HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2012 Council Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE �� 2"2' ��
� COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION
❑ OTHER
Assistive Listening Device available upon request.
Please complete the following information for City records.
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. � ,
` ' ` � ,�-;l'� !�f 1
j� , ��i- .
2. 1 � Il '7..,.,,�. V `� I.�r.aG ' r_'1--z. I �'U�'���� �7/,, G�JI.i�-( .Cp �-'l�. �Y '' �.
� '�l� ' T
' r - I�1 !'1..,��-r'�:1 1
3. ��� ,�. � r''�-C �/� � /)�:c:-( ����a_- f�(L IT\��`/Ii 1��
4. /t:� I:�t�� � t�-:, .�� E��.. ; 1 ,�� c� �� �l, � �`.� ,
� , � �� � ri
� i J �
r � , ��•� �i/�.,�����^i.�-� �
5. t u'\U•�, � �(�1 � 1�Z�� :�C.���`�r.�c�, r?���, L'- _�,,,.,�v' i :� `k �'i� '►; - - s�v..t�
�, ' �' _, . , � . �
6. J,��-��'`'+ L-=� 1�=�t � c;,�'�;�i �� � � 5 i�: '���; ��--��1 �� ���`� � %�,�-,
„ �
-�,,, ,j j �
�� 1
7. � <.,�=ti,�.a,�'t`� `.,�.Lr�1 j�►' '�� (� �1 u;� �\�..�.v����C �
�
s. �-= �(,l �--E C� � I-j,�,. � �i
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
V:\�LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, October 22, 2012, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
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 October 8, 2012
Public Hearing – 7:00 p.m.
3. Certification of Delinquent Utilities – Resolution
4. Certification of Unpaid Service Charges – Resolution
Big Island Park Report – Gabriel Jabbour, Custodian
Planning Commission Comments – Lizz Levang, Representative
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or
take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or
consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking.
Planning Department Report
5. 11-3531 Lori Gherardi on behalf of Wolverton Place LLC, 4550 Wolverton Place – Extension to
File Final Subdivision – Resolution
6. 12-3575 Scott and Melissa Musgjerd, 4156 Highwood Road – Variance – Resolution
7. 12-3578 Dennis and Deborah Krump, 25 Stubbs Bay Road North – Variance – Resolution
Public Works Director/City Engineer’s Report
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
8. Residential Recycling Service Contract
9. Approval of Memo of Understanding
10. Disposal of Bicycles
11. Liquidation of Forfeited Vehicle
12. Police Department Security Upgrades
13. Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, October 22, 2012, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Directions: www.yahoo.com/maps - 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
Notifications
City Attorney's Report
* 14. Licenses & Permits
* 15. Bills
Adjournment
Upcoming Issues and Events
2012
10/22 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:30 p.m.
10/22 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
11/03 – City Offices Open for Absentee Voting, Saturday, 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
11/05 – Absentee Voting at City Hall until 5:00 p.m., Monday
11/06 – GENERAL ELECTION, Tuesday, 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m.
11/07 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m.
11/12 – HOLIDAY, Observance of Veterans Day, Monday
11/13 – Canvassing Board, Tuesday, 6:45 p.m.
11/13 – Council Meeting, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m.
11/19 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Aaron Printup)
11/22 – HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day
11/23 – HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day
11/26 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:30 p.m.
11/26 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 21
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Doug Franchot, Aaron Printup, and David Rahn.
Representing Staff were City Clerk Lin Vee, Finance Director Ron Olson, Assistant City Administrator of
Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, City
Engineer/Public Works Director Jesse Struve, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 9 – 12 and 15-17 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item Nos. 5 and 7 were removed from
the Consent Agenda.
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session
of September 24, 2012, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*3. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of
September 24, 2012, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PRESENTATION
4. HENNEPIN COUNTY UPDATE FROM DISTRICT 6, COMMISSIONER JAN
CALLISON
Commissioner Jan Callison provided the City Council with an update of Hennepin County’s budget for
2013. Property taxes for Hennepin County have remained relatively flat, federal revenue is also relatively
flat, and state revenues are down. Looking towards 2013, there are question marks around Minnesota
relating to revenue and there is a projected budget deficit for the state. At this time Hennepin County
does not see a lot of change in the sources of revenue.
Hennepin County is currently experiencing an increase in the number of families per night in their shelter
system. In 2000, the number of families in shelter facilities every night was fairly high at a little over 250
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 1 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 21
(4. HENNEPIN COUNTY UPDATE FROM DISTRICT 6, COMMISSIONER JAN CALLISON,
Continued)
and through the years Hennepin County has made a concerted effort to reduce that number. In 2012, that
number has decreased to approximately 150 families per night, but that is a slight increase from 2011.
Callison noted that typically Hennepin County sees the peak demand start in October and the shelter
facilities are already beyond capacity.
Hennepin County is seeing the largest growth in medical and food support programs. The monthly
average for individuals on medical programs has experienced a 26 percent increase and a 69 percent
increase in the number of people receiving food stamps. The monthly average calls to child protection
also shows an increase of 28 percent over the past four years and a 13 percent increase over the past four
years in monthly average calls to adult protection. Overall the number of social workers has declined by
14 percent over the past four years.
The Hennepin County Administrator has requested department heads come in with a 2 percent cut in their
programs generally given the tough economic environment. Hennepin County has a long budget process
that it goes through. Hennepin County set its maximum levy on September 11th at a 1 percent tax
increase. On September 5th, the Hennepin County Commissioner proposed a levy increase of .9 percent
for the general operating budget and an overall budget increase of 1.2 percent. The County Assessor
stated the period for values that will be used in 2013 shows overall residential property values declining
while commercial and industrial values have increased slightly. Hennepin County will start its budget
hearing process on Wednesday, the Truth-In-Taxation hearing is scheduled for November 27th, and final
action on the budget will be taken on December 11th. The hearings will be televised and the public is
invited to provide input and ask questions.
