pattern of offending behavior” (Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 244.052, subdivision 3, paragraph [k]). Of the 224 sex offender recidivists examined in this study, there were 22 who were released on or after July 1, 1999—the inception date for this statute. Of the 22, only 2 were eligible for this provision in that they were given a Level III assignment. The ECRC requested residency restrictions for 1 of the 2 offenders; however, on further review of this particular offender’s release plan, residency restrictions were not included in his conditions for release. As a result, not one of the offenders analyzed in this study was subject to residency restrictions on release from prison.1 The sex offenders examined here thus provide an ideal opportunity to assess the likelihood of whether residency restrictions might have been effective in preventing the occurrence of their sex reoffenses. This is accomplished by identifying whether these sexual recidivists did, in fact, target children who lived in close proximity to their own residences. In closely analyzing the spatial patterns of sexual reoffending among the 224 recidivists released from Minnesota correctional facilities between 1990 and 2002, this study focuses on several key questions. First, where did offenders initially establish contact with their victims, and where did they commit the offense? Second, what were the physical distances between an offender’s residence and both the offense and first contact locations? Finally, were other factors such as victim–offender relationship, supervision status, use of alcohol or drugs, and use of force associated with both residential proximity and the sexual reoffense? METHOD To address these questions, data were gathered on sex offenders who recidivated with a new sex offense. Between 1990 and 2002, there were a total of 3,166 sex offenders released from eight state correctional facilities in Minnesota.2 Of these offenders, 374 were rear- rested for a new sex offense, 304 were reconvicted for a new sex crime, and 224 were rein- carcerated for a new sex offense prior to January 1, 2006 (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2007). As a result, there were 70 offenders who were rearrested, but were not reconvicted or reincarcerated, for a new sex offense, and 80 offenders who were reconvicted of a new sex crime but were not reincarcerated. Because of the greater availability of data on the offenders who returned to prison for a new sex crime, we did not examine the 70 rearrests and 80 reconvictions that did not result in reincarceration. Instead, we focused our analyses on the 224 sex offenders who were reincarcerated for a new sex offense. As a result, our sample represents what are likely the most serious cases of sexual recidivism that occurred in Minnesota between 1990 and 2005. MEASURES Several different sources of data were used to examine proximity: the criminal complaint for the sexual reoffense, the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, the Statewide 488 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 489 Supervision System (SSS), the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) offender registry, and the Correctional Operations Management System (COMS), the data- base maintained by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. These sources were reviewed for each of the 224 recidivists, and data were recorded for each of the following items: 3 offender’s address at the time of the reoffense, the address of the location where the new offense occurred, the location or address where the offender first established contact with the victim, the type of location where the offense took place (e.g., offender’s residence, victim’s residence, public building, etc.), the type of location where the offender first estab- lished contact with the victim (e.g., offender’s residence, victim’s residence, bar/nightclub, etc.), the relationship between the offender and victim (e.g., stranger, girlfriend’s daughter, babysitter, etc.), the amount of force used (e.g., no force, force with injury, etc.), and the presence of alcohol and/or drug use by the offender and/or the victim around the time of the offense. Of the 22 states that have enacted residency restriction legislation, most have applied restrictions for all sex offenders regardless of their offending history or perceived risk of reoffense (Nieto & Jung, 2006). It is possible, however, that residency restrictions may be a more effective deterrent for some offenders than for others. In an effort to identify the types of sex offenders for whom residency restrictions might be more effective, we collected and analyzed additional offender and victim data from the COMS database. The appendix lists the variables derived from COMS and describes how they were created. ANALYSIS Once all data were collected, the physical distances between the offender’s residence and both the offense and first contact locations were calculated, using Google Earth. For example, using the “Directions” feature, the offender’s address was entered in the first address loca- tion (i.e., “From”), whereas the offense or first contact location was entered in the second address location (i.e., “To”). The “Ruler” feature in Google Earth was then used to deter- mine the Euclidian, or straight-line, distance (in both feet and miles) between the first and second address locations. Four criteria were used to determine whether residency restrictions might have prevented a sex crime from occurring. As noted above, housing restrictions are geared primarily toward deterring sex offenders—namely, child molesters—from initiating contact with potential victims by prohibiting them from living within a certain distance of a school, park, daycare center, or other area where children might be present. The first criterion, then, con- cerns the means by which the offenders established contact with their victims. Therefore, our analyses focused on direct-contact offenders, who typically initiated contact with their victims by approaching them on the street, meeting them in a bar, or breaking into the victim’s home. In addition, our analyses also assessed offenders who gained access through indirect means (e.g., girlfriend’s daughter, babysitter, friend’s son or daughter, etc.) to provide a more complete picture of the patterns of sexual reoffending. The second criterion concerns the distance between an offender’s residence and where he (all 224 offenders were male) first established contact with the victim. There is no clear consensus on the distance requirement across jurisdictions that have implemented housing restrictions; statutes range from 500 to 2,500 feet. The distances in most states, however, are often between 1,000 and 2,500 feet (Levenson & Cotter, 2005). This study, therefore, determined residential proximity on the basis of a 1,000-foot zone (0.2 miles) as well as a at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 490 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR 2,500-foot zone (0.5 miles). To ensure that neither distance was overly restrictive, residen- tial proximity was also determined on the basis of a 1-mile zone (5,280 feet). As a result, three distances were used in this study to determine residential proximity: 1,000 feet, 2,500 feet, and 5,280 feet (1 mile). The third criterion concerns the type of location where the offender established contact with the victim. In order for a case to be considered one that might have been prevented by a residency restrictions law, the offender had to have established victim contact in or near one of the prohibited areas: a school, park, playground, daycare center, or other location where children are known to congregate. The fourth criterion concerns the age of the victim. Because housing restrictions focus on the protection of children, the victim(s) had to have been younger than age 18 at the time of the offense for it to be considered a case where a residency restriction law might have made a difference. All four of the criteria outlined above had to be met for an offense to be classified as one that might have been prevented by housing restrictions. If, for example, an offender estab- lished direct contact with a juvenile victim 0.3 miles (1,584 feet) away from his residence at a park and committed the offense in the same location, residential proximity would be rele- vant for both the 0.5 mile (2,500 feet) and 1.0 mile distances but not for the 0.2 mile (1,000 feet) distance. If, however, the victim in this situation were an adult, then the case would not be classified as one that might have been deterred by residency restrictions. Similarly, if an offender broke into a neighbor’s home 0.1 miles (500 feet) away from his own residence and victimized a juvenile female victim, the case would not meet the criteria for classification because the first contact location would be the victim’s home rather than a child congregation location. RESULTS The results show that 85% (n =190) of the sexual offenders’ reoffenses occurred in a residential location (see Table 1). The other 15% (n =34) took place in a public location, of which most were an exterior location such as a street, alley, or park. Slightly more than one half (54%) of the recidivists committed the reoffense in their own residence. Of these 121 reoffenses, the offender shared the residence with the victim in 37% of the cases. In 42% (n =94) of the cases, the offense took place within the victim’s home. The victim shared the residence with the offender in 48% (n =45) of these cases. For 27 of the 224 cases, it was not possible to estimate the distance between the offender’s residence and the location where the offense took place because of the absence of specific address information for at least one of the locations. This was especially true for the older cases (i.e., those that took place in the early to mid-1990s) in that specific address information for either the offender’s residence or the offense location was less likely to be available in any of the data sources used. OFFENDER RESIDENCE–OFFENSE LOCATION DISTANCE The results in Table 1, which also display the straight-line distance between the offender’s residence and the offense location, suggest that offenders were more likely to commit offenses in or near their place of residence. Of the 197 cases where specific address at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 491 information was available,61% (n =121) took place inside the offender’s residence. For the remaining 39% (n =76) who committed the offense outside of their residence, there was an inverse relationship between the offender residence–offense location distance and the number of offenses. That is, as the distance between the offender’s residence and the offense location increased, the number of offenses decreased. For example, 19% (n =38) of the offenses took place within 5 miles of the offender’s residence, 7% (n =14) within 6 to 10 miles,6% (n =12) within 11 to 20 miles, 4% (n =8) within 21 to 50 miles, and 2% (n =4) beyond 50 miles. However, relatively few of the offenses (9%) took place within 1 mile of the offender’s residence. Compared to the offender residence–offense location distance, estimating the distance between the offender’s residence and the first contact location was more difficult for sev- eral reasons. First, the address information regarding the specific location where offenders first established contact with their victims was frequently unavailable in the criminal com- plaint. Second, for some cases, geographic distance was irrelevant in that several offenders first established contact over the telephone (one even while incarcerated for the prior sex offense) or the Internet (i.e., dating personals). Finally, and perhaps most important, the majority of the offenders knew their victims at the time of the offense, often for some time before the crime took place. For example, determining the specific location where an TABLE 1: Location, Distance, and Victim–Offender Relationship of Sex Reoffenses Number % Location of offense Offender’s residence 76 33.9 Victim’s residence 49 21.9 Shared residence 45 20.1 Residence of acquaintance/family member 15 6.7 Other residence (e.g., hotel room) 6 2.7 Exterior public location 28 12.5 Interior public location 6 2.2 Total 224 100.0 Distance between offender’s residence and offense location Same offender residence/offense location 76 38.6 Same victim–offender residence/offense location 45 22.8 Less than 1 mile 18 9.1 1–5 miles 20 10.2 6–10 miles 14 7.1 11–20 miles 12 6.1 21–50 miles 8 4.1 More than 50 miles 4 2.0 Total 197 100.0 Victim–offender Relationship Stranger 48 21.4 Acquaintance/other known 51 22.8 Babysitter 13 5.8 Neighbor 8 3.6 “Romantic/dating” 13 5.8 Friend of family 20 8.9 Significant other’s son or daughter 39 17.4 Family/biological 32 14.3 Total 224 100.0 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from offender first met his stepdaughter (his victim) is largely irrelevant to the issue of residential proximity. Consequently, the findings regarding the offender residence–first contact distance will focus only on the direct-contact offenders and will be presented later in this study. VICTIM–OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP The findings regarding the victim–offender relationship for the 224 reoffenses indicate that 21% of the offenders victimized someone they did not know (see Table 1). This percentage is higher than that normally seen in sex offender populations because this is a sample of recidivists, who are more likely to victimize strangers. Consistent with research on sex offenders in general, the vast majority (79%) of offenders, however, victimized someone they knew. Acquaintance/other known was the most common victim–offender relationship (23%), followed closely by offenders who victimized the daughter or son of the woman with whom they had developed a romantic relationship (17%). This category includes men who molested their stepdaughters or stepsons. In 14% (n =32) of the cases, offenders victimized family members such as their own daughter, niece, or granddaughter. In Table 2, we examine whether the offender residence–offense location distance varied by the type of victim–offender relationship. When the offenders victimized a stranger, 28% (n =12) committed the offense in their own residence. When they committed the offense outside their residence, however, most did so more than 1 mile away from their home; fully 49% (n =21) of the stranger-on-stranger reoffenses took place more than 1 mile from the offender’s residence. In contrast, 23% (n =10) occurred within 1 mile of the offender’s residence. Of the 17 offenses that took place within 1 mile of the offender’s residence, 10 involved strangers, 5 involved neighbors, 1 involved a babysitter, and 1 involved a “consen- sual” romantic relationship. There were 124 cases (63%) that occurred within the offender’s residence, of which 90% (n =112) involved offenders who knew their victims. The percentage of cases occurring inside the offender’s residence was greater for those who victimized their significant other’s son or daughter (89%), a biological family member (81%), a child they were babysitting (77%), or an acquaintance (74%). In Table 3, we examine more closely the relationship between the offender’s residence, the victim’s residence, and the location where the offense occurred. There were five possible offender residence, victim residence, and offense location combinations, as follows: 1. The offense occurred at the residence where both the offender and victim lived. 2. The offense took place at the offender’s residence, which was different from that of the victim. 3. The offense took place at the victim’s residence, which was different from that of the offender. 4. The offender and victim shared a residence, but the offense occurred at a different location. 5. The offender residence, victim residence, and offense locations were all different from one another. The results from a chi-square significance test showed that the 45 offenses occurring in the residence shared by both the victim and the offender were significantly less likely to involve the use of physical force and alcohol or drugs. These offenses were more likely to involve offenders who victimized children and family members, however. The 76 offenses that took place at the residence where only the offender lived were significantly more likely to involve the use of alcohol or drugs and acquaintance victims. The 49 offenses that 492 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 493 TA B L E 2 : O f f e n s e L o c a t i o n – O f f e n d e r R e s i d e n c e D i s t a n c e b y V i c t i m – O f f e n d e r R e l a t i o n s h i p A c q u a i n t a n c e / F a m i l y S i g n i f i c a n t O t h e r D i s t a n c e S t r a n g e r O t h e r K n o w n B a b y s i t t e r N e i g h b o r R o m a n t i c F r i e n d O t h e r ’ s C h i l d F a m i l y T o t a l Of f e n d e r ’ s r e s i d e n c e 2 7 . 9 7 3 . 8 7 6 . 9 3 7 . 5 4 1 . 7 5 8 . 8 8 8 . 8 8 0 . 8 6 2 . 9 < 1 m i l e 2 3 . 3 0 . 0 7 . 7 6 2 . 5 8 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 . 6 1– 5 m i l e s 1 8 . 6 7 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 1 6 . 7 2 3 . 5 2 . 8 3 . 8 9 . 6 6– 1 0 m i l e s 1 1 . 6 2 . 4 1 5 . 4 0 . 0 1 6 . 7 0 . 0 5 . 6 7 . 7 7 . 1 11 – 2 0 m i l e s 1 4 . 0 7 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 . 3 5 . 9 2 . 8 0 . 0 6 . 1 21 – 5 0 m i l e s 2 . 3 9 . 5 0 . 0 0 . 0 8 . 3 5 . 9 0 . 0 3 . 8 4 . 1 > 50 m i l e s 2 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 9 0 . 0 3 . 8 1 . 5 N 43 4 2 1 3 8 1 2 1 7 3 6 2 6 1 9 7 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from occurred at the residence where only the victim lived were also significantly more likely to involve offenders who victimized acquaintances. These offenders, however, were signifi- cantly more likely to victimize adults and to use physical force during the assault. Finally, the 51 offenses in which the offender residence, victim residence, and offense location were different from one another were significantly more likely to involve offenders who not only used physical force but who also victimized adults and strangers. TYPE OF VICTIM CONTACT As noted above, determining the location where offenders first established contact with their victims was often difficult, particularly for offenders who had known their victims for some time. More important, however, the data show that residential proximity had only modest relevance in a majority of the 224 reoffenses. More specifically, 79 offenders (35%) directly established contact with the victim. For these direct-contact offenders, they met their victims by approaching them on the street, meeting them in a bar, or breaking into the victim’s home. For the remaining 65% (n =145), however, the offenders were biologically related to their victims (14%), or they gained access to their victims through a form of col- lateral contact such as a girlfriend, wife, coworker, friend, or acquaintance (51%). Thus, for the biological-contact and collateral-contact offenders, residential proximity was not nearly as important as social or relationship proximity. In Table 4, we examine the characteristics of the 224 offenders by the three types of victim contact. As indicated by the results from a chi-square significance test, the 79 direct-contact offenders had a significantly greater number of institutional disciplinary convictions in the past 12 months prior to release than did either the collateral- or biological- contact offenders. These offenders were also significantly more likely to be released to intensive supervision. In their sex reoffense, where they established direct contact with their victims, all of the direct-contact offenders victimized acquaintances and strangers. Indeed, it was almost evenly split between the two, although nearly one third assaulted a stranger adult female victim. Direct-contact offenders were significantly less likely to victimize those younger than the age of 13 (i.e., “child”) in either their previous or current offense. Instead, they were much more likely to victimize adults. In fact, adults were the victims in 54% (n =42) of their reoffenses, which is more than 4 times greater than for the other recidivists. Furthermore, these offenders were more likely to have a history of victimizing adult strangers. For example, in their previous sex offense, 35% (n =28) had victimized adults, whereas 34% (n =27) had victimized strangers. Direct-contact offenders were significantly more likely to commit the reoffense at a location that was different from both their residence and that of the victims. Perhaps as a consequence of their tendency to victimize adult strangers at a location where neither they nor their victims lived, direct-contact offenders were signifi- cantly more likely to use physical force. Compared to the other recidivists, the 113 collateral-contact offenders were significantly more likely to victimize acquaintances in both their prior and current sex crimes. These offenders, moreover, were much more likely than direct-contact offenders to victimize children in both their previous and current sex offenses. More specifically, 53% (n =60) of the acquaintance victims in their reoffenses were females younger than the age of 18. Given that 50% (n =56) offended against juvenile female acquaintances in their prior offense, these 494 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 495 TABLE 3: Recidivist Characteristics by Residence and Offense Location (OL) Same V–O Different V–O Same V–O Same Same Residence, Residences Residence/OL’s Offender/OL Victim/OL Different Location and Location Avg. distance (miles)* 0.0 0.0 9.4 22.1 13.3 Median distance (miles) 0.0 0.0 4.5 8.1 4.0 Offender demographics Race White (%) 80.0 68.4 61.2 100.0 62.7 African American (%) 17.8 26.3 34.7 0.0 27.5 American Indian (%) 2.2 3.9 4.1 0.0 9.8 Asian (%) 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avg. age at release (years) 32.0 34.7 33.2 33.7 31.7 Metro-area commit (%) 43.2 52.6 65.3 66.7 56.0 Criminal history Multiple prior sex crimes (%) 40.0 28.9 30.6 66.7 33.3 Multiple prior felonies (%) 60.0 53.9 71.4 66.7 54.9 Institutional Recent discipline convictions 1.9 3.5 4.8 0.7 4.0 Length of stay (months) 22.7 26.9 33.0 26.5 27.9 Completed treatment (%) 9.1 9.2 14.3 0.0 6.0 Treatment dropout (%) 11.4 6.6 8.2 0.0 8.0 Did not enter treatment (%) 77.8 84.2 77.6 100.0 84.3 Postrelease Length of supervision (months) 19.8 23.2 24.1 10.5 20.3 ISR (%) 6.7 11.8 20.4 0.0 11.8 SR (%) 91.1 80.3 73.5 100.0 78.4 Discharge 2.2 7.9 6.1 0.0 9.8 SRRS (number) 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.5 Reoffense Alcohol/drugs (%)** 9.5 34.3 25.0 50.0 19.6 Physical force (%)* 22.2 34.2 57.1 0.0 52.9 Supervised at time of offense (%) 20.0 25.0 36.7 0.0 37.3 Time unsupervised (months) 44.3 39.0 40.0 52.2 29.1 Prior victim characteristics Female (%) 88.1 80.0 89.6 100.0 84.4 Child (%) 40.0 40.8 40.8 0.0 39.2 Adolescent (%) 37.8 42.1 32.7 66.7 21.6 Adult (%) 15.6 15.8 24.5 33.3 27.5 Family (%) 22.2 27.6 16.3 33.3 15.7 Acquaintance (%) 73.3 60.5 59.2 33.3 60.8 Stranger (%)** 4.4 11.8 24.5 33.3 23.5 Reoffense victim characteristics Female (%) 88.9 78.9 93.9 100.0 88.2 Child (%)* 62.2 44.7 32.7 0.0 31.4 Adolescent (%)** 22.2 35.5 20.4 100.0 37.3 Adult (%)* 15.6 19.7 46.9 0.0 31.4 Family (%)* 57.8 17.1 12.2 100.0 9.8 Acquaintance (%)* 42.2 67.1 61.2 0.0 39.2 Stranger (%)* 0.0 15.8 26.5 0.0 51.0 N (%)45 (20.1) 76 (33.9) 49 (21.9) 3 (1.3) 51 (22.8) Note.V–O =victim and offender; SR =supervised release; ISR =intensive supervised release; SRRs =supervised release revocations. *Pearson χ2 significant at the .01 level. **Pearson χ2 significant at the .05 level. at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 496 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR TABLE 4: Recidivist Characteristics by Type of Victim Contact Characteristics Direct Contact Collateral Contact Biological Contact Total Offender demographics Race White (%) 60.8 69.0 84.4 68.3 African-American (%) 32.9 24.8 15.6 26.3 American Indian (%) 5.1 6.2 0.0 4.9 Asian (%) 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 Average age at release (years) 32.8 32.3 36.7 33.1 Metro-area commit (%) 57.7 54.5 46.9 54.5 Criminal history Multiple prior sex crimes (%) 30.4 38.1 21.9 33.0 Multiple prior felonies (%) 53.2 64.6 56.3 59.4 Institutional Recent discipline convictions** 5.6 2.5 2.4 3.5 Length of stay (months) 29.8 26.2 27.5 27.6 Completed treatment (%) 9.0 8.9 12.5 9.5 Treatment dropout (%) 6.4 9.8 6.3 8.1 Did not enter treatment (%) 83.5 80.5 81.3 81.7 Postrelease Length of supervision (months) 25.2 20.9 17.2 21.9 ISR (%)* 21.5 8.0 6.3 12.5 SR (%)** 70.9 85.8 87.5 80.8 Discharge (%) 7.6 6.2 6.3 6.7 SRR’s (number) 0.56 0.46 0.66 0.53 Reoffense Alcohol/drugs (%) 36.7 30.1 18.7 30.8 Physical force (%)* 59.5 31.9 25.0 40.6 Supervised at time of offense (%) 34.2 24.8 31.3 29.0 Time unsupervised (months) 34.8 42.5 32.9 38.7 Distance to sex reoffense Same residence/location* 3.8 29.2 28.1 20.1 Same offender/offense location 30.4 37.2 31.3 33.9 Same victim/offense location 25.3 20.4 18.8 21.9 Same V–O residence/different location** 0.9 0.0 6.3 1.3 Different residences/location* 40.5 12.4 15.6 22.8 Prior victim characteristics Female (%) 82.7 85.0 90.3 85.0 Child (%)* 24.1 49.6 59.4 42.0 Adolescent (%) 33.6 40.5 31.3 35.7 Adult (%)* 35.4 16.8 9.4 22.3 Family (%)* 8.9 22.1 50.0 21.4 Acquaintance (%)* 57.0 72.6 40.6 62.5 Stranger (%)* 34.2 5.3 9.4 16.1 Reoffense victim characteristics Female (%) 83.5 88.5 87.5 86.6 Child (%)* 19.0 52.2 62.5 42.0 Adolescent (%) 27.8 33.6 28.1 30.8 Adult (%)* 53.5 14.2 9.4 27.2 Family (%)* 0.0 18.6 100.0 23.7 Acquaintance (%)* 45.6 74.3 0.0 53.6 Stranger (%)* 54.4 7.1 0.0 22.8 N (%)79 (35.3) 113 (50.4) 32 (14.3) 224 Note.V–O =victim and offender; SR =supervised release; ISR =intensive supervised release; SRRs =supervised release revocations. *Pearson χ2 significant at the .01 level. **Pearson χ2 significant at the .05 level. at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 497 offenders had a relatively high rate of specialization. In contrast to those who established direct contact with the victims, collateral contact offenders were significantly more likely to commit the reoffense in the residence that they shared with the victim. The 32 recidivists who offended against a biological family member were significantly more likely to victimize a child in both their previous and current sex crimes. These offenders were also significantly more likely to have a history of offending against family members. Indeed, 50% (n =16) victimized a family member in their previous offense. Like collateral- contact offenders, these recidivists were, compared to direct-contact offenders, significantly less likely to use physical force but significantly more likely to commit the offense at the residence that they shared with the victim. Of the three reoffenses that took place in which the offense location was different from the residence shared by the victim and offender, two involved biological-contact offenders. OFFENDER RESIDENCE–FIRST CONTACT DISTANCE FOR DIRECT-CONTACT OFFENDERS In assessing the potential deterrent effects of residency restrictions on sexual reoffend- ing, it is, as noted earlier, necessary to focus on the 79 direct-contact cases. As shown in Table 5, it was not possible to estimate the offender residence–first contact distance for 13 of the cases because of unavailable address information for either the offender’s residence or the first contact location. However, even if it were possible to estimate the first contact distance, none of the cases would have likely been affected by residency restrictions according to the criteria outlined above. For example, in 10 of the 13 cases, the victim was an adult. In the 3 cases involving juvenile victims, 1 offender met the victim through his occupation. In the other two cases, the offenders established “consensual” romantic relation- ships with the victims, both of whom were 14 years old. One of the offenders, who was 24 at the time, met the victim at a party attended by mutual friends, and the other offender, who was 19 years old, “picked up” the victim as she was taking a walk from her home. Given that 4 offenders established contact via telephone and 1 offender initiated contact via the Internet, there were 61 direct-contact cases in which address information was avail- able. Of the 61 cases, more than half (n =31) contacted their victims beyond a mile from where they were residing at the time of the offense. In the other 30 cases, the offenders met their victims less than a mile away from their home. However, 1 of these offenders victimized an inmate while he was incarcerated at a county jail, whereas another offender molested his roommate at a halfway house following his release from prison. Because residency restric- tions would not apply in either situation, both cases were excluded, lowering the total to 28. Of the 28 cases, 21 would qualify for less than a 2,500-foot (less than 0.5 miles) zone, whereas this number would drop to 16 for a 1,000-foot (less than 0.2 miles) zone. RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY FOR DIRECT-CONTACT OFFENDERS In Table 6, we compare the characteristics of the 28 offenders who established direct vic- tim contact within 1 mile of their residence with the remaining 196 offenders. When the 28 offenders established direct victim contact within 1 mile of their residence, they were likely to target an adult female stranger. Indeed, 43% (n =12) of the victims in their reoffense were adults, 79% (n =22) were females, and 68% (n =19) were strangers. More specifi- cally, the results from a t test reveal that the percentages of adult and stranger victims were at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 498 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR significantly higher than those for the other recidivists. The 28 residential proximity offend- ers were also more likely to have victimized a stranger in their prior offense. Because of their greater victimization of adult female strangers, these offenders were significantly more likely to have used physical force during the sex crime. Finally, compared to the other recidivists, they were significantly less likely to commit the reoffense at a location where they shared the residence with the victim. But how many of the 28 cases might have been prevented by a law barring sex offenders from living near prohibited areas such as schools, daycare centers, or parks? Twelve cases would be eliminated from consideration because they involved adult victims. Of the remaining 16 cases with juvenile victims, 12 involved offenders who established direct contact within 1,000 feet, and 2 additional cases involved an offender who initiated contact within 2,500 feet. Not one of the 16 cases, however, was facilitated by close proximity to a school, daycare, or park. Instead, the offenders in these 16 cases victimized neighbors, or they made contact with victims near their own property. For example, in 8 of the cases, the victim was a neighbor to the offender in that they lived in the same residential block, trailer park, or apartment building. In 4 of the cases, the offenders made contact with the victims just outside their own property. In 1 incident, the offender met the victim, a 17-year-old male runaway, at a nearby fast food restaurant. One of the offenders molested a child who lived in the same apartment building of an acquaintance he was visiting. In another incident, the offender lived near a shopping mall, which is where he initiated contact with a juvenile victim. And in the final case, the offender gained entrance by breaking into the victim’s home. In general, though, the offenders typically gained access to the victims by enticing them with a ruse: for example, an offer to use the offender’s phone or paying the victim money to clean the offender’s residence. Of the 224 cases, there were a total of 3 in which the offender established contact with the victim at a possible prohibited area where children are known to be present. The loca- tion was a park in 2 of the incidents and a school in the other incident. In 2 of the cases, however, the offender lived more than 10 miles away from the first contact location, whereas the victim in the other case was an adult. Therefore, none of the 224 incidents of sex offender recidivism fit the criteria of a known offender making contact with a child victim at a loca- tion within any of the distances typically covered by residential restriction laws. TABLE 5: Offender Residence–First Contact Distances for Direct-Contact Offenders Distance Number % <1,000 ft. (0.00–0.19 miles) 18 22.8 1,000–2,500 ft. (0.20–0.47 miles) 5 6.3 2,501–5,280 ft. (0.48–0.99 miles) 7 8.8 1–2 miles 6 7.6 3–5 miles 10 12.7 6–10 miles 4 5.1 11–20 miles 4 5.1 >20 miles 7 8.8 Telephone 4 5.1 Internet 1 1.2 Unknown 13 16.5 Total 79 100.0 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 499 TABLE 6: A Comparison of Residential Proximity Among Recidivist Sex Offenders Characteristics Residential Proximity Nonresidential Proximity Total Offender demographics Race White (%) 57.1 69.9 68.3 African American (%) 39.3 24.5 26.3 American Indian (%) 3.6 5.1 4.9 Asian (%) 0.0 0.5 0.4 Average age at release (years) 35.2 32.9 33.1 Metro-area commit (%) 50.0 55.2 54.5 Criminal history Prior sex crime (%) 28.6 33.7 33.0 Prior felony (%) 57.1 60.0 59.4 Institutional Recent discipline convictions 5.50 3.26 3.55 Length of stay (months) 32.2 27.0 27.6 Completed treatment (%) 0.0 10.8 9.5 Treatment dropout (%) 7.1 8.3 8.1 Did not enter treatment (%) 92.9 80.1 81.7 Postrelease ISR (%) 17.9 11.7 12.5 SR (%) 78.6 81.1 80.8 Discharge (%) 3.6 7.1 6.7 Length of supervision (months) 28.1 21.0 21.9 SRR’s (number) 0.46 0.54 0.53 Reoffense Alcohol/drugs (%) 32.1 30.6 30.8 Physical force (%)** 60.7 37.8 40.6 Supervised at time of offense (%) 42.9 27.0 29.0 Time unsupervised (months) 40.9 38.4 38.7 Distance to sex reoffense Same residence/location* 0.0 100.0 20.1 Same offender/offense location 50.0 31.6 33.9 Same victim/offense location 25.0 21.4 21.9 Same V–O residence/different location 0.0 1.5 1.3 Different residences/location 