Callison noted the Hennepin County Administrator will be retiring at the end of December and that the
County will be starting the process in the near future to fill that vacancy.
In addition, Hennepin County is constructing a new $34 million dispatch facility in Plymouth at the
county workhouse site. Hennepin County has had a policy of not accepting new cities into the dispatch
system and currently dispatches approximately one-third of the calls in Hennepin County. Minneapolis
dispatches for one-third of the calls. In addition, there are currently seven or eight independent Public
Safety Answering Points consisting of Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Edina, Bloomington, Richfield, Golden
Valley, and St. Louis Park, and they account for another one-third of the dispatches. Each property owner
pays a small fee for the county dispatch system. If you live in a city that also has its own dispatch system,
you would also be paying for the city system. Part of what Hennepin County is attempting to do is to
rationalize that system and the costs allocated to each city. Minneapolis is too large for the county to
absorb. A study regarding the costs of the dispatch system has been conducted and the results have been
finalized. Callison indicated she has spoken with representatives from five or six cities and can
understand their concern not to change the system partnership.
Callison noted she also recently received a letter from Mayor McMillan regarding pedestrian and traffic
concerns at Highways 15 and 19 in Orono. Callison indicated she will be following up on that to see
what options are available to address those concerns.
Printup stated he received some positive feedback regarding the Citizens Academy. Printup asked if
Commissioner Callison could provide a brief background on that program.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 2 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 21
(4. HENNEPIN COUNTY UPDATE FROM DISTRICT 6, COMMISSIONER JAN CALLISON,
Continued)
Callison indicated the Citizens Academy is offered twice a year to people located in Hennepin County as
well as individuals from other counties. The academy is designed to allow residents to learn about their
government. The first session was held at Southdale Library. Other sessions will be held in Medina at
the Public Works Facility, at HCMC and at the hospital. There will be six sessions in total and
enrollment is typically 30 to 40 people. Callison stated she attended the beginning session and will also
be attending the final session. A number of county employees also attended the first session.
McMillan asked if Hennepin County is interested in having representatives from the various cities attend
any of the dispatch hearings.
Callison indicated attendance at the various hearings is up to the individual cities. The meetings on the
new dispatch facility and system are not televised. Callison indicated she would be willing to share
whatever information is disseminated if Orono representatives are unable to attend.
McMillan commented it is difficult for Hennepin County to have a perfect system as it relates to taxes and
services. McMillan noted that a portion of Orono’s taxes goes toward social services in Minneapolis
when that type of aid is not really needed in this area, but that Hennepin County financially contributes to
the Water Patrol, which is very essential for Lake Minnetonka but does not benefit downtown
Minneapolis.
Callison stated her concern is if they start increasing the charges to cities that are currently in the
Hennepin County dispatch system, those cities may enter into an agreement with one of the other cities
that also provide that service. Callison indicated she does understand the concerns of the various cities
and that they will attempt to work through those concerns.
LMCD REPORT – ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE
None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – DENISE LESKINEN, REPRESENTATIVE
Leskinen stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 3 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 21
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
5. #12-3562 ARTHUR J. NELSON ESTATE, 400 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH – PLAT OF
WILLOW HILL – 1ST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT AND ROAD
EASEMENTS/COVENANTS
Mattick stated the Nelson family is asking for an extension to the development contract, which is a
standard request. The original developer has placed the property on the market and the new purchaser
had requested the extension.
Also before the City Council are the road easements/covenants. Orono has a history of creating what it
considers to be private roads. The City utilizes a dedication document to establish private roads and also
places certain terms and conditions on the property owners to ensure that the road is properly maintained.
Mattick stated the current procedure is somewhat cumbersome and can create some problems. The City
has a number of publicly controlled roads where the City has delegated maintenance responsibilities to
private individuals. In this particular development, the new purchaser has brought up the fact that if it is
truly a private road, they should be allowed to handle those responsibilities through a homeowners
association. Mattick noted that option has been considered in the past but not really pursued. Staff has
not had a lot of time to discuss the proposal and Orono has a long history of doing it the way they are
currently handling private roads. Mattick noted the new property owner has incorporated certain
conditions into the covenant agreement that the City generally requests but that the document does not
contain any sort of dedication to the public of the roadway.
Mattick stated at a staff level there was a concern since this is a change and there was not a lot of time to
consider the overall advantages and disadvantages of doing it this way. There are other communities who
handle private roads as strictly private. Mattick stated in those cases they have a policy that if the
homeowners association does experience some financial problems or other issues, before the City will
take over maintenance of the road, they require the road be brought up to city standards. Mattick
indicated he understands Orono’s policy on cul-de-sacs has been not to plow those and that there is a
desire on the part of the residents to keep the roads private as well, which is why the City has not changed
its position on this in the past.
Mattick noted this issue came up Friday and that the purchaser would like to close on the property as soon
as possible.
Printup asked if they are looking for something where the homeowners association would be required to
maintain the road.
Mattick stated traditionally the road is dedicated to the City but that the City has left maintenance and
plowing to the residents. Mattick stated in some ways there has been a slight conflict between those two
documents over who actually controls the roads. What is being proposed here is eliminating the
document that dedicates the road to the City, which would make it a purely private road that is owned and
controlled by the homeowners association. Part of the reservation at a Staff level was what would happen
if the homeowners association does not work out, which can happen. There can be disputes over the fees
or the association is not well run. Replacement of the road can be a large expense. The underlying
easement allows the City to take over the road, make the improvements, and then assess those properties.
If the road remains private, the City does not have the right to go in there and make those improvements.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 4 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 21
(5. #12-3562 ARTHUR J. NELSON ESTATE, 400 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, Continued)
Rahn asked if the road will meet City standards.
Mattick indicated the road will be built to city standards.
Bremer asked what the applicants’ objection is to doing it the way the City has done it in the past.
Mattick stated his understanding is that they do not see the need to dedicate it to the City, and if it is
dedicated to the City, then they should assume responsibility for maintaining it as a public road.
Printup asked if this would raise any issues in the future with any of Orono’s other roads.
Mattick indicated it is a change from the way Orono has typically handled private roads. In terms of how
it is done in the future, the Council does not necessarily have to do it this way and the City is not bound
by this process forever.
Rahn asked if that would have any bearing on how the City’s streets are calculated.
Mattick stated it would reduce the number of city miles but noted the County is not currently counting
those private roads anyway.
Gaffron stated he is only aware of one instance in the past 20 to 25 years where the City exercised its
right to take back a private road, and that dealt with a situation where it was anticipated that one of the
property owners would use the private road for access and then later used a different property on the other
side of their property for access.
Bremer noted in this case the homeowners association will alleviate that situation.
Mattick stated if there are connectivity issues, he would encourage the City Council to make that road
public, but if there is little to no likelihood of a future development, the road could be made private.
Gaffron stated back in the early 1980s there were a number of homeowner associations that asked the
City to take back their private roads and the City refused in virtually every case. It has been a number of
years since the City has been asked to take over a private road. Gaffron stated in this specific case, it is
very unlikely the City will need to take it over for future connectivity.
Rahn commented the City will not want to do this in every instance but that in this situation it does make
sense.
McMillan asked if there is a specific requirement for how many residents should live on the road before it
is considered a roadway.
Gaffron stated with three or more residences on a road, it becomes a private road situation. Otherwise it
would be considered a shared driveway.
Mattick stated in his opinion there does not seem to be a disadvantage to making this road a private road
and that the road will be constructed to city standards. Mattick noted the City still retains the ability to
assume control of the road if the homeowners association requests it.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 5 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 21
(5. #12-3562 ARTHUR J. NELSON ESTATE, 400 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, Continued)
Mattick stated the applicant is requesting a motion to accept the first amendment to the development
contract and to allow the applicant to proceed with a private road established through their homeowner’s
association documents.
Franchot moved, Printup seconded, to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the First
Amendment to Development Contract; the Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement; and the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Private Roadway Easement. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*6. #12-3572 MATTHEW FRITZ, 4055 ELM STREET – VARIANES – RESOLUTION NO.
6172
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6172, a Resolution Granting
Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330, Matthew Fritz and Kristine Fritz, 4055 Elm
Street. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
7. #12-3574 DALE GUSTAFSON WITH GUSTAFSON DESIGN, INC., ON BEHALF OF
CHRIS PATNODE, 1430 CHERRY PLACE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE
– RESOLUTION NO. 6173
Rahn stated his questions relating to this application are more procedural and asked if the applicant had to
pay two fees, one for the conditional use permit and one for the hardcover variance.
Curtis indicated it was a total of $700 for both items.
Rahn noted a stairway is allowed hardcover in that zone and asked why it requires a variance.
Curtis stated the Code only allows for minimal hardcover to access the lake and not a meandering
staircase.
Rahn asked why Staff recommends approval of that staircase if it creates more hardcover than a straight
path.
Curtis indicated they would still require the landings and that Staff feels there would be more opportunity
to screen the stairway than a straight stairway down the slope. The amount of grading would also be less
invasive as well and would not require a conditional use permit.
Rahn stated he did not see in the report where it addresses the width of the stairs.
Curtis indicated the survey reflects the width of the stairway.
Rahn asked whether a variance would be required if a homeowner has a lakeside stairway they would like
to replace with the same square footage.
Curtis indicated it would not require a variance.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 6 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 21
(7. #12-3574 DALE GUSTAFSON WITH GUSTAFSON DESIGN, INC., ON BEHALF OF
CHRIS PATNODE, 1430 CHERRY PLACE, Continued)
Rahn stated the issue is the fact that it is not a straight stairway. Rahn asked whether a variance would be
required if they decided to add a lockbox at 20 square feet.
Curtis indicated it would not require a variance.
Rahn commented he also wanted to ensure that the applicants were not being charged two $700 fees prior
to approving the application.
Curtis stated the Staff has done an analysis and there is a breakdown of what the City incurs to process
various applications.
Rahn asked if a conditional use permit request should be on the same application as a variance
application.
Curtis indicated there is a different notification requirement for each of these applications and they need
to be kept separate.
Rahn asked if a variance application was completed.
Curtis stated to her knowledge they have a variance application on file.
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6173, a Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit and Hardcover Variance per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1282, 78-
1286, and 78-1288, Christopher Patnode, 1430 Cherry Place. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD –
VARIANCES
Curtis stated the applicants are proposing to construct a new residence on the property. Due to the size,
shape and orientation of the property, the applicants are requesting lot area, lot width, and side street
setback variances in order to construct the proposed 1,580 square foot home.
The Planning Commission held the public hearing for this application prior to the adoption of the new
hardcover regulations. At that time a 75-250 foot zone hardcover variance to allow 37 percent hardcover
was being requested. Using the gross lot area, the proposed hardcover is at 24.2 percent. The applicants’
hardcover now conforms to the revised hardcover regulations for a Tier 1 lot.
At the Planning Commission it was discovered that there was a discrepancy in the applicant’s survey and
the architect’s plans. The Planning Commission voted 7-0, based on the architect’s plans, to approve a
motion recommending the following:
1. Approval of a side street setback variance to allow the home to encroach into the west side, street
setback consistent with the applicants’ architectural drawings, resulting in a setback between
10 – 7.6 feet from the west, side lot line;
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 7 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
2. Approval of a side, street setback variance to allow the proposed deck to be set back 5 feet
from the west side street lot line;
3. Approval of lot width and lot area variances.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested lot width and lot area variances. Staff recommends
approval of a side street setback ranging from 7.6 feet to 10 feet from the west lot line where a 35-foot
side street setback is required. This is justified based on the minimum width garage proposed and the
narrowness of the lot. However, Staff continues to recommend that the deck be redesigned to meet a 10-
foot setback from the alley lot line rather than the 3.5 to 4-foot setback proposed or the 5-foot setback
recommended by the Planning Commission.