25.0 22.4 22.8 Prior victim Female (%) 75.0 86.8 85.3 Child (%) 32.1 43.4 42.0 Adolescent (%) 39.3 35.2 35.7 Adult (%) 28.6 21.4 22.3 Family (%) 10.7 23.0 21.4 Acquaintance (%) 46.4 64.8 62.5 Stranger (%)* 42.9 12.2 16.1 Reoffense victim Female (%) 78.6 87.8 86.6 Child (%) 28.6 43.9 42.0 Adolescent (%) 28.6 31.1 30.8 Adult (%)** 42.8 25.0 27.2 Family (%)* 0.0 27.0 23.7 Acquaintance (%)* 32.1 56.6 54.0 Stranger (%)* 67.9 16.4 22.3 N (%) 28 (12.5) 196 (87.5) 224 Note. SR =supervised release; ISR =intensive supervised release; SRRs =supervised release revocations. *t test statistically significant at the .01 level. **t test statistically significant at the .05 level. at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from DISCUSSION Only a minority (35%) of the 224 sex offender recidivists directly established contact with their victims. For those who did, they were much more likely to initiate contact with an adult. But even when offenders contacted juvenile victims directly, it was often more than a mile away from where they lived. Of the few offenders who directly contacted a juvenile victim within close proximity of their residence, none did so near a school, park, playground, or other location included in residential restriction laws. There are several limitations with this study, however, that are worth mentioning. First, as noted earlier, by focusing on the 224 cases resulting in reincarceration, we did not exam- ine the 80 reconvictions and 70 rearrests that took place between 1990 and 2005. Although we found no evidence that housing restrictions would likely have had a deterrent effect on the 224 most serious instances of sexual recidivism, the possibility still remains that they might have an impact on the less serious cases. Second, we did not examine whether the 224 offenders lived near a school, park, or other possible prohibited area at the time of the offense. Thus, there may have been some child molesters examined here who became aroused from living near a location where children congregate but who chose to go to a different location (i.e., more than 1 mile away) to commit the offense. As noted above, however, there were only 3 cases in which the offender established contact with a victim at a possible prohibited area, and 1 involved an adult victim whereas the other 2 were more than 10 miles from the offenders’ residences. Despite these limitations, the results presented here provide very little support for the notion that residency restriction laws would lower the incidence of sexual recidivism, particularly among child molesters. Why, then, does residential proximity appear to matter so little with regard to sexual reoffending? Much of it has to do with the patterns of sexual offending in general. Sex offense rates are generally not related to the number of known sex offenders in a community (Stengel et al., in press). Moreover, sex offenders are much more likely to victimize someone they know. For example, one of the most common victim– offender relationships found in this study was that of a male offender developing a romantic relationship with a woman who has children. The sex offender recidivists examined here used their relationships with these women to gain access to their victims—the women’s children. Similarly, it was relatively common for offenders to gain access to victims through babysitting for an acquaintance or coworker or by living with friends who had children. Thus, in one half of the cases, the offenders established contact with their victims—most of whom were juveniles—through their relationship or acquaintance with another person, almost invariably an adult. Even when offenders established direct contact with victims, they were unlikely to do so close to where they lived. This may be largely because of the fact that offenders are more likely to be recognized within their own neighborhoods. Indeed, many of the child moles- ters whom Levenson and Cotter (2005) interviewed for their study indicated that they were careful not to reoffend close to their own home. As a result, when direct-contact offenders look for a victim, they may be more likely to go to an area relatively close to home (i.e., less than 20 miles) but still far enough away (i.e., greater than 1 mile) to decrease the chances of being recognized. These findings fit with previous research showing that repeat sex offenders typically offend outside their immediate neighborhoods (Canter & Gregory, 1994; Lundrigan & Czarnomski, 2006; Rengert, 2004; Warren et al., 1998). 500 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 501 Residency restriction laws would likely offer, at best, a marginal impact on the incidence of sexual recidivism. Together with emerging research suggesting that sex offender regis- tration and notification processes have a negligible effect on recidivism (Walker, Madden, Vasquez, VanHouten, & Ervin-McLarty, 2006), this finding casts doubt on the efficacy of such policies. This is not to say that housing restrictions would never prevent a sex offender from reoffending sexually. Based on the results presented here, however, the chances that it would have a deterrent effect are slim. Indeed, during the past 16 years, not one sex offender released from a MCF has been reincarcerated for a sex offense in which he made contact with a juvenile victim at or near a school, park, or daycare center close to his home. In short, it is unlikely that residency restrictions would have a deterrent effect because the types of offenses that such laws are designed to prevent are exceptionally rare and, in the case of Minnesota, virtually nonexistent in the past 16 years. It is still possible, however, that a housing restrictions law could have an impact because laws sometimes have unintended consequences. It is debatable, though, whether the impact would be a positive one. In 2002, Iowa passed a residency restrictions law prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a child congregation location. Although there are no hard data on the impact of the law, anecdotal evidence suggests that residency restric- tions may limit offender employment prospects, reduce suitable housing opportunities, and threaten the reliability of the sex offender registry by causing more offenders to become homeless, change residences without notifying the authorities, or register false addresses. Moreover, the forced removal of offenders from established residences may have an adverse impact on family members, causing children to be pulled out of school and away from friends and resulting in the loss of jobs and community connections for spouses (Iowa County Attorneys Association, 2006). Recognizing the harmful impact that residency restrictions can have on others besides the offender, the American Correctional Association (2007) has passed a resolution calling for legislatures to examine and consider the negative consequences that these laws create. By making it more difficult for sex offenders to successfully re-enter society, housing restrictions might promote conditions that militate against the goal of reducing the extent to which they recidivate sexually. APPENDIX Coding of Variables Offender race: Dichotomized as White (1) or minority (0). Age at release: The age of the offender in years at the time of release based on the date of birth and release date. Metro-area: A rough proxy of urban and rural Minnesota, this variable measures an offender’s county of commitment, dichotomizing it into either metro-area (1) or greater Minnesota (0). The seven metro-area counties include Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington. The remaining 80 counties were coded as non-metro area or greater Minnesota counties. Multiple prior felony convictions: Offenders who had more than one prior felony conviction (including the instant offense) were assigned a value of 1, whereas those without multiple prior felony convictions were assigned a value of 0. (continued) at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from 502 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Multiple prior sex-crime convictions: Offenders with more than one prior sex-crime conviction (including the instant offense) were given a value of 1, whereas those without multiple prior sex crime convictions were given a value of 0. Recent disciplinary history: This variable measures the number of disciplinary convictions that an offender received in the final 12 months prior to his initial release from prison. Sex offender treatment: Three dichotomous dummy variables were created to measure prison-based sex offender treatment during the offender’s term of imprisonment prior to release. Offenders’ involvement in sex offender treatment was not included, however, if they participated in treatment during either a prior commitment to prison or a subsequent return to prison (either for a supervised release violation or for the new sex reoffense). The three variables were offenders who successfully completed treatment or were participating until the time of release (1 =treatment completers/participants; 0 =treatment dropouts or nonparticipants), offenders who were terminated from treatment or voluntarily quit (1 =treatment dropouts; 0 =treatment completers/participants or nonparticipants), and those who never entered treatment (1 =nonparticipants; 0 =treatment completers/ participants, and dropouts). Length of postrelease supervision: The number of months between an offender’s first release date and the end of postrelease supervision, for example, the sentence expiration or conditional release date, the greater of the two. Intensity of postrelease supervision: Three dichotomous dummy variables were created to measure the level of postrelease supervision to which offenders were released. The three variables were intensive supervised release (ISR) (1 =ISR,0 =non-ISR), supervised release (SR) (1 =SR,0 =non-SR), and discharge (1 =discharge or no supervision,0 = released to supervision).4 Supervised release revocations (SRR’s): The number of times during an offender’s sex crime sentence when he returned to prison as a supervised release violator. Prior victim gender: Dichotomized as either a female victim (1) or a male victim (2), this variable measures whether offenders victimized a female or male victim in the sex offense for which they were previously incarcerated. Victim gender was coded the same for the reoffense. Prior victim age: Three dichotomous dummy variables were created to measure the age of the victim for the sex offense for which the recidivists were previously incarcerated. The three variables were child victims (1 =victim younger than the age of 13; 0 =victims 13 and older), adolescent victims (1 =victims between the ages of 13 and 17; 0 =child and adult victims), and adult victims (1 =victims older than age 17; 0 =victims younger than age 18). The same coding structure was used for the victim’s age in the reoffense. Prior victim–offender relationship: Three dichotomous dummy variables were created to measure the offender’s relationship to the victim for the sex crime for which he was previously incarcerated. The three variables were stranger victims (1 =stranger victim; 0 =known or nonstranger victim), acquaintance victims (1 =acquaintance victim; 0 =nonacquaintance victim), and family member victims (1 =family member victim; 0 =non-family-member victim). Victim–offender relationship was coded the same for the reoffense. APPENDIX (continued) at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from NOTES 1. Taylors Falls and Wyoming are currently the only local governments in Minnesota that have passed residency restric- tions for sex offenders. None of the 224 offenders examined in this study were released to either of these two locations. 2. In Minnesota, there are currently 11 correctional facilities that house adult prisoners committed to the Commissioner of Corrections. The 3,166 sex offenders were released from 8 of these facilities. The only 3 facilities from which these offend- ers were not released were MCF–Red Wing, which contains mostly juvenile offenders, and MCF–Willow River and MCF–Togo, which hold the male and female boot camp (i.e., Challenge Incarceration Program) populations, respectively. The 224 recidivists examined here were released from 7 facilities. The eighth facility, MCF–Shakopee (the main correctional facility for female offenders), did not account for any releases due to the absence of females among the 224 recidivists. 3. Information regarding the specific data source(s) used for each item can be obtained from the corresponding author. 4. The standards for intensive supervised release (ISR) are more rigorous in comparison to those for supervised release. In particular, offenders placed on ISR experience a greater frequency of contacts with supervision agents, are required to maintain steady employment, are expected to comply with random alcohol and/or drug testing, and are subjected to unan- nounced face-to-face contacts with their supervision agents at both their residence and place of work. Because of the increased supervision requirements, ISR agents handle a smaller caseload, which has been capped at 15 offenders per agent according to Minnesota law. REFERENCES American Correctional Association. (2007). Resolution on Neighborhood Exclusion of Predatory Sex Offenders. Retrieved from http://www.aca.org/government/policies.asp Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1984). Patterns in crime. New York: Macmillan. Canter, D.V., & Gregory, A. (1994). Identifying the residential location of rapists. Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 34, 169-175. Colorado Department of Public Safety. (2004). Report on safety issues raised by living arrangements for and location of sex offenders in the community. Denver, CO: Sex Offender Management Board. Greenfield, L. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Groff, E., & McEwen, T. (2006). Exploring the spatial configuration of places related to homicide events, final report. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Law and Justice. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. (2004). Predictors of sexual recidivism: An updated meta-analysis (User Report No. 2004-02). Ottawa: Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. Harris, A. J. R., & Hanson, R. K. (2004). Sex offender recidivism: A simple question. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. Iowa County Attorneys Association. (2006). Statement on sex offender residency restrictions in Iowa. Des Moines: Author. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Langan, P. A., Schmitt, E., & DuRose, M. (2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Levenson, J. S., & Cotter, L. P. (2005). The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,49, 168-178. Levenson, J. S., & D’Amora, D. A. (2007). Social policies designed to prevent sexual violence: The emperor’s new clothes? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18,168-199. Lundrigan, S., & Czarnomski, S. (2006). Spatial characteristics of serial sexual assault in New Zealand. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,39, 218-231. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2003). Level three sex offenders’residential placement issues. St. Paul: Author. Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2007). Sex offender recidivism in Minnesota. St. Paul: Author. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (in press). Registered sex offenders, residence, and the influence of race. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006a). Social disorganization and residential locations of registered sex offenders: Is this a collateral consequence? Deviant Behavior,27, 329-350. Mustaine, E. E., Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006b). Residential location and mobility of registered sex offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice,30(2), 177-192. Nieto, M., & Jung, D. (2006). The impact of residency restrictions on sex offenders and correctional management practices: A literature review. Sacramento: California Research Bureau. Rengert, G. F. (2004). Journey to crime. In G. Bruinsma, H. Elffers, & J. de Keijser (Eds.),Punishment, places and perpe- trators: Developments in criminology and criminal justice research. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Duwe et al. / RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY & SEX OFFENSE RECIDIVISM 503 at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from Rengert, G. F., Piquero, A., & Jones, P. (1999). Distance decay reexamined. Criminology,37, 427-446. Sample, L., & Bray, T. M. (2006). Are sex offenders different? An examination of rearrest patterns. Criminal Justice Policy Review,17, 83-102. Snyder, H. N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as reported to law enforcement: Victim, incident and offender charac- teristics. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Stengel, K. M., Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (in press). Examining rates of sexual offenses from a routine activities perspective. Victims & Offenders. Tewksbury, R. (2007). Exile at home: The unintended collateral consequences of sex offender residency restrictions.” Harvard Civil Rights—Civil Liberties Law Review,42, 531-540. Tewksbury, R., & Lees, M. B. (2006). Perceptions of sex offender registration: Collateral consequences and community expe- riences. Sociological Spectrum, 26, 309-334. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2006). Where to find sex offenders:An examination of residential locations and neighbor- hood conditions. Criminal Justice Studies,19,61-75. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (in press–a). Collateral consequences and community re-entry for registered sex offenders with child victims: Are the challenges even greater? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (in press–b). Where registered sex offenders live: Community characteristics and proximity to possible victims. Victims & Offenders. Tita, G., & Griffiths, E. (2005). Traveling to violence: The case for a mobility-based spatial typology of homicide. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 275-308. Turley, E., & Hutzel, L. (2001). West Virginia Sex Offender Study. Charleston, WV: Division of Criminal Justice Services. Retrieved November 8, 2005, from http://www.wvdcjs.com/publications/ Walker, J. T., Golden, J. W., & VanHouten, A. C. (2001). Geographic link between sex offenders and potential victims: A routine activities approach. Justice Research and Policy,3, 15-34. Walker, J. T., Madden, S., Vasquez, B. E., VanHouten, A. C., & Ervin-McLarty, G. (2006). Influence of sex offender regis- tration and notification laws in the United States. Little Rock: Arkansas Crime Information Center. Warren, J., Reboussin, R., Hazelwood, R. R., Cummings, A., Gibbs, N., & Trumbetta, S. (1998). Crime scene and distance correlates of serial rape. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,14, 35-59. Zandbergen, P. A., & Hart, T. C. (2006). Reducing housing options for convicted sex offenders: Investigating the impact of residency restriction laws using GIS. Justice Research and Policy,8, 1-24. 504 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR at University of British Columbia Library on April 27, 2010 http://cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240822071 The Geographic Link Between Sex Offenders and Potential Victims: A Routine Activities Approach Article in Justice Research and Policy · September 2001 DOI: 10.3818/JRP.3.2.2001.15 CITATIONS 59 READS 90 3 authors, including: Jeffery T Walker University of Alabama at Birmi… 27 PUBLICATIONS 267 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE James W Golden University of Arkansas at Little … 5 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Available from: Jeffery T Walker Retrieved on: 17 August 2016 Sex offenders and victims • 15 *The Geographic Link Between Sex Offenders and Potential Victims: A Routine Activities Approach Jeffery T. Walker University of Arkansas at Little Rock and Arkansas Statistical Analysis Center James W. Golden Amy C. VanHouten University of Arkansas at Little Rock JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 3, No. 2, Fall 2001 © Justice Research and Statistics Association This research was made possible by a grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics through the State Justice Statistics Program, grant number 98-MU-MU-K013. Points of view in this document are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the official posi- tion or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice, Arkansas Crime Information Center, or the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. *Abstract Despite the publicity surrounding several high-profile sex offender incidents in the 1990s, relatively little research has been done on sex offenders themselves. This ar- ticle reports on a study of sex offenders in one Arkansas county who had children as victims. Specifically, we examined the relationship between where the offenders live and where children congregate to see whether offenders choose to reside in areas with high concentrations of children. We use routine activities theory as a foundation for explaining our results, and conclude with a discussion of the policy implications of the findings. 16 • Justice Research and Policy Although rapists have drawn the attention of the criminal justice system for many years, the activities of other types of sex offenders were brought to the forefront of public attention in the 1990s, spurred by several high-profile kidnappings, molestations, and murders of children. Legislation such as Megan’s Law and the Jacob Wetterling Act propelled sex offenders into the public spotlight by requir- ing that they register with the state and that the public be notified of their exist- ence and often their whereabouts. Relatively little research, however, has focused on sex offenders themselves, and most research that has been conducted has used very small samples or has remained relatively obscured in the tables and graphs of state crime publications. This study attempts to overcome some of those limitations. We examined the population of sex offenders who had children as victims in one metropolitan county in Arkansas to see where offenders live in relation to parks, schools, and day cares. Our argument is that child sex offenders are largely incorrigible and they may attempt to live in areas with a high concentration of children. We use routine activities theory to explain our results, and conclude that this theory is capable of explaining this type of crime and may be beneficial to policymakers in controlling sex offenses against children. *Sex Offenders and Victims In June 2000, Christopher Reardon was arrested for sexually abusing young boys. Interest in the case increased when it was learned that Reardon used his job as a youth minister and YMCA swim coach to befriend the boys before he mo- lested them. Reardon ultimately pled guilty to 120 counts of sexual abuse of a child. This case is only one example of the many sexual abuse cases in which adults use their physical or geographic relationship to gain access to young children. The National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect (1996, p. 8) reports that the number of cases of sexually abused children increased from about 119,200 in 1986 to 217,000 in 1993, an 83% increase. Hillman and Solek-Tefft (1988, p.1) estimate that at least 25% of all Americans were sexually abused as children. Even though many children are sexually abused each year, little research has focused on offenders who target children (Crewdson, 1988, p. 115). Sexual abuse has been defined in a variety of ways. McGrath (1991, p. 341), for example, describes it as an act that takes advantage of a “weaker, more vul- nerable person.” He suggests that offenders often choose victims who are unable to fight back, such as children and those who suffer from a mental illness or mental retardation. Colton and Vanstone (1996, p. 2) define child sexual abuse as the “carrying out of sexual acts by adults with children below the age of Sex offenders and victims • 17 consent.” While definitions of child sexual abuse may vary, the actions they de- scribe are ultimately the same: An adult takes advantage of a child for the purpose of sexual gratification. *Targeting Children One of the most important characteristics of child sex offenders is that they generally have a method of gaining access to children. Goldstein (1987, p.91) argues that there are three ways in which sexual offenders gain access to chil- dren: marriage, neighborhood, and occupation. These methods are not mutually exclusive. Offenders may molest their own child, molest the children on the ball team that they coach, and work in a business that targets children. Goldstein (1987, p. 83) proposes that it is not uncommon for an individual to marry for the sole purpose of gaining access to children. Perpetrators who use marriage as an access technique often seek out women who already have children who meet their age and gender preferences. The marriage often lasts only as long as the children are in the victim target range. Offenders also might marry and take in foster children or adopt children. They will rarely produce their own children for this purpose, however, since there is no guarantee that they will be the preferred gender (Goldstein, p. 83). Hillman and Solek-Tefft (1988, p. 27) argue that offenders might also have a relationship with the family of a child victim. A second way sex offenders might gain access to a child is by searching for neighborhoods with children. Goldstein (1987, p. 98) insists that many pedo- philic activities are premeditated. Goldstein conducted part of his research by examining publications used by pedophiles. In these publications, he found sev- eral articles and other material suggesting that offenders target places such as arcades, schools, and playgrounds. Offenders have also been known to use par- ticular activities to entice children. For example, a perpetrator might approach children at bus stops, schools, and playgrounds and perform magic tricks. After gaining their trust, the offender may trick them into performing sex acts (Goldstein, p. 106). When a pedophile chooses to target a victim, age preference is the key factor. Abusers who prefer adolescents are more likely to become scout leaders and coaches, while those attracted to younger children may seek employment in day care centers (Crewdson, 1988, p. 117). Lanning (1992, p. 18) describes sex offenders as frequently associating with young people. The sex offender may hang around schoolyards, arcades, shop- ping centers, or anywhere else that children are present. He suggests that child sex offenders have well-developed techniques for obtaining victims (Lanning, 18 • Justice Research and Policy p.19). He or she may also have hobbies and interests that specifically appeal to children, such as collecting specific toys or dolls. A third way in which sex offenders might target victims is by choosing occu- pations allowing access to children. Goldstein (1987, p. 108) argues that offend- ers often become involved with programs catering to the children in their target group, or they may become employed at a business that caters to children. Goldstein further notes that if offenders are unable to get into a business that caters to children, they might start one of their own. Colton and Vanstone (1996) profiled seven men who were convicted of sexually abusing children. In this study, all of the subjects’ occupations gave them access to children. These occupations included working as a schoolteacher, youth worker, church employee, and as a volunteer for various activities with youth organizations. Kelley, Brant, and Waterman (1993) argue that sexual abuse can occur in any setting where children can be found and that sexual abuse perpetrators pur- posely work to know the locations of concentrations of children. One place that caters to children is day care centers. Several studies have been conducted to determine the incidence of sexual abuse in the day care setting Approximately 1 child in 10 is cared for outside the home (Crewdson, 1988, p.117). There is a consensus that children in day care are at a higher risk for sexual abuse (Kelley et al., 1993, p.71). Sexual abuse data indicate that an aver- age of 5.5 children per 10,000 enrolled in day care are sexually abused (Murray, 2000, p. 213). Kelley et al. (p.71) report that many of the cases involving mul- tiple or serial sexual abuse involve day care centers. In one of the most notori- ous cases, Virginia McMartin, her daughter, her grandson, and many of the preschool’s employees were charged with sexually abusing the children in their care (Crewdson, p.134). This case was even more tragic given the evidence that the daycare employees and other people in the community were involved in an elaborate child sexual abuse ring, and that the day care had been set up for the sole purpose of using children for sex (Crewdson, p.135). Finkelhor, Williams, and Burns (1988) examined 500 day care facilities in an attempt to determine if day cares were high-risk environments for sexual abuse. They found 2,500 cases of child sexual abuse in the 500 facilities. Of the perpetrators, 16% were the day care’s owner or director. In one case a man with a previous conviction for child molestation convinced his wife to start a baby- sitting service, illustrating the importance of the relationship between convicted child sex offenders and day care centers (Finkelhor et al.). Investigators in the case concluded that since all children at the day care were abused, the perpetrator’s sole purpose in establishing the day care was to obtain access to children to sexually abuse. Sex offenders and victims • 19 *Routine Activities and Crime In 1979, Cohen and Felson presented a theory that took a different view of criminal behavior. Instead of only examining the activities of offenders or victims, Cohen and Felson proposed that criminal behavior is a union of criminal, victim, time, and place. This became known as routine activities theory. The focus of routine activities theory is the natural activity patterns of people. Cohen and Felson (1979, p.593) define routine activities as “any recurrent and prevalent activities which provide for basic population and individual needs.” They argue that criminal activities follow patterns similar to those of “everyday suste- nance activities,” meaning that criminals go about their lives in the same kinds of movement and behavior patterns as those who go to work, school, shop, and undertake hobbies. It is when the “routine activities” of a criminal overlap the “routine activities” of a victim that the potential for a criminal violation occurs. According to Cohen and Felson, routine activities bring people together in both criminal and non-criminal behaviors. “Hence the timing of work, schooling, and leisure may be of central importance for explaining crime rates” (Cohen & Felson, p.591). It is this convergence of victims and offenders in time and place that is central to routine activities theory, and to the research at hand. Cohen and Felson (1979) propose that their theory is most applicable to “direct-contact predatory violations,” that is, when an offender has direct physi- cal contact with a victim. They believe that routine activity patterns are affected by three elements: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of ca- pable guardians against a violation. A change in any one of these could increase or decrease the crime rate. While it has been popularly held that an increase in the number of offenders could increase the crime rate regardless of the number of vic- tims, it may also be true that an increase in the number of suitable targets in an area could increase the crime rate, even without an increase in the number of offenders. In a follow-up study published in 1987, Felson extended the original theory by focusing on urban characteristics, including locations that attract both poten- tial offenders and victims. In this research, Felson proposes that criminals often position themselves to naturally come into contact with potential victims: “Just as lions look for deer near their watering hole, criminal offenders dis- proportionably find victims in certain settings . . ..” (1987, p. 914). He goes on to suggest that certain areas of the city bring offenders and targets together so effectively that they almost draw the people to the area, they make it easy for offenders to find suitable victims, and they create areas of the city that are very high crime risk areas. Public facilities such as parks and schools were among the areas mentioned. As such, routine activities theory was expanded to show that not only do offenders and 20 • Justice Research and Policy victims often come together as a result of their everyday activities (and by extension, criminals could increase their odds of coming into such contact by manipulating their activities), but places in the city could also promote such interaction. Following the work by Felson, much of the research related to routine activi- ties theory began to examine more specific locations and/or offender types (see, for example, Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger, 1989, and Smith, Frazee, and Davison, 2000). While this line of research is related to the research at hand (for example, Roncek and Maier [1991] found that increases in potential targets [in their case bars and taverns] in residential areas can significantly increase the amount of crime), no literature currently applies routine activities theory to child sex of- fenders. This study attempts to begin to fill that void by arguing that child sex offenders may put themselves in a position to come into contact with potential victims and that some places may draw offenders and targets together. *Methods This research was spawned from a larger project that examined the characteristics of all sex offenders in the state of Arkansas. For that project, the records of all sex offenders registered with the state on February 1, 1999, (a total of 1,646) were col- lected. These data were augmented by the criminal history records of