Curtis noted the applicants have provided a revised survey and plans. Staff has not had an opportunity to
review the plans in detail but expects all engineering issues to be addressed prior to drafting a resolution.
McMillan asked what size the deck would be if it was reduced down to meet a 10-foot setback.
Rahn stated it appears to be 5.5 feet.
Curtis indicated there would be more width at the lake end but at the top of the deck there would be 5 to
5.5 feet. Curtis stated the applicants can speak to the reasons for the proposed design.
Rahn stated his personal belief is that these homes that are next to fire lanes have a tendency to encroach
into the fire lane, and to allow a brand new home to encroach is not the right path to go down. Rahn
stated in his view the fire lanes are underutilized throughout the City and that the four borders for each
fire lane should be identified. Rahn commented it could be that the City ends up receiving complaints
from the property owner if people are down at the beach and they have a deck that is close to that area.
Rahn stated he is in agreement with Staff and sees no reason for the deck to encroach.
Michael Sharratt, Designer, stated they started with a very nonconforming situation with a home that is
located 2.5 feet from the east property and a garage that is 0 feet from the side alley line. Sharratt
commented he is saddened that applicants are seldom congratulated for doing a good job, which is what
has been done here. The applicants are asking for the side yard setback to accommodate the deck. The
deck has been cantilevered so it will not touch the ground. The reason for the variance request is that
without it, the deck would end up being seven feet wide, which basically does not allow for a table and
chairs.
Sharratt indicated they do have an option to place the deck in front of the great room windows on the first
floor, but that when you have a lot that is roughly 40 feet above the lake, you would not be able to see the
shoreline if you were sitting on the deck. The applicants have small children and would like to be able to
see the shoreline and yard, which is the reason the deck was located on the side of the house. Sharratt
stated they felt that a cantilevered structure would be an acceptable encroachment given all the other
nonconformities that have been resolved. Sharratt noted they are under the 25 percent hardcover limit
and under the structural coverage limit. The plan also exceeds the street setback and meets the east side
setback. Sharratt noted the home is only 23’/6” wide and that their setback variance seems like a
reasonable request.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 8 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
Sharratt commented he is not sure if the entire Council has walked the fire lane but that it is extremely
steep. The water currently travels perpendicular to grade and then starts to turn and eventually comes
right off the alley across this property, which has resulted in a washout area. A survey from 20 years ago
shows that the washout area was not there and he is not sure how it developed over the years. The
washout issue has been brought up to Staff and the applicants are willing to work with the City in an
effort to deal with the problem. The fire lane over the years has predominantly been used as a
snowmobile path and not many people walk down to the lake using the fire lane. The alleyway is also
overgrown with trees. The street is 41 feet above the lake and it is quite a steep walk down the fire lane.
Sharratt noted the neighbor across the street had a concern about constructing a bigger house on this lot.
That owner would like this house to be between 8 and10 feet away from the property line. Sharratt stated
locating the house eight feet off the property line would be an option and would allow a bigger deck on
the other side. The neighbor on the other side of the street raised some concerns that he was going to lose
his view of the lake. Sharratt noted that neighbor’s view will actually be widened.
Sharratt stated they have attempted to address all the concerns of the neighbors and the City and that they
are proposing to construct a much nicer home than what currently exists.
Franchot asked what the likelihood is that the alley would ever be used for anything other than its current
use.
Struve indicated based on its location, the likelihood is that it will not be used for much beyond how it is
currently being used.
Franchot stated in his view this is a reasonable request and that there is open land between the two lots
and that the effect of being too close to the neighbors is not a real issue. Franchot stated with the
cantilevered deck, he does not see any safety issues.
Franchot stated part of the City Council’s role is to assist its citizens in having the best home they can
have without it causing harm to the lake or the neighbors. Franchot stated the other concerns raised are
simply possibilities and that in his view they do not rise to the level where the application should be
denied.
Printup commented it would be easy to allow a deck but questioned where it would stop. Printup stated a
similar request could happen to the neighboring property or the property down the road. Printup
commented it seems that these situations have come up a number of times in the past and asked whether
that would leave the City exposed to future variance requests of a similar nature.
Franchot asked whether a precedent would be created by granting this variance.
Mattick stated each of the applications stands on their own. Future applicants will likely look at variances
that the Council has approved and that it is a question that will be asked.
Dennis Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle, commended Mike Sharratt for his design given the tough nature of
the lot. Walsh stated the City owes it to its residents to allow them to build houses that are saleable and
that they should grant some leeway on narrow lots. Walsh stated in his view that shows the residents that
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 9 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
the City is willing to help them by granting small incremental changes in order to allow a useful deck.
Walsh commented a deck in the front tends to destroy the view of the home.
Bremer asked how the plans the City Council received tonight are different from what was before the
Planning Commission.
Sharratt indicated the deck was originally designed to be 12’ x 17’. The applicants late last week received
an engineering review letter and that they have attempted to draft a response to his concerns. Sharratt
indicated he is in agreement that the driveway was too steep at 11 percent. To lower the grade of the
driveway, some risers have been placed on the first floor with steps going down from the garage into the
house. Raising the garage results in a 2.8’ foot drop from the edge of the road and creates a 6.3 percent
slope. The basement floor elevation rose by six inches. The reason the house can only be raised six
inches is to meet the 50 percent rule.
McMillan asked if the deck would be 12’ x 7’ if it were to meet the 10-foot setback.
Sharratt indicated it would be 7’ x 17’.
McMillan commented it would still be a fairly substantial deck but that it would be rather narrow.
McMillan noted there is not a stairway coming off the deck.
Sharratt indicated there is not a deck stairway and that they have to go back into the house to go out on
the yard.
Franchot asked if the setback is denied, whether they would move the house to the east two feet to get a
little more space.
Sharratt indicated they did not get anything in writing from the neighbor but that he had indicated he
would not be opposed to eight feet.
Franchot asked if moving the house would be the reaction of the applicants to the City Council turning
down the setback variance.
Sharratt stated it would likely trigger that design change.