the offenders. For the project at hand, all the sex offenders in that database who had a residency address in one metropolitan county (Pulaski County) were selected. This county was chosen because it had the largest number of sex offenders of any county in the state and, for the purposes of this project, it was the only county that had been mapped sufficiently to be able to relate sex offender residences with potential targets. Of the 1,646 sex offenders in the database, 252 were from this county. Because of the nature of the targets selected for this analysis (areas where a concentration of children were likely), this data set was further broken down into offenders who had a child as a victim and those who did not. A total of 170 offenders had a child as a victim. The second set of data to be collected was the locations of the potential target areas. We selected day cares, schools, and parks as the potential targets based on legislation at the state and federal level that specifically identify schools, playgrounds (parks), and day cares as areas of concern for criminal activities such as gun possession, drug use, rehabilitation centers, and sex offenders. Fur- thermore, we decided to use these targets because they represent areas where typically there is a concentration of potential victims. School districts within the county supplied the address of each primary and secondary school. A total of 83 schools were identified in the county. The loca- Sex offenders and victims • 21 tion of parks in the county (a total of 43 parks) was obtained from the Parks and Recreation Department. Phone records were used to obtain a listing of all day cares in the county. After identifying all day cares, we confirmed the addresses by contacting the day care by telephone. A total of 171 day cares were identified. After all of the addresses for the sex offenders and targets were obtained, they were geocoded and mapped using ArcView. A number of geocoding prob- lems had to be overcome to proceed with the project. These problems resulted from changes in street names and streets that had been added in the county after release of the maps used in the analysis. Ultimately 90% of the addresses for offenders, 88% of the addresses for schools, 95% of the addresses for parks, and 85% of the addresses for day cares were included in the analysis. We do not see this as a problem, however, because of the nature of the project. The analyses here are mapping the relationship of the location of targets to where child sex offenders live. Problems with the geocoding resulted from inadequate mapping points for geocoding the addresses. As a result, if a sex offender could not be properly mapped to a particular street segment, then neither could the potential target (if there was no street segment mapped to geocode an offender, then there would be no street segment mapped for any of the targets). About the same percentage of each of the data sets could not be geocoded (from 5% to 15% of addresses). Again, since neither target nor sex offender could be mapped, a re- port of the relationship between the two should not be affected. After the data on offenders were broken down into those who offended against children and those who did not, three sets of analyses were conducted. The first was a point location analysis whereby the point locations of all child sex offend- ers and all of the potential targets were geocoded. The maps were then examined for any concentrations or abnormalities that might be important in determining the spatial relationship between child sex offenders and potential victims. In the second analysis, 1,000-foot buffer zones were drawn around each of the targets in the county. Each of the buffered potential targets was then exam- ined to determine how many child sex offenders lived within them. In addition, the number and percentage of child sex offenders living in the buffer zones were compared to the number and percentage of non-child sex offenders living in those buffer zones. The concept of a 1,000-foot buffer zone came from examining federal regu- lations and the Arkansas code, which prohibit certain activities near schools. For example, drug-free zones are established by 21 U.S.C. § 860, which enhances penalties for distributing illicit substances within 1,000 feet of any school, uni- versity, or playground (park). Arkansas Code 5-64-411 provides for a 1,000- foot drug-free zone around schools. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. § 921 defines a “school zone” as any place “in or on the ground of a public, parochial, or private 22 • Justice Research and Policy school or within a distance of 1,000 feet of a public, parochial, or private school.” In the third analysis, Spatial Analyst, a tool that measures the physical dis- tance between objects and how densely they are concentrated, was used to examine the relationship between each of the target types and where the offenders lived. *Study Limitations As with any research, this study has certain limitations. The primary limitation is the assumption that child sex offenders are choosing to live within close proxim- ity to potential targets. The premise going into this research was that if there was a predominance of child sex offenders living close to potential victims, at least part of the reason was to take advantage of these potential targets. This initial premise was supported by our findings, but as with any research, rejection of the null hypothesis (that there is no relationship between where child sex offenders live and the geographic location of potential targets) does not imply absolute acceptance of the research hypothesis (that sex offenders choose to reside in close proximity to potential targets). Alternative hypotheses are also possible. For ex- ample, as discussed below, sex offenders could be residing in these areas because of a social or political inability to exclude undesirable residents from living there; or sex offenders may choose to live in these areas because they are more afford- able. It may be more accurate to say, then, that there is a relationship between where child sex offenders live and the geographical location of potential targets irrespective of choice. Since most people do make choices about where they live, however, it is also plausible (and is supported by the co-location of child sex offenders and targets in this research) that sex offenders are choosing to live in close proximity to potential victims. A second and related limitation of the study is that it does not make com- parisons with residents in these areas who had not been convicted of a sex of- fense. As one reviewer suggested, information should have been collected on the relative similarity of age, race, and income between sex offenders and other resi- dents. While this kind of information would have been helpful, we do not believe that it substantially changes the conclusions herein. First of all, this kind of infor- mation was not available for the sex offenders in this research (and neither was information we desired, such as whether the offender had children or not). Addi- tionally, this information is not particularly accurate for the general population. The 2000 Census was not out at the time of this research, and we believed that 1990 Census data were probably inaccurate given the changes in the characteris- tics of neighborhoods. Finally, we argue that it makes little difference to policymakers whether sex offenders are overrepresented on mean income in an Sex offenders and victims • 23 area or whether one area has 1.7 sex offenders per 1,000 population while another has 1.5 sex offenders per 1,000 population. We believe that what is important is how many child sex offenders are living within 1,000 feet of a potential target. *Analyses The analyses for this project were broken into three parts: The first was an ex- amination of the point locations of child sex offenders and targets within the county, the second was an examination of buffer areas around the potential tar- gets as they related to where sex offenders lived, and the third was an examina- tion of the spatial density of the relationship between the child sex offenders and potential targets. Point Location Analysis Although the map in Figure 1 is quite crowded, it is easy to see the substan- tial overlap between where child sex offenders live and the locations of potential targets. Obviously, a more detailed analysis was needed. Through a visual ex- *Figure 1 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Overview (Portion enlarged to show detail) 0816Miles N Daycares Offenders Parks Schools 24 • Justice Research and Policy amination of the maps, we identified 36 areas where a number of child sex offenders were living in close proximity to one or more potential targets—areas where there appeared to be a higher concentration of child sex offenders, or where the physical relationship between child sex offenders and targets seemed to be abnormal. Figure 2 details one of the 36 areas identified as containing a concentration of child sex offenders in close proximity to potential targets. The map has two particular areas of interest. The first is in the upper right-hand corner, where there were twelve child sex offenders living within a few blocks of four day cares and a park. Also interesting is the area in the map’s center, which shows a close interspersing of sex offenders around a number of day cares, schools, and parks. In one of these cases, three child sex offenders lived within five blocks of a school, day care, and park, and one of the sex offenders lived on the same block as the park and only two blocks from a school and day care. The three sex offenders essentially surrounded one day care, and one of the sex offenders lived on the same block as a day care. Only a short distance away, three other child sex of- fenders surrounded another day care, and in another place, one child sex of- fender lived one block away and between a school and a day care. N 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Daycares Offenders Parks Schools *Figure 2 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Cluster of Offenders and Targets Sex offenders and victims • 25 Each of the other areas within the 36 identified as concentrations exhibited patterns similar to that shown in Figure 2. Some areas had a greater concentra- tion of child sex offenders around day cares and schools than the area shown in Figure 2, but the latter area was used as an example because the multiple sites within the concentration area demonstrated the likelihood of several concentra- tions even within a single area. Figure 3 also illustrates the co-location of child sex offenders and targets. In both areas the sex offenders were living in very close proximity to the day care. What is particularly interesting, though, is that each day care was in a relatively rural area, not particularly close to anything, and yet a child sex offender (or in one case two child sex offenders) lived in very close proximity. What we determined from analyzing the 36 concentration areas is that in some areas of the city, a large number of child sex offenders lived in close prox- imity to concentrations of children that may serve as potential targets. The point location relationship between child sex offenders and potential targets supports the argument that at least some child sex offenders are selecting where they live based on potential targets in the area. This was particularly clear when the maps and relationships were examined in detail, especially when the child sex of- fender and target were not co-located with other people. What must be avoided, however, is assigning a purposeful nexus between offenders and targets simply Daycare Offenders 0400Feet Offenders Daycare 600 400 200 0 Feet *Figure 3 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Proximity of Offender and Daycare Area 1 Area 2 26 • Justice Research and Policy because of their co-location. This relationship may exist because these areas are more accepting of others, or because the residents do not have the social or po- litical power to prevent sex offenders from living in the area. When these condi- tions exist in areas where there are a number of potential targets, however, the likelihood of child sex offenders choosing to live close to potential targets ap- pears to increase. Visual examination of a map does not represent a complete analysis of this relationship, however. A second analysis was undertaken, there- fore, that used buffer zones around the potential targets to see how many child sex offenders were living in those areas. Buffer Areas By counting the number of sex offenders living in the 1,000-foot buffer zones around potential targets, an estimation of the relationship between the sex of- fenders and targets could be made. We found that just under half (48%; 82 of 170) of all sex offenders in the data set who had children as victims lived within the buffer zone of one of the potential targets, and over one third lived within the buffer zones of multiple targets. An example of the analysis and results of buffering potential targets is shown in Figure 4. Here, several of the schools and day cares did not have a child sex offender living within the buffer zone. Two areas are illustrative, however. The first is in the center left of the map, where two day cares and two schools heavily 0 0.5 1 Miles Daycare Schools Offenders N *Figure 4 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Offenders and Buffer Areas Sex offenders and victims • 27 overlapped one another. Also in this buffered area was a child sex offender who lived immediately adjacent to a day care. A more explicit example of child sex offenders living in close proximity to potential targets is the area just to the right. Four day cares and a school were all buffered together. There were also four child sex offenders living within this buffered area, and four more who lived just outside the buffered area. As a part of this analysis, sex offenders in the data set who had children as victims were mapped against sex offenders in the data set who did not have children as victims to determine if there were differences in their residence pat- terns. As discussed above, 48% of all child sex offenders lived within the buffer zones. In comparison, 26% (19) of non-child sex offenders lived in these buffer zones. This lends support to the argument that child sex offenders are choosing to live in areas where there are concentrations of potential victims. At the very least, this finding is troubling for the criminal justice system and families alike: that there is a larger percentage and number of sex offenders who had children as victims living in close proximity to concentrations of children than there are sex offenders who did not have children as victims. The analysis of 1,000-foot buffers around potential targets provides some quantification for the argument that child sex offenders are choosing to live in areas where they have access to potential victims. In this analysis, almost half of all child sex offenders lived within 1,000 feet of a day care, school, or park, and a substantially higher percentage of child sex offenders were living in these areas than offenders who did not have children as their victims. Certainly some of the variation can be attributed to the distribution of residential areas within the county. This is not a total explanation, however, and the assumption must be made that some of the child sex offenders were choosing to live in areas where they had access to potential victims. This relationship was further explored in the final analysis of this research, which examined the spatial density of child sex offend- ers and targets. Spatial Relationships In the third and final analysis, Spatial Analyst was used to examine the rela- tionship between each of the target types and where the offenders lived. Although this is a qualitative measure, it does provide additional evidence that can be used to evaluate the assumptions of this research. As shown in Figure 5, there was a substantial relationship between where the child sex offenders lived and the locations of schools. The light area through- out this graph indicates a high co-location, with at least one sex offender living within one mile of at least one potential target throughout the area. There were a few areas with a lesser amount of overlap between the two, as indicated by the 28 • Justice Research and Policy darker spots in the map. Only a small portion of the graph was darker, however, which is the least amount of overlap, where sex offenders live more than two miles from a potential target. Contrast this with the map showing the relationship between offenders and parks (Figure 6), where there is obviously a lesser amount of co-location. Part of the reason for this pattern is that there were fewer parks and they were more spread out (73 schools were geocoded in the analysis, and only 41 parks). Much of the difference, however, is that there did not seem to be the attraction between child sex offenders and parks that there was with schools (discussed above) and day cares (which follows). The