Franchot noted the other consequence of moving the house is that it would make it closer to the property
line on the other side where there is actual structure.
Bremer noted the City Council would need to approve the house relocation since it would also require a
variance.
Sharratt indicated there is no buildable area on the site that would meet all the setbacks.
Curtis pointed out they would need a variance to enclose above the deck but that they would not require a
variance to enclose the area underneath the deck.
Bremer asked if the intention is to enclose the area underneath the deck.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 10 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
Sharratt stated due to the steepness on the alley side, they cannot dig that area out. The applicants would
be agreeable with saying that there will never be a screened porch and that they would be willing to put
that into the title or deed.
McMillan indicated she is in agreement with Council Member Rahn and Staff on this application and that
a 10-foot setback is appropriate. McMillan stated part of the reason the City changed the hardcore
ordinance is that they did not want to get into a situation where the setbacks were disregarded. McMillan
commented there has to be some sort of parameters on setbacks and that the 10 feet setback being
recommended by Staff is a good compromise.
Printup moved, Rahn seconded, Application #12-3575, Scott and Melissa Musgjerd, 4156 Highwood
Road, to accept Staff’s recommendation.
Sharratt asked if the City Council is suggesting that the design revision is a requirement in order for them
to proceed.
McMillan stated they can enclose the deck as part of the house and that it is not a necessity to have a
deck. McMillan stated the deck has to comply with the 10-foot setback.
McMillan stated the City Council can either vote on the application tonight or the applicants can request
that their application be tabled.
Mr. Musgjerd indicated they are supposed to close on the property November 13th.
Curtis noted the next City Council meeting is October 22nd.
Mattick stated no one is requiring the deck.
Sharratt stated unless they are willing to redesign the home to make all the space interior or place the deck
on the lakeside, those are their only options.
Rahn noted on the alley side they are required to have a 35-foot setback and Council would allow a
variance on the garage end of the house, but on the lake side of the home the majority of the Council is
agreeable with a 10-foot setback instead of 3.5 feet.
McMillan stated she considers the garage to be a hardship and that a deck is not a hardship.
Rahn asked if there is an average lakeshore setback for this property.
Curtis indicated the average lakeshore setback line is shown on the overhead.
Sharratt asked if the motion prevails if that means they need to maintain the footprint of the house.
Bremer stated the answer is no.
McMillan stated the deck footprint would have to be reduced to comply with the 10-foot setback.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 11 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
Mrs. Musgjerd indicated they also have concerns about the fire lane. If you visit the site, this lot is
basically the entrance to the lake off of the fire lane. Anybody that snowmobiles or walks their dog down
to the lake, has to come through this lot and basically go through that little beach area. If you go down by
the shore and would like to access the lake, it is about a four foot drop down to the lake.
Rahn stated the City Council does not know what the future use of that path will be and that it is
conceivable that the fire lane is improved at some point.
Mrs. Musgjerd stated in her view they are being penalized.
McMillan stated she is not aware of this lot being used to access the lake by the public.
Mrs. Musgjerd stated that was the whole point of why they came to the City and asked to work with them
to make the whole area better.
McMillan stated obviously people are using private property rather than the fire lane to access the lake
and that perhaps that area could be blocked off by the property owner.
Mattick stated he is not sure whether a fence could be erected within the 0-75 foot zone but that the City
can help steer people down the right-of-way rather than on to this property.
Mrs. Musgjerd stated they have done everything they can to make the house compliant with the City’s
regulations. Musgjerd noted the new residence could be constructed in the same place as the existing
house but that they are attempting to benefit the neighbors by relocating it. Musgjerd stated she had
hoped there would be a little bit of give and take since they have improved the lot overall. Musgjerd
noted they do not have time to redesign the house and that they have spent a lot of money designing a
house.
McMillan commented the City Council has to follow the codes whenever possible.
Mrs. Musgjerd stated there is not a big enough buildable area on the lot without some variances.
Rahn noted the Council is agreeable to a 25-foot variance to the setback.
Mrs. Musgjerd commented that basically the existing house will rot because no one will want to purchase
it. Musgjerd stated in her view this is not a big house when you compare it with the other homes in the
area.
McMillan stated the City will not be able to resolve the issue tonight of people going on private property
rather than the fire lane to access the lake and that tonight they are looking at the proposed house and the
setbacks. The City Council can either vote on it or table the application to allow them to redesign their
plans to comply with the 10-foot setback. McMillan stated they would have two weeks to redesign their
plans but that she is not sure what the City can do in two weeks to resolve the fire lane issue.
Rahn commented that would be a police issue.
Sharratt pointed out they are not asking for resolution of the fire lane use at this time.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 12 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
McMillan asked if they would like their application tabled.
David Beeker, Builder, stated he understands the concern for setting a precedent, which is why things are
put in writing. The City Council has to use their best judgment on each individual application and that
they would not be setting any type of precedent by granting this variance. If the application does not go
through today, the other option is that someone else will buy the property and remodel the existing house.
Beeker noted the garage is sitting on the fire lane and is three feet away from the house to the east. The
City has an opportunity today to change that and improve the situation for the neighbors. Both neighbors
are in support of the project.
Beeker reiterated the Council has to take advantage of the opportunity to make things better tonight and
that the applicants are not asking for very much given the small size of the house. Beeker commented
they are taking the property and making it better than what exists.
Bremer asked why they are opposed to a lakeward deck.
Sharratt stated if it were a fairly level lot, that would be ideal, but given the topography of the lot, they
would not be able to see the shoreline or yard if the deck is on the lake side of the house.
Bremer commented they typically see people doing the exact opposite of what is being proposed tonight.
Bremer asked if there is a reason why they proposed 12 feet as opposed to 10 feet. Bremer indicated she
is basically in agreement with the rest of the application and that she would hate to see something that
would be a benefit to the neighborhood go away over what appears to be a minor issue. Bremer asked
what the difference is between a 12-foot deck and a 10-foot deck, especially when there are no stairs
going down.
Sharratt stated it is not the difference between a 12-foot deck and a 10-foot deck but rather the difference
between 12 and 6.5 or 7 feet. Sharratt stated the issue with the front deck is you would look through a
railing and you would not be able to see down to the yard. There will be a patio on the lower level and
they would like to be able to see the kids and the lakeshore from the deck. In addition, a 7-foot deck is
not functional for a table and four chairs.
Bremer commented in the great majority of these cases it is her instinct that they should hold to the
10-foot setback. Bremer indicated she was hoping the applicants would have said, okay, six feet is too
skinny but I could go to 10 feet, and that she would be much more supportive of that. Bremer stated the
applicants have to be mindful of all the other applications that come before the City Council and that they
are dealing with the concern that the City cannot anticipate what the future use of the fire lane will be.
Bremer stated in her view a 10-foot setback is ideal but that she is not in favor of granting a 3.5 foot
setback or a 5-foot setback and would have liked to see some type of compromise.
McMillan noted if the alleyway were a house instead, they would be requesting a 10-foot setback.
McMillan asked why a 35-foot setback is required.
Curtis indicated it is considered a side street, which is the reason for the 35-foot setback.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 13 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
Bremer stated that question focuses on how far would you let someone go in that circumstance and in her
view the number is not three feet in that situation.
McMillan commented the City has seen a considerable amount of encroachment on fire lanes in the past
and that it is a legitimate issue.
Sharratt noted the garage is currently on the property line.
McMillan asked if they would like their application tabled or to have Council vote on the application.
Sharratt indicated his clients would be willing to reduce the setback to 10 feet.
Printup indicated he will rescind his motion and that he would be willing to make a new motion to table
the application.
Previous motion rescinded.
Printup stated they have already heard a number of times that everyone is agreeable with the house and
garage except for the deck.
Curtis asked whether the Council would be agreeable if Staff brought a draft resolution reflecting
approval of the revised proposal that they can either approve or deny at their next meeting since the
applicants do not have sufficient time before their closing to come to a meeting in November.
Rahn stated if the Council has a specific number in mind, they should just say it.
Bremer stated she is not sure if that number is accurate and that it is difficult to tell from the survey.
Sharratt stated the setback would be 5.5’ on the street side of the deck and approximately 7’ to 7.5’ on the
lakeside.
McMillan asked if they would like a deck that is wide enough to accommodate a table and four chairs.
Sharratt stated the deck is rectangular and that there will probably be a 4-foot table and chairs in one area.
Sharratt stated if they went to the full 10 foot setback, it would result in a 5.5 foot deck at that location.
Rahn noted if the deck is extended beyond the house, it could be wider but it would block the view of the
neighbor. Rahn stated the City Council is not going to get into redesigning the plan tonight.
Franchot moved, Bremer seconded, Application #12-3575, Scott and Melissa Musgjerd, 4156
Highwood Road, approval of lot width and lot area variances, and approval of a 5.75 foot setback
on the west lot line.
McMillan noted the deck would be reduced by two feet.
Bremer indicated the deck would be 34 square feet.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 14 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 21
(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued)
VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3, Rahn, Printup and McMillan Opposed.
Printup moved, Rahn seconded, Application #12-3575, Scott and Melissa Musgjerd, 4156 Highwood
Road, to accept Planning Staff’s recommendation approving lot width and lot area variances and a
10-foot setback from the west lot line. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Bremer and Franchot Opposed.
*9. A#12-3577 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-72, LOTS OF
RECORDS – ORDINANCE NO. 95, THIRD SERIES
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 95, Third Series, An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 78 of the Orono City Code Regarding Lots of Record. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT
Struve reported there was a ribbon cutting ceremony for Crystal Bay Park earlier this evening. The park
appears to be getting more use by the residents.
Struve stated as it relates to Orono Orchard Road, the majority of Phase I has been paved and work is
progressing between Fox Street and County Road 15. Struve indicated the contractor has done a very
good job thus far.
McMillan asked how the mill and overlay is going.
Struve indicated they have completed the manhole adjustments and that they were delayed approximately
one week due to some other work. The final mill and overlay should be completed by the end of October.
McMillan asked if he is happy with the surface coating.
Struve indicated he is happy with the coating. Struve stated all the streets have been swept and that the
contractor just needs to pick up his signs.
*10. PAY REQUEST NO. 3, ORONO ORCHARD ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 3 for the contractor Minger
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $622,950.09 for the Orono Orchard Road Reconstruction
Project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*11. PAY REQUEST NO. 3 – CARMAN BAY SHORELINE RESTORATION PROJECT
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 3 for the contractor Sunram
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $10,710.54 for the Carmen Bay Shoreline Restoration Project.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 15 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 21
*12. PAY REQUEST NO 1 – 2012 ORONO STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECT
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 1 for the contractor CS
McCrossan Construction, Inc., in the amount of $112,603.97 for the 2012 street maintenance
project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Printup stated he has gotten some positive feedback regarding the blast e-mail crime alerts. Printup stated
he is aware of two other local communities that have a similar program. Printup commented the more
vigilance there is and the more eyes that are looking out for questionable activity is a benefit for the entire
community and reassures people that it is okay to call 911.
Printup noted the Long Lake Fire Department is having an open house next weekend.
Printup thanked Staff for arranging the Crystal Bay Park dedication.
Franchot reported the LMCC had a very useful meeting with various city representatives relating to the
needs assessment. Mike Gaffron was able to attend the meeting for Orono. The meeting is available on
DVD and he indicated he would arrange to have copies sent to the City and each of the council members.
McMillan noted the fall newsletter will be coming out in the next week or so and that it will contain the
new city logo. The designer of the logo has been asked to attend the December 10th Council meeting so
he can be formally recognized. McMillan noted she sent him a copy of the text that will appear in
Orono’s newsletter.
McMillan reported she received an e-mail from a resident on Shadywood Road that lives close to the
Klinglehutz property. McMillan indicated that project was approved approximately a year ago and that
the neighbor was worried about the brush pile on the property. The developer has indicated that will be
removed by the end of the month.
Curtis stated a letter has been sent to the property owner asking them to remove the brush.
McMillan asked when developers are undercapitalized, what recourse the City has if certain work has to
be performed by the City.
Mattick stated funding was an issue with the property and that the City was not able to obtain a letter of
credit. Staff did work out an alternate security agreement which gives the City access to their financing if
necessary to secure the improvements. Mattick stated to his understanding the City did not release the
mylar.
Gaffron noted their approvals expired some time ago. Staff did ask them what their intent was with the
clear cutting and the developer had indicated they would not be doing any further work. Staff has not
heard anything from them since then.
Mattick stated they do not have the right to do anything on the property since their approvals have
expired.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 16 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 21
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
13. POLICE DEPARTMENT SECURITY UPGRADES
Police Chief Farniok reported the Police Department has been sending out periodic updates for the crime
alerts but that they are hesitant to send out too many of them which might result in the residents ignoring
them. Information is sent out if there is a credible threat and they are able to identify a specific vehicle or
individual. Farniok indicated they will continue to utilize the listserv for the crime alerts.
Farniok stated given the recent vandalism incidents, he has compiled some information on security
upgrades for the building and parking areas. At the Council work session on September 24, security
upgrades were discussed and direction was given to obtain information on fencing, lighting and upgrades
to security cameras.
Farniok indicated he has received some quotes and options for fencing, lighting and security camera
upgrades. Several lighting options were looked at and they include a different light pole design and the
type of bulb used.
Before the City Council tonight are two quotes and options for fencing, lighting and security camera
upgrades. The three options available for fencing include black vinyl, ornamental, or a combination of
both. The quote also includes two gates, one motorized 22-foot sliding gate for vehicles and a 5-foot
pedestrian access gate.
Farniok stated one issue to consider before installing the new upgrades is whether the parking lot will be
expanded at some point in the future. Farniok stated they have designed the fence so that if the parking
lot is expanded, a section of the fence would be able to be taken out. If the vinyl chain link fence is
chosen, that material could be reused. Farniok noted they would like to avoid spending a lot of money
trenching in the electrical for street lights and low voltage for the camera system if the parking lot is
going to be expanded at some point and requested the City Council provide some direction on how to
proceed with those items.
Rahn asked if the fence would be a big enough deterrent without the other items.
Farniok stated that is one of the options, but noted that the salvage yard has had a number of break-ins
with just a fence. Farniok stated the better solution would be to have some motion sensors installed.
Farniok indicated he is not in favor of the razor wire and that he would recommend that they install some
sort of motion activated beam with the chain link fence.
Rahn stated he is in agreement with the motion sensor and the chain link fence. Rahn stated he would
rather put money into motion sensors than the actual fence.
Printup indicated he is also leaning towards the chain link.
Farniok stated one of the quotes also includes lighting and trenching as well as an infrared camera.
Bremer indicated her preference would be to go with the first option. Bremer noted the City will be
obtaining competitive bids and that these are basically design ideas.
Rahn commented the 10-foot setback would also be nice for snow storage.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 17 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 21
(13. POLICE DEPARTMENT SECURITY UPGRADES, Continued)
Farniok concurred they would not want the fence too close to the actual paved area. Farniok stated they
also explored the possibility of installing additional cameras to the parking lot area along with upgrading
the existing camera in that area. Farniok indicated they could upgrade the existing camera to a digital
camera so it increases the ability to zoom in and enhance features. Farniok noted they are not considering
solar lights based on the cost.
(Recess taken from 9:00 to 9:03 p.m.)
Farniok stated once a vendor is accepted, the police department will work with the vendor to ensure that
the camera is functional 24/7 and will work with the various types of lighting that are experienced in that
area throughout the day and night. The majority of the cost consists of wiring for the camera and the
lighting.
Bremer stated she personally would like to see a nicer appearing fence. Bremer stated to her
understanding fencing professionals recommend going with something other than chain link. Bremer
stated she will be relying on Police Chief Farniok’s recommendation on what type of fence he feels would
be the best.
Farniok indicated he will be setting up meetings with some of the mini storage facilities in the area to
discuss their security measures.
Printup stated he is not opposed to holding a special meeting to discuss this further if the information
becomes available prior to the next Council work session.
McMillan commented she would also like to see something that is visually appealing.
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
14. APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Farniok stated the Orono Police Department has been discussing a building and garage addition/upgrades
since 2004. In 2008, quotes for architectural services for an expansion of the police department were
received and reviewed by City Staff. The expansion would include additional garage stalls, an addition to
the property room, a training/briefing area and remodeling/updating several other areas within the police
department. Phillip Johnson, Architect, was recommended by Staff and approved by the City Council on
March 24, 2008.
Farniok noted Phillip Johnson has worked well with Staff regarding the plans and designs that were being
recommended for the project in 2008 but that the 2008 project was put on hold for economic reasons at
the time. Due to the recent acts of vandalism at the Police Department, these plans are being reviewed to
help avoid future acts of vandalism, arson and theft from police vehicles and vehicles that are being held
for possible forfeiture. To date these acts have cost the City over $100,000 in damages.
Staff would like to recommend Phillip Johnson provide architectural services to the City on the police
department building project. Phillip Johnson has performed well on previous projects and provided lower
quotes for architectural services on prior projects. Phillip Johnson has submitted a quote for architectural
services at 6.5 percent of the project. Staff has met with Phillip Johnson and GDS Design and Build, Inc.,
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 18 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 21
(14. APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, Continued)
to discuss the needs to include additional locker room space, additional office space, training room/EOC,
and garage space for squad cars. He has provided an estimate for the cost of the building expansion at
$600,000. There will be an additional cost for site improvements. Total estimated cost of the project is
$650,000.
McMillan stated she would like to see further discussion on this item in order to figure out the timing of
this project and that perhaps January would be a better time to discuss this when the new City Council is
on board.
Bremer indicated she would be in favor of discussing this further at a work session and perhaps arranging
a tour of other police facilities.
Printup indicated he is in agreement that the discussion needs to take place and that he is in favor of
looking at a structure.
Bremer indicated she is supportive of Phillip Johnson being retained.
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded to accept the proposal by Phillip Johnson to provide
architectural services to the City on the Police Department building project.
Rahn stated he has some concerns about this project and that he is trying to figure out how it got on the
fast track. Rahn stated the City is working towards resolving the vandalism issue with the security
upgrades and that he is not sure a building is required. Rahn indicated he is not in favor of storing police
cars since in his view they should be out on the road. Rahn asked where the funding would come from
for this project.
McMillan stated there are a number of items that would need to be discussed and that the City should
really be talking about a possible time table for this project.
Bremer noted Rahn did miss the meeting where some of this was discussed but that further discussion is
required before deciding whether the City should move forward with the project.
Rahn stated in his opinion before the Council starts approving architects, they should sit down and discuss
what the City’s needs are for a building project.
McMillan stated Council Member Rahn has a good point and that they need to discuss financing and
other issues.
Franchot stated he had the understanding that financing was discussed at a previous meeting and that
quite a bit of work has already gone into this project.
McMillan stated they have pulled out the 2008 plans for another look but that they have not discussed all
the issues going forward.
Farniok noted they have highlighted some of the items in the 2008 proposal that the Police Department
feels are necessary. Farniok stated they currently have vehicles that are not on the road all the time in the
event that a patrol car breaks down and a replacement is required.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 19 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 21
(14. APPROVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, Continued)
Farniok stated he would like to be able to discuss things with an architect to determine whether they are
feasible and what options may be available.
Rahn asked how the project would be funded.
Franchot stated the funding plan was to bond the money up front and then repay the bonds with the
money from the contract that was negotiated with Mound. Franchot stated it was his understanding from
the City Administrator that the contract was negotiated with sufficient funds to help finance the building.
Olson stated to his belief the City would be borrowing internally from another construction fund and that
those funds would be paid back from the contract.
Rahn asked if the plan is to design a building for two times the police force we have now.
Farniok indicated they are not looking at building a 30-car garage and expanding office space. Farniok
stated he would like to make sure they have adequate space for their current needs and that they are
looking at what was proposed in 2008 to see if that would fit the police needs today.
McMillan stated the question is whether the City should have an architect on board to help with that
process. McMillan noted the current building is approximately 20 years old and that there needs to be
some type of process put in place to discuss this project. McMillan stated the other items could be
discussed further in a work session.
Farniok stated in speaking with various contractors, the optimal time is to construct in the spring. Farniok
indicated he would like to create a time line and that the earliest he could envision the facility
construction to begin would be the spring of 2014.
Rahn stated in his view the City should have at least a year under their belt with the Mound officers to
determine exactly what needs should be addressed.
Farniok stated in 2008, the City paid Phillip Johnson a retainer fee and that he was easy to work with and
available for meetings.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
*15. LIQUIDATION OF FORFEITED VEHICLE
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the liquidation of a forfeited 1999 Saturn, VIN
#1G8ZG5280XZ331244, through the Minneapolis Auto Auction or similar business. VOTE: Ayes
5, Nays 0.
*16. ESTABLISH DATE AND TIME FOR CANVASSING BOARD MEETING
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to schedule Tuesday, November 13, 2012, at 6:45 p.m., for the
2012 Canvassing Board meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 20 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 8, 2012
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 21
*17. CITY CLERK RETIREMENT – AUTHORIZE RECRUITMENT PROCESS
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve advertising for the City Clerk position. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Mattick had nothing to report.
*18. LICENSES & PERMITS
None
*19. BILLS
Bremer moved, Franchot seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds account. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
ADOURNMENT
Franchot moved, Rahn seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:27 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_______________________________________ ___________________________________
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 21 of 21]
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Delinquent Utilities
[Page 1 of 5]
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Delinquent Utilities
[Page 2 of 5]
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Delinquent Utilities
[Page 3 of 5]
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Delinquent Utilities
[Page 4 of 5]
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Delinquent Utilities
[Page 5 of 5]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Unpaid Service Charges
[Page 1 of 3]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Unpaid Service Charges
[Page 2 of 3]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Public Hearing - Certification of Unpaid Service Charges
[Page 3 of 3]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #11-3531 [Total Pages 15]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3575 [Total Pages 98]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
File #12-3578 [Total Pages 33]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Residential Recycling Service Contract [Page 1 of 6]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Residential Recycling Service Contract [Page 2 of 6]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Residential Recycling Service Contract [Page 3 of 6]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Residential Recycling Service Contract [Page 4 of 6]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Residential Recycling Service Contract [Page 5 of 6]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Residential Recycling Service Contract [Page 6 of 6]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Memo of Understanding [Page 1 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Memo of Understanding [Page 2 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Memo of Understanding [Page 3 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Memo of Understanding [Page 4 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Approval of Memo of Understanding [Page 5 of 5]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Disposal of Bicycles [Page 1 of 2]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Disposal of Bicycles [Page 2 of 2]
Item #11 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Liquidation of Forfeited Vehicle [Page 1 of 1]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 1 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 2 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 3 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 4 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 5 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 6 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 7 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 8 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 9 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 10 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 11 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 12 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 13 of 14]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Police Department Security Upgrades [Page 14 of 14]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 1 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 2 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 3 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 4 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 5 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 6 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 7 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 8 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 9 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 10 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 11 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 12 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 13 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 14 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 15 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 16 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 17 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 18 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 19 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 20 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 21 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 22 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 23 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 24 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 25 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 26 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 27 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 28 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 29 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 30 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 31 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 32 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 33 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 34 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 35 of 36]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Year to Date General Fund Budget Information
[Page 36 of 36]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 1]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 1 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 2 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 3 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 4 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 5 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 6 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 7 of 8]
Item #15 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012
Bills [Page 8 of 8]