relationship between day cares and child sex offenders is similar to the relationship between schools and child sex offenders (see Figure 7). There was not as large an area that had the highest co-location between child sex offenders and potential targets; however, as Figure 7 shows, there was a fairly substantial relationship between these two, especially given that there were no darker areas (showing a more dispersed relationship) within the area of highest concentra- tion. This supports the argument that density is not just related to high residen- tial areas, and, conversely, that the relationship between child sex offenders and potential targets is not solely based on the density of the targets. *Figure 5 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Spatial Density, Offenders to Schools 0816 Miles 0 - 2,499 Feet 2,500 - 4,999 Feet 5,000 - 7,499 Feet 7,500 - 9,999 Feet 10,000 Plus Feet N Sex offenders and victims • 29 *Figure 6 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Spatial Density, Offenders to Parks *Figure 7 Pulaski County Sex Offenders - Spatial Density, Offenders to Daycares 10,000 Plus Feet 2,500 4,999 Feet 0 - 2,499 Feet N 04812 Miles N 0714 Miles 0 - 2,499 Feet 2,500 - 4,999 Feet 5,000 - 7,499 Feet 7,500 - 9,999 Feet 10,000 Plus Feet 30 • Justice Research and Policy *Discussion Routine activities theory proposes that crime occurs when motivated offenders, potential victims, and the absence of capable guardians merge in time and space. Our analysis of sex offenders and their potential targets in one Arkansas county showed a substantial overlap between those convicted of sex offenses (motivated offenders) and children who may be likely targets (potential victims). Some of the reason for this overlap is no doubt the purposeful actions of the offenders. Our results can be explained using the analogy of a regression model. Certainly not all child sex offenders purposefully move to be close to a school or day care. Part of the variation in where child sex offenders choose to live, therefore, is explained in terms of market conditions, in the inability or apathy on the part of the neighborhood to keep the sex offenders out, and for other reasons. Part of the variation in the residency patterns of child sex offenders, though, is no doubt attributable to them putting themselves in close proximity to potential targets, perhaps in hopes that their routine activities will overlap with the routine activi- ties of potential victims. Like the work of Cohen and Felson (1979), this research was particularly concerned with direct-contact predatory violations. A primary reason for the seriousness of sex crimes is that they represent physical attacks on the person. If, as Cohen and Felson (p. 595) argue, “target suitability influences the occurrence of direct-contact predatory violations,” then the location of potential targets and the proximity of potential offenders is of interest. Any changes in the environ- ment or activities of criminal behavior that can control predatory behavior should certainly be a concern for policymakers. Cohen and Felson (1979) also argue that increases in one of the three ele- ments that change routine activity patterns can increase the crime rate, regard- less of changes in the other elements. Furthermore, an increase may have a mul- tiplicative rather than an additive affect—that is, a small increase in the number of offenders who are seeking to target potential victims may produce an increase in the crime rate much larger than the increase in the number of offenders. If that is true, then a change in the number of child sex offenders living in close proxim- ity to potential targets deserves attention. In this research, we have attempted to establish that two of the elements of routine activities theory may be present in direct-contact predatory violations of child sex offenders. We argue that some child sex offenders will seek out suitable targets. When they find areas with one or more day cares, schools, or parks, they may seek residence there. A high number of child sex offenders living in a par- ticular area may signal that they are purposefully living there because of easy access to potential victims. Sex offenders and victims • 31 What remains to be addressed is the third element of routine activities: the presence of capable guardians. Routine activities theory states that the presence of capable guardians should reduce the likelihood of direct-contact predatory viola- tions. According to the theory, the actions taken by police officers and others to make day cares, schools, and residents of these areas aware of the presence of child sex offenders should increase the number of and/or effectiveness of capable guard- ians. The relationship between the presence of police and their notification of residents and inhabitants of an area was not explored by this research. It can be argued, however, that their actions could have a important impact on the poten- tial level of sex offenses in an area. The police cannot serve as the sole source of capable guardianship in controlling sex offenses, however. They are too few in num- ber, and they cannot always be present when motivated offenders and potential victims converge in time and space. What the police can do, however, is to make as many people in the neighborhood (especially those who are guardians of po- tential victims or may be potential victims themselves) aware of the presence of a potentially motivated offender. This can be done by the very actions that are being taken—registering sex offenders and notifying the community of their pres- ence. If it can be determined that these actions are having the desired effect, then the tripartite relationship central to routine activities theory is supported. *Conclusion The goal of this research was to examine the possibility of a link between where child sex offenders choose to live and potential targets. We believe that we have found this link. Our findings support the argument that there is a definite con- vergence of potentially motivated child sex offenders living in close proximity to concentrations of potential victims. The policy implications of this research directly relate to the resources and efforts of sex offender registration and notification. It is not possible for govern- ments or other entities to control the locations of potential targets (day cares, schools, and parks). Furthermore, despite governmental efforts, there is no evi- dence that attempts to limit where sex offenders live have been successful. Rou- tine activities theory argues that crime increases when there is a convergence of motivated offenders and potential targets in the absence of capable guardians. This research has shown that there appears to be a convergence of offenders and potential targets in the county we studied. Even if the argument that child sex offenders are choosing to live in these areas because of potential targets is re- jected, the fact remains that there is a substantial number of child sex offenders living in close proximity to potential targets. 32 • Justice Research and Policy Since an increase in one or both of these polulations may occur, thus poten- tially increasing the rate of sex offenses multiplicatively, and since it appears that neither of these elements can be controlled, the focus must shift to the third element of routine activities theory—capable guardians. In the present instance, this means that governments and the police must work to increase the effective- ness of sex offender registration and notification. Furthermore, it appears im- perative that more attention be given to community notification of the presence of sex offenders. In this way, all who live and work in these areas have the poten- tial to become capable guardians. As stated above, the police alone cannot pro- vide effective guardianship against sex offenses because they cannot be in all places at all times. It is important, then, that the community be enlisted to assist them. Additionally, routine activities theory argues that the more capable guardians there are, the greater the corresponding decrease in potential crime should be. If notification and subsequent community involvement is undertaken effectively, there may even be the multiplicative reduction in the rate of sex offenses, which has been the goal of sex offender registration and notification from its inception. A crucial next step in this line of research, then, is to further examine these findings in relation to potential guardians. Research should examine whether proper notification concerning sex offenders increases the effectiveness of ca- pable guardians in neighborhoods, i.e., whether neighborhoods that are aware of child sex offenders use that knowledge to increase guardianship at times and places where the convergence of motivated offenders and potential victims is likely to occur. If it is true that an increase in capable guardians can reduce crime, and if it is true that community notification concerning sex offenders can in- crease the number of guardians, then two substantial findings could result. First, routine activities theory would be given its strongest support to date, and sec- ond, and perhaps more importantly, the effectiveness of community notification of sex offenders, which has only been supported through belief and opinion to this point, could be validated. Sex offenders and victims • 33 *References Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A rou- tine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608. Colton, M., & Vanstone, M. (1996). Betrayal of trust: Sexual abuse by men who work with children–in their own words. London: Free Association Books. Crewdson, J. (1988). By silence betrayed: Sexual abuse of children in America. Boston: Little, Brown. Felson, M. (1987). Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology, 25, 911–931. Finkelhor, D., Williams, L. M., & Burns, N. (1988). Nursery crimes: Sexual abuse in day care. Sage: London. Goldstein, S. L. (1987). The sexual exploitation of children: Practical guide to assessment, investigation and intervention. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Hillman, D., & Solek-Tefft, J. (1988). Spiders and flies: Help for parents and teachers of sexually abused children. Lexington: Lexington Books. Kelley, S. J., Brant, R., & Waterman, J. (1993). Sexual abuse of children in day care centers. Child Abuse and Neglect 17, 71–87. Lanning, K. V. (1992). Child molesters: A behavioral analysis. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. McGrath, R. J. (1991). Sex offender risk assessment and disposition planning: A review of empirical and clinical findings. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 328–348. Murray, J. B. (2000). Psychological profile of pedophiles and child molesters. The Journal of Psychology, 134, 211–224. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (1996). Execu- tive summary of the third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect. Online report: http://www.calib.com/ncccanch/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm. Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (1991). Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots.” Criminol- ogy, 29, 725–753. Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime. Criminology, 27, 27–55. Smith, W. R., Frazee, S. G., & Davison, E. L. (2000). Furthering the integration of routine activity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38, 489-523. 34 • Justice Research and Policy 187394v1 ORDINANCE NO , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 70 OF THE ORONO CITY CODE CREATING ARTICLE VII REGARDING SEXUAL PREDATOR RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 70 of the Orono City Code is hereby amended to add Article VII to read as follows: ARTICLE VII – SEXUAL PREDATOR RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS Sec. 70-277. - Findings and Intent. (a) Repeat sexual offenders, sexual offenders who use physical violence, and sexual offenders who prey on children are sexual predators who present an extreme threat to the public safety. Sexual offenders are extremely likely to use physical violence and to repeat their offenses. Most sexual offenders commit many offenses, have many more victims than are ever reported, and are prosecuted for only a fraction of their crimes. This makes the cost of sexual offender victimization to society at large, while incalculable, clearly exorbitant. (b) It is the intent of this chapter to serve the city's compelling interest to promote, protect and improve the health, safety and welfare of its citizens by establishing areas around locations where children regularly congregate in concentrated numbers, wherein certain sexual predators are prohibited from establishing temporary or permanent residence. Sec. 70-278. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Day Care Center – A facility licensed by the State of Minnesota in which care, supervision and training for individuals under the age of 18 is provided for part of a 24-hour period. Designated Offender – Any person who has been categorized as a Level III predatory offender under Minnesota Statutes Section 244.052, a successor statute, or a similar statute from another state. Park or Playground – Any land, including improvements, operated by the city for the use by the general public as a recreational area. Council Exhibit F 187394v1 Permanent Residence – A place where a person abides, lodges or resides for 14 or more consecutive days. School – Any public or non-public educational institution that offers educational instruction to individuals under the age of 18. Temporary Residence – A place, other than a person’s permanent residence, where a person abides, lodges, or resides for a period of 14 or more days in the aggregate during any calendar year or four or more consecutive or non-consecutive days during any month. Sec. 70-279. - Residency Prohibition; Penalties; Exception. (a) Residency Prohibition. (1) It is unlawful for any designated offender to establish a permanent residence or temporary residence within 2,000 feet of any school, day care center, park or playground. (2) For purposes of determining the minimum distance separation, the requirement shall be measured by following a straight line from the outer property line of the permanent residence or temporary residence of the designated offender to the nearest outer property line of a school, day care center, park or playground. (b) Penalties. A person who violates this section shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by confinement for a term not exceeding 90 days, or by both such fine and confinement. Each day a person maintains a residence in violation of this chapter constitutes a separate violation. (c) Exceptions. A designated offender residing within a prohibited area as described in subsection (a) does not commit a violation of this section if any of the following apply: (1) The designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166, § 243.167, or successor statute, prior to the effective date of this section. (2) The designated offender was a minor when he or she committed the offense and was not convicted as an adult. (3) The designated offender is a minor. (4) The school, day care center, park or playground within 2,000 feet of the designa ted offender’s permanent residence or temporary residence was designated or opened after the designated offender established the permanent residence or temporary residence and reported and registered the residence pursuant to M.S. § 243.166 or § 243.167, or successor statute. (5) The residence is also the primary residence of the designated offender’s parents, grandparents, siblings, spouse or adult children. (6) The residence is a property owned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. 187394v1 SECTION 2. This Ordinance is effective immediately upon enactment. ADOPTED this ___ day of ___________, 2016, by the Orono City Council. CITY OF ORONO _________________________ Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator Title City Clerk Item Description: Gambling Permit The Orono Football Boosters has applied for a gambling activity permit to be held on during the 2016 home football games. The Orono Police Department has completed a background check and all required documents have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the gambling application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the Orono Football Boosters gambling permit resolution. Page 1 of 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING APPLICATION FOR EXEMPT PERMIT OF THE ORONO FOOTBALL BOOSTERS FOR A GAMBLING ACTIVITY WHEREAS, the Orono Football Boosters have submitted an application to conduct lawful gambling activities; and WHEREAS, the Orono Football Boosters propose to conduct home game gambling activity (raffle) as part of its fundraising activities at the Orono High School; and WHEREAS, the Orono Football Boosters are required to obtain approval of the gambling activity from the city in which the activity will occur; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has no objection to the conduct of lawful gambling by the applicant, in accordance with law, at the designated location, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby approve the application of the Orono Football Boosters to conduct a gambling activity (raffle) at the Orono High School, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road N., during the 2016 Orono Football home games. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Orono City Council this 22nd day of August, 2016. ATTEST: _______________________________ ____________________________________ Diane, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator Title City Clerk Item Description: Annual Gun Club The Park Gun Club has applied for their annual gun club license effective September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017. The applicant has submitted the required licensing information and Staff recommends approval based on no complaints have been received in the past years. A calendar of events for the 2016-17 license is attached. The Orono Police Department has completed a background check and all required documents have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the gambling application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the Park Gun Club annual permit. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 22, 2016 ITEM NO: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator Title City Clerk Item Description: Massage Therapy License The completed Massage Therapy License application for Ngoc Nhu Tran is attached. All required paperwork and background checks have been received and completed. This is a new application and Staff recommends approval. 1. Ngoc Nhu Tran 2377 Shadywood Road Orono, MN 55356 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the Massage Therapy License for Ngoc Nhu Tran. City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108490 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 17.30 Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108598 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 14.89 Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108740 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 14.38 Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108750 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 19.02 Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108882 101-42110-401 copier lease 8/10 to 9/09 Police Department 99.29 Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108882 101-41900-401 copier lease 8/10 to 9/09 Central Services 99.29 Advanced Imaging Solutions 08/22/2016 105751 108882 602-49450-401 copier lease 8/10 to 9/09 Sewer 49.64 Total 105751:313.81 ALLAN ENGLEMAN 08/22/2016 105695 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 28.50 Total 105695:28.50 ALMSTED, DAVID 08/22/2016 105829 81716 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-01428 10,000.00 Total 105829:10,000.00 ANN NETTLES 08/22/2016 105696 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105696:19.00 APACHE GROUP 08/22/2016 105752 164689 101-41900-223 towels, tissue Central Services 781.20 Total 105752:781.20 BARBARA ARGABRIGHT 08/22/2016 105697 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105697:99.75 BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPME 08/22/2016 105753 10492 101-42110-437 training Sonnek Police Department 285.00 Total 105753:285.00 BERTELSON ONE SOURCE 08/22/2016 105754 217774-1 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 83.74 BERTELSON ONE SOURCE 08/22/2016 105754 219287-1 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 114.13 BERTELSON ONE SOURCE 08/22/2016 105754 425819-1 101-41410-221 office supplies elections Elections 87.96 Total 105754:285.83 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 08/22/2016 105755 81216 101-15998 Cobra 5,391.50 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 08/22/2016 105755 81216 101-21706 Health insurance 42,677.50 Total 105755:48,069.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193166 602-16500 2015 Sewer projects 519.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193167 225-45200-590 Brown Road Trail 609.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193168 101-43280-304 13-3626 Pine View Special Services 228.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193169 101-43280-304 16-3807 Orono Preserve Special Services 336.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193170 101-43280-304 15-3739 Mooney Lake Reserve Special Services 328.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193171 101-43280-304 15-3716 3850 Watertown Rd Special Services 104.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193172 402-48057-304 Fox Street feasibility study Fox Street 1,989.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193173 602-49450-307 GIS-sewer Sewer 375.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193173 101-43170-304 mapping Engineering 1,155.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193174 437-48965-304 2016 Mill and Overlay project Brown Road Trail 366.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193175 101-43170-304 misc engineering Engineering 911.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193175 651-49910-304 drainage issues Storm Water 52.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193175 651-49910-304 Pond assessments Storm Water 30.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193176 601-16500 2016 North Well project 15,762.14 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193177 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Addn Special Services 1,348.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193178 602-16500 LS #2 improvements 3,260.57 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/22/2016 105756 193179 402-48056-304 Watertown Rd phase 2 Watertown Road 45,214.50 Total 105756:72,587.21 BONNIE K KASTER 08/22/2016 105698 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 20.00 Total 105698:20.00 BURWELL, BARBARA 08/22/2016 105699 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105699:19.00 CALDWELL, EDWARD 08/22/2016 105757 81616 999-10015 Utiltiy refund 166.43 Total 105757:166.43 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 101-43290-800 litigation Special Projects-Contingencies 496.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 data practice requests Law/Legal Services 263.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 602-49450-307 SP utility agreement Sewer 85.25 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 601-49400-307 SP utility agreement Water 85.25 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 Council communications Law/Legal Services 279.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 Land registration Law/Legal Services 459.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 prosecution services contract Law/Legal Services 356.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 General legal review Law/Legal Services 1,002.02 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-004G1 101-42110-307 Police Matters Police Department 170.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-115G7 101-41600-308 Code enforcement/ordinance violations Law/Legal Services 294.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-150G6 101-43290-800 litigation Special Projects-Contingencies 145.98 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-201G5 101-41600-307 misc recordings Law/Legal Services 722.76 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-3258G 406-48706-307 1735 Fagerness hazardous bldg 31.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-360G1 602-16500 Land purchase 49.66 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-363G3 101-43280-307 15-3740 540 Old Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 50.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-367G6 101-43280-307 15-3749 185/225 Old Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 50.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-372G4 101-43280-307 15-3763 200/350 Stubbs Bay Rd Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-416G4 406-48706-307 3907 Cherry Ave hazardous bldg 455.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-417G3 101-43280-307 16-3822 3245 Wayzata Blvd Special Services 200.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-426G2 101-43280-307 16-3842 425/595 Old Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 982.90 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-427G1 101-43280-307 16-3834 220 Northgate Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-428G1 101-43280-307 16-3836 3585 Sixth Ave Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-429G1 101-43280-307 16-3838 215 Hollander Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-430G1 101-43280-307 16-3833 1025 Spring Hill Rd Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-431G1 101-43280-307 16-3835 1991 Fagerness Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-432G1 101-43280-307 16-3837 570 Orono Orchard Rd Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-433G1 101-43280-307 16-3849 570 Big Island Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-434G1 101-43280-307 2016-00769 Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-800G1 101-42400-307 Staff meetings 7/16 Building & Zoning 1,069.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-801G1 101-41600-307 Council meetings 7/16 Law/Legal Services 1,178.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-802G1 101-42400-307 B&Z assistance Building & Zoning 418.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/22/2016 105758 2717-803G1 101-41600-307 Ordinances Law/Legal Services 139.50 Total 105758:9,785.32 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/22/2016 105759 CF80416 406-48720-226 aimpoint optic mounts-Bobro Engineering 569.82 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/22/2016 105759 JL80916 101-41410-489 food for elections-Jimmy John's Elections 417.95 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/22/2016 105759 SO80516 101-41900-403 air filters-Filter Warehouse Central Services 209.90 Total 105759:1,197.67 CARGILL SALT 08/22/2016 105760 2902915574 601-49400-216 salt Water 1,676.92 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105760:1,676.92 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 08/22/2016 105761 14012 101-42110-402 #242 oil change Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 08/22/2016 105761 14042 101-42110-402 #233 oil change Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 08/22/2016 105761 14043 101-42110-402 #239 oil leak Police Department 65.39 Total 105761:150.87 CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 08/22/2016 105762 1314123 602-49450-301 2015 Audit services Sewer 7,000.00 CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 08/22/2016 105762 1314123 603-49500-301 2015 Audit services 975.00 CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 08/22/2016 105762 1314123 651-49910-301 2015 Audit services Storm Water 3,500.00 Total 105762:11,475.00 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 08/22/2016 105763 160731 101-43000-224 patching supplies Public Works Department 726.71 Total 105763:726.71 CREAR, DAN 08/22/2016 105830 81816 602-16500 Easement 1960 Shoreline 8,000.00 Total 105830:8,000.00 CROSSROADS ANIMAL SHELT 08/22/2016 105764 70316 101-42110-317 animal control Police Department 84.81 Total 105764:84.81 CULLIGAN 08/22/2016 105765 73116 101-45210-403 softener exchange service Golf Course 118.43 Total 105765:118.43 DANIELSON, NANCY 08/22/2016 105700 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105700:99.75 DARLENE DURKIN 08/22/2016 105701 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 90.25 Total 105701:90.25 DELTA DENTAL 08/22/2016 105837 81516 101-15998 003722072 Sept Cobra 484.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount DELTA DENTAL 08/22/2016 105837 81516 101-21709 003722072 Sept Dental 2,090.50 Total 105837:2,574.50 DENISE AASEN 08/22/2016 105702 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 14.25 Total 105702:14.25 DIANE TIEGS 08/22/2016 105766 80916 101-41410-331 mileage reimb Elections 19.66 DIANE TIEGS 08/22/2016 105766 80916 101-41410-439 reimb food for elections Elections 9.38 Total 105766:29.04 DON KIELLEY 08/22/2016 105703 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 14.25 Total 105703:14.25 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 08/22/2016 105767 385503 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 87.36 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 08/22/2016 105767 385514 101-41900-352 2016 CIPP project Central Services 120.12 Total 105767:207.48 EDWARDS, NANCY 08/22/2016 105704 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 33.25 Total 105704:33.25 ELEANOR L FERRIL 08/22/2016 105705 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 33.25 Total 105705:33.25 ESS BROTHERS & SONS 08/22/2016 105768 4295 602-49450-406 Cty 19 Sewer 2,323.00 Total 105768:2,323.00 FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO 08/22/2016 105769 20255 602-49450-402 #714 repairs Sewer 385.30 Total 105769:385.30 FREEMAN, LEONARD 08/22/2016 105706 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 38.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105706:38.00 FREIVALDS, LINDA 08/22/2016 105707 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105707:99.75 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006821527 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006821527 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 31.48 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006821527 601-49400-226 uniform Water 15.75 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006821527 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 15.74 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006832872 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006832872 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 31.09 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006832872 601-49400-226 uniform Water 15.54 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006832872 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 15.55 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006835242 101-41900-404 council chambers mats Central Services 10.80 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006835243 101-41900-404 city hall mats Central Services 21.92 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006844180 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006844180 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 28.97 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006844180 601-49400-226 uniform Water 14.49 G & K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105770 1006844180 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 14.48 Total 105770:234.95 GARLOCK, RUTH 08/22/2016 105708 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 90.25 Total 105708:90.25 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/22/2016 105771 328472 602-49450-402 #711 parts Sewer 8.49 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/22/2016 105771 328484 101-43000-222 filters Public Works Department 58.85 Total 105771:67.34 GONYEA HOMES 08/22/2016 105831 81716 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00513 10,000.00 Total 105831:10,000.00 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 08/22/2016 105772 6070622 601-49400-489 locates Water 245.03 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 08/22/2016 105772 6070622 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 245.02 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105772:490.05 GRAFIX SHOPPE 08/22/2016 105773 109036 101-42110-550 speed trailer graphics Police Department 152.61 GRAFIX SHOPPE 08/22/2016 105773 109223 101-42110-402 #240 repairs Police Department 78.31 Total 105773:230.92 GRANICUS INC.08/22/2016 105774 78851 614-49840-329 web service Sept-Nov Cable Franchise 1,647.00 Total 105774:1,647.00 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA 08/22/2016 105775 3600200122 101-45210-092 beverages for concessions Golf Course 162.24 Total 105775:162.24 GREENE, NORMA 08/22/2016 105709 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 28.50 Total 105709:28.50 GRUNDEEN, JOY 08/22/2016 105710 80916 101-41410-104 Primary election Elections 95.00 Total 105710:95.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNE 08/22/2016 105776 10-006773 231-35610 30% proceeds from sale of forfeit 16.50 Total 105776:16.50 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 08/22/2016 105777 1000079695 101-41900-319 network support Central Services 50.00 Total 105777:50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 08/22/2016 105778 1000079603 101-42110-414 radio lease and MDC billing Police Department 2,009.53 Total 105778:2,009.53 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 08/22/2016 105779 1000079460 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 1,519.85 Total 105779:1,519.85 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount HOLLY S ROCCA 08/22/2016 105711 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105711:19.00 Jacqueline Sherman 08/22/2016 105712 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105712:19.00 JANETTE WEAVER 08/22/2016 105713 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105713:19.00 JENNIFER EASTMAN 08/22/2016 105714 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 95.00 Total 105714:95.00 JENNIFER ROBERTSON 08/22/2016 105715 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 175.75 Total 105715:175.75 JESSICA WERDER 08/22/2016 105780 80316 101-42110-437 mileage reimb training Police Department 69.12 JESSICA WERDER 08/22/2016 105780 80316 101-42110-437 reimb meal for training Police Department 49.97 Total 105780:119.09 JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL 08/22/2016 105781 2528271 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 202.00 Total 105781:202.00 John Bendt 08/22/2016 105716 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 14.25 Total 105716:14.25 JOTS COMPUTER SERVICES IN 08/22/2016 105782 25253 101-42110-401 IT support Police Department 75.00 Total 105782:75.00 JUDY CARLSON 08/22/2016 105717 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 95.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105717:95.00 KARLTON F GEMPLER 08/22/2016 105718 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 220.00 KARLTON F GEMPLER 08/22/2016 105718 80916 101-41410-331 primary election mileage Elections 8.10 KARLTON F GEMPLER 08/22/2016 105718 80916 101-41410-489 cell phone use Elections 10.00 Total 105718:238.10 Kati Mohammad Zedeh 08/22/2016 105719 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 33.25 Total 105719:33.25 KEEGAN, SANDRA 08/22/2016 105720 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 200.00 KEEGAN, SANDRA 08/22/2016 105720 80916 101-41410-331 mileage reimb Elections 7.02 KEEGAN, SANDRA 08/22/2016 105720 80916 101-41410-489 phone reimb Elections 10.00 Total 105720:217.02 KELLY HERZOG 08/22/2016 105783 80416 101-42110-437 mileage reimb training Police Department 42.34 KELLY HERZOG 08/22/2016 105783 80416 101-42110-437 meal reimb training Police Department 41.58 Total 105783:83.92 KENNETH N POTTS PA 08/22/2016 105784 80116 101-41600-306 prosecution services Jul Law/Legal Services 3,000.00 KENNETH N POTTS PA 08/22/2016 105784 80816 231-45650-307 Forfeit 2009 Cadillac 5,478.30 Total 105784:8,478.30 KEVIN GWASH 08/22/2016 105721 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 14.25 Total 105721:14.25 LAUREEN DARLING 08/22/2016 105722 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 33.25 Total 105722:33.25 LINDGREN, SANDRA 08/22/2016 105723 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 205.00 LINDGREN, SANDRA 08/22/2016 105723 80916 101-41410-331 mileage reimb Elections 9.18 LINDGREN, SANDRA 08/22/2016 105723 80916 101-41410-489 cell phone reimb Elections 10.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105723:224.18 LINDSAY FREEMAN 08/22/2016 105724 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105724:19.00 LISA FERRIS 08/22/2016 105725 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105725:99.75 LIVINGSTON, LAUREEN 08/22/2016 105785 80416 999-10015 Utility refund 157.80 Total 105785:157.80 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/22/2016 105786 B344509 101-43000-404 filter Public Works Department 34.99 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/22/2016 105786 B346067 602-49450-402 supplies Sewer 29.88 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/22/2016 105786 B346473 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 15.48 Total 105786:80.35 LONGE, BARBARA 08/22/2016 105726 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105726:99.75 LUBE TECH ESI 08/22/2016 105787 806217 101-43000-212 motor oil Public Works Department 1,047.84 Total 105787:1,047.84 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 08/22/2016 105788 682 602-49450-403 repair parts Sewer 577.97 Total 105788:577.97 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 08/22/2016 105789 617939 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 318.82 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 08/22/2016 105789 617940 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,551.99 Total 105789:2,870.81 MARILYN K GEHRMAN 08/22/2016 105727 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 45.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105727:45.00 MARY BAKKEN 08/22/2016 105728 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 19.00 Total 105728:19.00 Mary Ellen Bennett 08/22/2016 105729 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 152.00 Total 105729:152.00 MARY LOU DOHERTY 08/22/2016 105730 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105730:99.75 MCFOA 08/22/2016 105790 70116 101-41300-433 membership D. Tiegs Administration 35.00 Total 105790:35.00 MCINTEE, SHAWN 08/22/2016 105832 81716 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00578 10,000.00 Total 105832:10,000.00 METCALF, EMILY 08/22/2016 105731 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 185.25 Total 105731:185.25 MEYERS OUTDOOR SERVICES 08/22/2016 105791 4405 101-45200-404 July service Parks 2,225.00 Total 105791:2,225.00 MIDWEST TURF AND LANDSCA 08/22/2016 105792 6655 101-42400-319 weed mowing 3225 Lyric Building & Zoning 195.00 Total 105792:195.00 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 08/22/2016 105793 171157910 101-43000-221 acetylene, oxygen Public Works Department 25.11 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 08/22/2016 105793 171157911 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 25.11 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 08/22/2016 105793 171157912 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 22.01 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105793:72.23 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 08/22/2016 105794 47402 101-43000-403 chain saw supplies Public Works Department 70.80 Total 105794:70.80 MOBERG, RICHARD 08/22/2016 105732 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 95.00 Total 105732:95.00 MONA HARMANN 08/22/2016 105733 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 195.00 MONA HARMANN 08/22/2016 105733 80916 101-41410-331 mileage Elections 1.62 MONA HARMANN 08/22/2016 105733 80916 101-41410-489 cell phone reimb Elections 10.00 Total 105733:206.62 MORRIES BODYWORKS 08/22/2016 105795 809393 101-42110-550 tear down #228 Police Department 120.00 Total 105795:120.00 MORRIES BODYWORKS 08/22/2016 105833 838553 703-49960-379 Repair 2015 Charger 4,900.90 Total 105833:4,900.90 MOUND TRUE VALUE 08/22/2016 105796 137052 101-42110-221 supplies Police Department 7.03 MOUND TRUE VALUE 08/22/2016 105796 137174 101-42110-221 supplies Police Department 33.96 MOUND TRUE VALUE 08/22/2016 105796 137298 101-42110-223 kennel supplies Police Department 17.48 Total 105796:58.47 MTI DIST CO 08/22/2016 105797 1083206-00 101-45210-221 irrigation parts Golf Course 178.76 Total 105797:178.76 NANCY BRANTINGHAM 08/22/2016 105734 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 38.00 Total 105734:38.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/22/2016 105798 295520 601-49400-227 supplies Water 7.25 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/22/2016 105798 296158 101-41900-403 supplies Central Services 53.90 Total 105798:61.15 NEWEGG INC 08/22/2016 105834 1202021928 101-41900-221 supplies Central Services 14.99 NEWEGG INC 08/22/2016 105834 1202026099 101-42110-221 fingerprint readers Police Department 28.78 NEWEGG INC 08/22/2016 105834 1202028504 101-41900-221 Laptop battery Central Services 49.99 Total 105834:93.76 NORTHERN LIGHTS DISPLAY 08/22/2016 105799 3209 408-48800-221 Holiday lights 9,020.00 Total 105799:9,020.00 NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 08/22/2016 105800 102858 101-41900-401 Phone system upgrades/maintenance Central Services 462.50 NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 08/22/2016 105800 102858 101-42110-401 Phone system upgrades/maintenance Police Department 462.50 Total 105800:925.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 08/22/2016 105801 73116 101-42110-402 car washes Police Department 167.76 Total 105801:167.76 OBRIGEWITSCH, JANET 08/22/2016 105735 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 210.00 OBRIGEWITSCH, JANET 08/22/2016 105735 80916 101-41410-331 mileage reimb Elections 3.24 Total 105735:213.24 OFFICE DEPOT 08/22/2016 105802 8536467430 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 81.43 Total 105802:81.43 PAMELA GREGORY 08/22/2016 105736 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 152.00 Total 105736:152.00 PAT SPILSETH 08/22/2016 105737 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 95.00 Total 105737:95.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount PENNY SAIKI 08/22/2016 105738 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 99.75 Total 105738:99.75 PIRTEK 08/16/2016 105678 2313526.001 101-45210-221 supplies Golf Course 91.24- Total 105678:91.24- PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 08/22/2016 105803 2792 101-45200-404 French Creek Park weed treatment Parks 735.00 Total 105803:735.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 08/22/2016 105804 32231 602-49450-406 Reparis to LS 6, 16, 10, 26, 28, 29 Sewer 10,583.00 Total 105804:10,583.00 REED VENDING 08/22/2016 105805 80316 101-45210-094 concession supplies Golf Course 225.10 Total 105805:225.10 RES SPECIALTY PYROTECHNI 08/22/2016 105806 80916 101-32180 reimbursement of overpayment-fireworks permit 50.00 Total 105806:50.00 ROGOSHESKE, JUDY 08/22/2016 105739 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 118.75 Total 105739:118.75 SANDIE LARSON 08/22/2016 105740 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 210.00 Total 105740:210.00 SAYLER HEATING & AIR CONDI 08/22/2016 105807 81516 101-32510 reimb permit fees 50.00 Total 105807:50.00 SCOTT BORIS 08/22/2016 105808 72016 101-42110-437 meal reimb training Police Department 45.69 SCOTT BORIS 08/22/2016 105808 72016 101-42110-331 reimb for parking Police Department 4.00 SCOTT BORIS 08/22/2016 105808 72016 101-42110-201 reimb battery charger Police Department 13.95 SCOTT BORIS 08/22/2016 105808 72716 101-42110-437 meal reimb training Police Department 10.73 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105808:74.37 SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 08/22/2016 105809 166 101-41900-352 business cards Central Services 131.00 Total 105809:131.00 SEIFERT, DARYL 08/22/2016 105741 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 156.75 Total 105741:156.75 SELECT ACCOUNT 08/22/2016 105810 80416 101-41900-319 participant fee Central Services 90.00 Total 105810:90.00 SELECT ACCOUNT 08/22/2016 105811 81616 101-21719 FLEX 10.00 Total 105811:10.00 SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 08/22/2016 105812 4728571 101-45210-095 pro shop items Golf Course 164.28 Total 105812:164.28 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 12118148 101-42110-228 ammo Police Department 2,448.90 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1216846 101-42110-226 Schoenherr uniforms Police Department 150.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1217208 101-42110-226 Needham uniforms Police Department 44.50 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1217433 101-42110-226 Hooper uniforms Police Department 19.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1217512 101-42110-228 ammo Police Department 267.75 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1217681 101-42110-226 Siltala uniforms Police Department 59.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1218044 101-42110-226 Vargas uniforms Police Department 189.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1218053 101-42110-226 Wocken uniforms Police Department 144.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1218721 101-42110-550 teardown of 228 Police Department 400.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1218871 101-42110-226 Szczepanik uniforms Police Department 45.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1219117 101-42110-228 ammo Police Department 3,945.60 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1220162 101-42110-402 lens Police Department 34.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1220384 101-42110-226 Sonnek uniforms Police Department 156.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 08/22/2016 105813 1220408 101-42110-226 Sonnek uniforms Police Department 59.99 Total 105813:7,967.68 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 16 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 08/22/2016 105814 80516 101-41110-433 2016 membership assessment Mayor & Council 850.00 Total 105814:850.00 SUELLYN TRITZ 08/22/2016 105742 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 38.00 Total 105742:38.00 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 08/22/2016 105835 81816 101-21710 Life Insurance Sept 1,134.70 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 08/22/2016 105835 81816 101-21714 STD Sept 378.41 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 08/22/2016 105835 81816 101-21713 LTD Sept 1,362.63 Total 105835:2,875.74 SUSAN SPAETH ADAMS 08/22/2016 105743 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 85.50 Total 105743:85.50 THORPE DIST CO 08/22/2016 105815 1120274 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 148.40 Total 105815:148.40 TOM CADY 08/22/2016 105744 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 114.00 Total 105744:114.00 TREECARE 08/22/2016 105816 1020 101-43000-408 tree trimming Public Works Department 787.50 Total 105816:787.50 TRI CITY LAB 08/22/2016 105817 72916 601-49400-489 water testing Water 46.50 Total 105817:46.50 TRI K SERVICES 08/22/2016 105818 6996 101-45210-223 topsoil Golf Course 354.01 Total 105818:354.01 TUCKER, WHITNEY 08/22/2016 105745 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 114.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 17 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105745:114.00 VALLEY PAVING INC 08/22/2016 105819 2 402-48056-590 Watertown Road Phase II Watertown Road 105,311.46 VALLEY PAVING INC 08/22/2016 105819 2 402-20600 Watertown Road Phase II 5,265.58- Total 105819:100,045.88 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/22/2016 105820 9769875249 101-42110-321 8/07 to 9/06 Police Department 1,389.29 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/22/2016 105820 9769875249 101-41900-321 8/07 to 9/06 Central Services 154.23 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/22/2016 105820 9769875249 101-45210-321 8/07 to 9/06 Golf Course 83.55 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/22/2016 105820 9769875249 601-49400-321 8/07 to 9/06 Water 70.02 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/22/2016 105820 9769875249 602-49450-321 8/07 to 9/06 Sewer 70.02 VERIZON WIRELESS 08/22/2016 105820 9769875249 101-43000-415 8/07 to 9/06 Public Works Department 35.01 Total 105820:1,802.12 VONFELDT, JEFF 08/22/2016 105836 81716 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-01032 2,500.00 Total 105836:2,500.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 08/22/2016 105821 20442-2808-603-49500-316 Recycling Aug 8,735.66 Total 105821:8,735.66 WENDY DANKEY 08/22/2016 105746 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 90.25 Total 105746:90.25 WILL, JOCELYN 08/22/2016 105747 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 180.00 WILL, JOCELYN 08/22/2016 105747 80916 101-41410-331 mileage reimb Elections .54 Total 105747:180.54 WOTIPKA, LINDA 08/22/2016 105748 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 118.75 Total 105748:118.75 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 08/22/2016 105822 81016 602-49450-381 7/01 to 8/01 Sewer 29.10 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 08/22/2016 105822 81016 101-43000-381 7/01 to 8/01 Public Works Department 105.28 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 18 Check Issue Dates: 8/9/2016 - 8/22/2016 Aug 18, 2016 09:22AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105822:134.38 YAMAHA GOLF & UTILITY INC 08/22/2016 105823 01-175569 101-45210-415 cart lease Golf Course 330.00 Total 105823:330.00 ZAHL EQUIPMENT 08/22/2016 105824 218945 101-41900-403 floor hoist repairs Central Services 317.50 Total 105824:317.50 ZIESMER, TODD 08/22/2016 105749 80916 101-41410-104 primary election Elections 33.25 Total 105749:33.25 Grand Totals: 373,365.83 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Aug 22, 2016 Item No. 15 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Ron Olson – RJO JML City Administrator’s Title: Finance Director Report Item Description: Claims/Bills The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 105695 to 105837, totaling $373,365.83. Noteworthy payments include: Quality Flow Systems $ 10,583.00 Repairs made to various lift stations as identified by the annual lift station inspection Morries Body Works $ 4,909.90 Repair of a squad damaged in an accident. The other driver’s insurance paid 100% of the repairs. Valley Paving Inc $ 100,045.88 RFP #2 for Watertown Road. Council Approval was on 8/8/16. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented.