The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-10-2011 Council Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE �.� MEETING DATE 1 � �� , COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Please complete the following information#or City records. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER � � . ; � j.;'�:;� , .��`7 � ;�., t �t � _ . � .�„ , , ' �. , . ,� , , . % ' .�� . � ) ;Z- r .._�'_---.__,.. ... . 2. - � t_ - . . ,, ; r._ ,, <- 3. ; ��, � -��- � 1 r,! h- �� , , � �� ., 1 a� . . � t � �?' ' � , i � 4. � �'��.c� y�-j�.- `f '� � ,,�::i� �.�, .> � �-�, c.��,_r� _�.�: :`; „ , � ��- ..�, ; . j--� �% �� 5. ' :.," � � ? � ;; � . _l:' , 6. � 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:1�LEGAL FORMS)\�FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, January 10, 2011, 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 Oath of Office Mayor Lili Tod McMillan Council Member Aaron Hale Printup 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. Recognition 2. Former Mayor James M. White – Resolution 3. Former Council Member James L. Murphy – Resolution Approval of Minutes * 4. Regular Council Meeting of December 13, 2010 LMCD Report – Andrew McDermott, Representative Planning Commission Comments – Denise Leskinen, Representative Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) Planning Department Report * 5. #07-3334 Kevin and Denise Reilly, 3405 High Lane – Preliminary Plat Extension – Resolution City Engineer’s Report 6. Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Plan Update Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 7. Hennepin County Mitigation Plan – Resolution 8. Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) 9. Declaration of a Vacancy in the Office of Council Member – Resolution 10. Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy 11. Annual Appointments – Resolution Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, January 10, 2011, 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 12. Selection of Date for 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization 13. Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Proprietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement – Resolution 14. Accept Donation from Paulucci – Resolution City Attorney's Report 15. Licenses & Permits Special Event Permit – Big Island Park Kennel Licenses * 16. Bills Adjournment Upcoming Issues and Events 2011 01/10 – Council Work Session/Recognition Open House, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 01/10 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 01/17 – HOLIDAY, Monday, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 01/18 – Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Doug Franchot) 01/24 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 02/02 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. 02/14 – Council Work Session, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 02/14 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 02/21 – HOLIDAY, Monday, Presidents’ Day 02/22 – Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Cynthia Bremer) 02/28 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Former Mayor James M. White [Page 1 of 2] Item #02 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Former Mayor James M. White [Page 2 of 2] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Former Council Member James L. Murphy [Page 1 of 2] Item #03 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Former Council Member James L. Murphy [Page 2 of 2] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 27 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor James White, Council Members James Murphy, Cynthia Bremer, Lili McMillan, and Doug Franchot. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Clerk Lin Vee, Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 10, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-37 were added to the Consent Agenda and Item No. 9 was deleted from the agenda. Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 22, 2010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of November 22, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF NOVEMBER 23, 2010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session of November 23, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *4. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of December 6, 2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SALE OF BONDS 5. CONSIDER THE AWARD OF THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRCTION, STATE-AID AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS – RESOLUTION NO. 5997 Carolyn Drude, Ehlers, reported on the sale of $4,460,000 general obligation street reconstruction, state- aid, and capital improvement bonds. The high bid was 3.1698 percent and the low bid was submitted by Morgan, Keegan & Company at 2.8571 percent. Drude stated overall the City received six bids, which Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 1 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 27 (5. CONSIDER THE AWARD OF THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION STREET RECONSTRCTION, STATE-AID AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS, Continued) was an improvement over the two bids that were received a couple of weeks ago by their firm on some other highly rated bonds. Drude reported the City’s bond rating with Moody’s Investor Service is still a AAA rating, which is the highest rating. During a conference call with Ron Olson, the city administrator, and Jon North from Ehlers, Moody’s analyst indicated they did not have a lot of concerns regarding Orono concerning the City’s management, economics, and debt load, of which the fund balance plays a significant role. Historically and presently Moody’s bond rating is based on the City’s finances, which is in excellent condition. The interest rates received on the bonds are lower than what the market currently is offering. As it relates to the Morgan, Keegan bid, they have offered $4,576,719.85 for the $4,460,000 bonds at an interest rate of 2.857 percent. The net cost to the City is $893,677.22. Subsequent to bid opening, the issue size decreased to $4,315,000, which has resulted in an adjusted net interest cost of $888,475.07 to the City. Net proceeds for the projects are $3,150,127.41 at an interest rate of 2.85 percent. Murphy moved, Bremer seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5997, a Resolution Awarding Sale of $4,460,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010A, Fixing the Form and Specifications Thereof, Providing for Their Execution and Delivery, and Providing for Their Payment. Murphy commended the staff of Orono for their excellent work on maintaining the City’s AAA rating and overall excellent financial condition. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. BUDGET ADOPTION 6. CONTINUATION OF 2011 BUDGET HEARING – ADOPTION OF 2011 BUDGET AND TAX LEVY Olson noted the truth-in-taxation meeting was held on December 6, 2010. Two minor changes have been made to the budget from last Monday, including a correction to a number on the debt service levy relating to the fire hall bonds, which eliminated $11,000 out of the levy. Olson stated based on the sale of the bonds today, he would recommend another $11,000 be eliminated from the fire hall bonds. Olson stated as a result of those changes, the total tax levy required to fund the 2011 budget is $35,880 or 0.77 percent over 2010. In addition, $130,000 from the Community Investment Fund is being used to subsidize the bonds. Applying the proposed tax levy to the estimated tax capacity results in a tax rate of 14.904 percent. The majority of the increase over 2010 is as a result of decreasing property values. It is estimated the City’s tax capacity has decreased by approximately 7.53 percent from 2010. The City experienced a significant decrease in revenue this year of $415,000, which consists of a reclassification of the MSA revenue, lower than expected inspection fees, the decrease in police revenues, and a lower than anticipated interest rate. The budget also includes a one percent increase across the Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 2 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 27 (6. CONTINUATION OF 2011 BUDGET HEARING, Continued) board for employee salaries and a $50 a month insurance contribution per employee. General fund expenditures have the greatest impact on the proposed tax levy. The tax levy required to fund the 2011 general fund budget is $3,932,260, which is an increase of $42,550 or 1.09 percent over the 2010 levy amount. This is a decrease of $22,720 from the preliminary budget and below the 1.74 percent limit. Mayor White noted the City has laid off a number of personnel from the police department and one planning staff member in order to reduce the City’s expenditures. Bremer asked whether the 1 percent number for employee salaries includes union and nonunion employees. Olson indicated that would just be nonunion personnel and that the City would be undergoing contract negotiations at some point in the future. Olson stated the number in the budget does include an increase for union and nonunion personnel at 1 percent. Bremer asked what the rough percentage of union versus nonunion workers is. Olson indicated it would be approximately 50/50, with the union workers being part of the police department. Bremer asked what the City is seeing as far as health insurance increases. Olson stated overall insurance costs are going up 10.22 percent and the City’s budget has a proposed increase of approximately 5 percent. The City’s budget proposes paying approximately one-half of the increase in insurance costs and approximately one-half of the premium for family coverage. Murphy noted the City is pooled with other cities to help keep the costs down. Bremer asked what the cost savings would be if the City did not budget a 1 percent increase for nonunion workers. Olson indicated it would be approximately $24,000. Olson stated if the City went with a 0 percent increase for nonunion workers, it would put the City in a stronger position when it came time to negotiate with the union. Bremer commented that if the City does not budget a 1 percent increase for nonunion workers and a 1 percent for union workers, the reality is that the City’s employees may look elsewhere for work and/or unionize, which is not something the City would benefit from. Bremer asked if City staff could be unionized. Mattick stated typically only police departments are unionized, followed by public work departments, but that other employees could unionize if they saw unequal treatment among bargaining units. Currently among other cities that have not given union workers some type of increase, the unions have challenged that. Mattick noted the City would experience some cost if the union elected to mediate their contract. McMillan asked what the correct debt service number would be. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 3 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 27 (6. CONTINUATION OF 2011 BUDGET HEARING, Continued) Olson indicated it should be decreased by approximately $7,000. Murphy noted the golf course is now included in the general fund and that a $20,000 offset has been projected between anticipated revenue and expenses. Murphy stated the City could eliminate that $20,000, which would put the onus on the city administrator to generate additional revenue or decrease the expenses of the golf course. There also is $5,000 in parks and other funds that could possibly be eliminated or decreased. Bremer commented typically the City Council relies on the various department heads to develop a reasonable budget and that she is not familiar enough with the daily operation expenses to make a recommendation at this point to decrease any particular fund or department. Olson noted the major expenditure for the golf course consists of wages. Murphy stated now that the golf course is included in the general fund, the City Council should take a closer look at the details of the operation. Murphy pointed out the $20,000 shortfall is an estimate and that perhaps the golf fees should be increased or the expenses reduced. McMillan noted the number of golf rounds being played has decreased over the years and that $20,000 is not a significant part of the budget. McMillan commented the golf course operation is pretty barebones. Bremer commented that if the numbers for the golf course are based on last year’s numbers, the Council should probably leave them where they are. Murphy stated since September the City has gotten criticized for setting a budget with a proposed increase of 1.75 percent. The Council has subsequently reduced that by 1 percent. Murphy indicated he is satisfied with the amount of work that has gone into reducing the City’s expenses, especially when you consider the fact that a number of cities are increasing their tax levies by more than 1.7 percent. Murphy stated if the Council is insistent on reducing the budget increase to zero percent, he would prefer that the money not be taken from the employees. McMillan noted that approximately 50 percent of the cities in Minnesota are proposing a 0 percent increase on wages and that until the real estate market improves, which is where the majority of the City’s revenue comes from in the form of property taxes, it is important for the City to reduce costs. McMillan indicated she would prefer to freeze wages rather than lay off staff and that she has been promoting a zero percent increase in the levy since September and that she still feels the same way tonight. a. ADOPT FINAL 2010 LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2011 – RESOLUTION NO. 5998 b. ADOPT 2011 GENERAL FUND BUDGET – RESOLUTION NO. 5999 c. ADOPT THE 2011 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGETS – RESOLUTION NO. 6000 Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5998, a Resolution Adopting the Final 2010 Tax Levy Collectible in 2011; to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5999, a Resolution to Adopt the Final 2011 General Fund Budget; and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6000, a Resolution to Adopt the 2011 Special Revenue Funds Budgets. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 4 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 27 (6. CONTINUATION OF 2011 BUDGET HEARING, Continued) Franchot stated he is impressed with the work undertaken by Staff to reduce expenses, and that given the amount of money that is being discussed currently, in his opinion the 1 percent increase is justified. Murphy indicated he is in agreement with Council Member Franchot. McMillan stated the City has an opportunity to send a message to the taxpayers that the City is going to keep the budget at a zero percent increase given the poor state of the economy. McMillan stated in her opinion the principal of that message is significant to the taxpayers. Murphy asked where the money would be eliminated from to achieve a 0 percent increase. McMillan stated she would defer to Ron Olson but that she would propose a freeze on employee’s wages. Bremer asked what the cost savings would be if the City eliminated the 1 percent increase in employees wages. Olson noted that would result in a savings of $24,000 and that to achieve a zero percent increase, the Council would need to eliminate approximately $35,000 from the budget. McMillan stated the City could reduce their insurance contribution. Bremer stated the reality is that the City has to heed what the City Attorney has stated as it relates to unions and nonunion wages. Bremer stated it is very unlikely the City will get by with a zero percent increase on union workers wages and that the City will need to find funds later in the year to offset that expense if the union mediates an increase. McMillan stated perhaps those funds could come out of the City’s contingency fund. Olson indicated there is currently $50,000 budgeted for contingencies. Bremer stated she is fine with a zero percent increase to send a message, but that the City cannot realistically budget a zero percent increase for the union workers. Bremer stated in her view the $50,000 in the contingency fund would be enough to make up the difference. Mayor White stated he is not in favor of keeping the nonunion workers at a zero percent increase and that Orono’s Staff does an excellent job and has reduced personnel wherever possible. White commended the public works department for plowing the streets promptly during the recent snow storm. White stated a $25 increase on a million dollar house is not a major increase and that the City of Orono has some of the lowest taxes in the county. White commented in his opinion the City’s employees are worth keeping. Franchot asked what the City’s experience has been with the contingency funds over the past several years. Olson stated it depends on the year. In 2010, the City will only spend approximately one-half of the contingency fund, but that in other years they have spent in excess of what was put aside as a contingency. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 5 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 27 (6. CONTINUATION OF 2011 BUDGET HEARING, Continued) Franchot asked whether $50,000 is a reasonable amount to reserve for contingencies. Olson indicated in his view it is. Loftus stated out of a $5.8 million budget, a $50,000 contingency is reasonable. Franchot stated he would not be in favor of a zero percent increase for nonunion workers and that perhaps the contingency fund could be cut in half in order to come in with a zero percent budget increase. Franchot stated in his view the golf course losses cannot exceed $10,000, which would then allow them to cut the contingency fund slightly and make it a zero percent budget increase. If the decision is not to raise the levy at all, the City could reduce expenses in other areas. Franchot indicated he is in support of the resolution before the Council tonight. White stated a real message would be to cut the budget by 5 percent, but that he is not sure that can be accomplished. White noted the proposed increase is 0.77 percent, which is a very small increase. McMillan stated she does not want to micromanage the finance director and that she also does not want to rearrange the budget tonight in order to reach a zero percent budget increase. McMillan stated in her view the Council should go ahead and vote on the resolution. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, McMillan Opposed. PRESENTATION 7. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PLAN UPDATE Kellogg stated in October the City Council authorized his office to complete plans and specifications on Old Crystal Bay Road. They are proposing some minor changes to the plan to increase the functionality of the road and are intending to meet with the school district and the medical office on the proposed changes. Kellogg stated they have met with the state aid office today. The Council had originally directed that they proceed with Option 2, with the third roundabout being bid as an alternate. The state aid office requires you to submit a plan that they can review and comment upon, which makes it different from a City project. Kellogg stated they went ahead and presented Option 2 with a possible third roundabout to the state aid office. By adding the third roundabout as an alternate bid, the City will need to come up with two designs, which would include a basic design that shows a traditional intersection and then a plan with the third roundabout. This would add approximately $7,000 to $10,000 to the project. Another option would be to have the base bid include all three roundabouts, and if the bid is too expensive, the City can award the contract to the low bidder and renegotiate the bid. Otherwise the City has the option to go through the design process for the traditional intersection and resubmit it to state aid. Both plans will need to be presented at the same time in the bid process. Kellogg reported the soil borings show some petroleum based contamination underneath the roadway, which is similar to the Casco Point project. The soil borings have found contamination at three to five Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 6 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 27 (7. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PLAN UPDATE, Continued) feet. The contamination on Casco Point was limited to the first foot of soil. The City’s options are to do nothing and deal with it at the time of the project or to do some additional exploratory work to confirm that this contamination truly does exist. Kellogg indicated his office just learned this information today and they have not yet spoken with the public works department. Kellogg stated the contamination could be that the split spoon boring rig could have been contaminated with oil from the first hole, which could have contaminated the other borings. Kellogg indicated he will need to discuss this further with public works. The additional exploratory work will possibly add another two to three thousand dollars to the project. Murphy asked what Mr. Kellogg’s recommendation would be. Kellogg indicated he would prefer to have some additional borings completed. There currently is a foot of frost underneath the roadway and that it would be better to do the exploratory work sooner rather than later before the frost gets much deeper. Kellogg pointed out the geotechnical firm that conducted the soil borings is not an environmental firm. White asked whether any funds would be available from the petro fund. Kellogg indicated they could look into funding but that it is a low level of contamination, which would require them to haul the soil to a special landfill. Murphy suggested they dig a hole in the middle of the street to figure out what is going on with the contamination. As it relates to the third roundabout, he would recommend that the City approach the School District about whether they want to proceed forward with the third roundabout. Kellogg stated his recollection is that one person from the school requested the third roundabout. Murphy stated the School District should be told of the additional costs and be asked to contribute the additional money if they would still like to incorporate the third roundabout. Tom Fidler, Bonestroo, displayed a simulation of the proposed plan with the two roundabouts. Fidler pointed out that people coming from the north are not allowed to turn and must do a U-turn. A few changes have been made to the plan and that there is a need to prohibit left turns. The Council observed a simulation of why a left-in should not be allowed. As people turn left and right, traffic backs up and creates an unsafe condition. The third roundabout will facilitate bus and truck traffic but is not required for drop-off functionality. Fidler stated combining the accesses is a good idea and that he has changed the location of one of the roundabouts and also combined the access of the city hall building to increase the functionalist of the design. Franchot asked if the entry into the city hall facility would impede traffic flow. Fidler indicated there should be enough capacity with this plan to handle that given the drop-off and pickup times for the school. Franchot asked whether the entrance and exit to the city hall should be brought in off of Kelley. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 7 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 27 (7. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PLAN UPDATE, Continued) Kellogg pointed out the access to the police garage is located here and that the police chief would like to see a clear separation between access to the police lot and the city hall lot. Kellogg noted they are putting alternate bids together for that. Access to the medical center by adding another intersection is not a good option. McMillan asked whether the police department is okay with using the roundabout to access Highway 12. Kellogg stated the police chief is fine with that option. The roundabout has been shifted as far east as possible to lessen the impact from the city hall facility. The state aid office appeared to be enthusiastic about the design. Murphy stated he would prefer not to do the third roundabout and would leave it up to the discretion of the School District on whether they would like to pay for it. McMillan concurred that the money for the third roundabout should not come out of the City’s state aid funds. Kellogg indicated he will speak with the School District about the third roundabout and whether they would like to pursue it. The City Council took no formal action on this item. LMCD REPORT – ANDREW McDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – KIM KANG, REPRESENTATIVE Kang stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 8. #10-3454 CITY OF ORONO – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS – ORDINANCE NO. 82, THIRD SERIES Curtis noted this application was tabled at the November City Council to allow Staff to develop some additional definitions. This amendment will remove gun clubs as an allowed conditional use within the City. Because the City’s goal is not to further limit the existing gun club with respect to changes in their operation, the City Attorney has proposed an amendment to Code Section 78-71 regarding Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 8 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 27 (8. #10-3454 CITY OF ORONO – ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT – CONDITIONAL USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, Continued) nonconforming structures and uses. This amendment will go before the Planning Commission in January. The gun club has been provided with a copy of Staff’s report and draft ordinance but that she is not sure if any representative from the gun club is present tonight. Curtis stated as it relates to nonprofit libraries, in order to continue to allow for the opportunity to have Hennepin County bring a public library to Orono in the future, Staff is no longer proposing to remove this provision from the Code. A definition of public library will be added to the definitions section. Public library will also remain as a conditional use with the RR-1B; RR-1B-1 districts as is currently allowed. A private library that is ancillary to the principal use would be considered merely as part of that principal use, such as within a church, school, etc. Staff is proposing to remove the requirement for 50 square feet per pupil of outdoor play space for daycares or nursery schools. Outdoor play areas are required as part of the licensing requirements for these types of facilities with the State. The City’s requirements were the same or less than the requirements the State imposes. Unless the City wishes to be more restrictive and require more outdoor play space than the State requires, Staff continues to recommend removal of that provision from the code. Curtis noted the City Code Book updates are printed by Municode once per year. Approval of the ordinance before the end of the year will allow for the new language to be included in the City’s printed update for 2011. As this amendment covers a large amount of information, a printed update would be beneficial. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 82, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Orono City Code Regarding Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory Uses in Residential Districts. McMillan asked whether property owners will be required to get a conditional use permit if they wish to have some farm animals. Curtis indicated it would depend on which district they are in. The changes to the provisions affect only the R-1A and R-1B districts. Franchot asked whether Staff has considered wind mills and other alternate sources of energy and whether those would be covered under this ordinance. Curtis indicated a code change would need to be contemplated to allow something like that. Franchot asked whether this ordinance would be the place to do it. Curtis stated this ordinance would be the place and pointed out that the ordinance could be amended in the future to accommodate that. Mattick noted Staff’s intent was not to add additional uses with this ordinance at the present time. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 9 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 27 *9. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNHI RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET – VARIANCE Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, Application #10,3467, Steven Schussler and Sunhi Ryan, 1935 Concordia Street, to remove this item from the agenda at the request of the applicants who have withdrawn their application. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #10-3468 DENNIS BATTY ON BEHALF OF IRFAN HABIB, 3421-3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMNARY SUBDIVISION AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN Dennis Batty and Irfan Habib, Applicants, were present. Curtis noted the applicants arrived after approval of the Consent Agenda and would like to speak to their application. Dennis Batty, Architect, noted they were not aware their application would be placed on the consent agenda and that they are still interested in the project and would like to come up with a design that would work with the City’s requirements. Batty asked whether they could delay this project for three to four months to allow them time to relocate a new tenant into the upper level of the existing building and design some new plans. Bremer noted the City Council has already denied the request. Batty stated he was told they would have a chance to speak to their request and that he did inform Staff they would be in attendance tonight to speak to their application. Batty stated they would like to have the opportunity to withdraw the application if they are not allowed to table it rather than have it denied by the Council. Murphy stated they did add a number of items to the consent agenda at the beginning of the meeting and that this application was not on the original consent agenda. Mattick stated at this point the application has been denied but that the City Council could pass a motion to reconsider the application, which would allow the applicant to withdraw their application. Staff has had conversations with Mr. Batty on his application and the reasons they are recommending a denial. Staff is not in favor of extending the time limit on the application. The applicant could withdraw the application, which in his opinion Staff would not be opposed to. Curtis indicated that is correct. Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to reconsider Application #10-3468, Dennis Batty on behalf of Irfan Habib, 3421-3425 Shoreline Drive, Preliminary Subdivision and Commercial Site Plan. Batty stated if there is not a chance that their application can be delayed three to four months, he will withdraw the application. They are not asking for special treatment but at the present time they are not sure what they are going to do with the property. Murphy noted this has not been a very popular project with the neighbors, and given the number of delays, the smart thing to do in his opinion would be to withdraw the application and start over. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 10 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 27 (10. #10-3468 DENNIS BATTY ON BEHALF OF IRFAN HABIB, 3421-3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Batty stated if they withdraw their application, the property will likely remain as is and not be improved. Given the issue with the variances, the property likely will need to change dramatically and that they will be withdrawing their application. VOTE ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mattick recommended the applicant be required to submit his withdrawal in writing and to submit that to the City no later than Wednesday, December 15th, otherwise the original motion of denial would stand. Bremer moved, McMillan seconded, Application #10-3468, Dennis Batty on behalf of Irfan Habib, 3421-3425 Concordia Street, to require that the applicant submit his request for withdrawal of his application by Wednesday, December 15, 2010. If the written request is not received by that date, the original motion denying the application will stand. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 6001 AND 6002 Terry Schneider, Applicant, was present. McMillan stated she had a concern with the area by the wetland in the southwest corner and asked whether that area should be disturbed during construction and replanted. Curtis asked whether McMillan is referring to the buffer area. McMillan indicated it would be the buffer area and the area adjacent to that. McMillan stated she is unsure exactly what the applicant is proposing Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to improve the area up to the buffer. The applicant has worked with the neighborhood on the landscape plan and a landscape professional has designed the plan. The noxious weeks and invasive weeds should be removed and brought up to the City’s standards. McMillan asked if the area of native grass planting is a requirement of the City. Curtis indicated that is not a requirement of the City. McMillan stated she knows the neighbors would like to retain as much of the screening as possible, and pointed out that native grass can create a bigger open area and eliminate some of the screening. McMillan stated she would like to make sure that the City is not forcing the applicant to re-vegetate and replant that area. McMillan noted the City’s Code requires removal of buckthorn in buffer areas, and that she personally has an issue with that since it tends to disturb the area. McMillan stated she is not sure what is proposed to be removed and what currently exists as it relates to the trees in the area. McMillan indicated she would like to ensure that large, mature trees are not eliminated and replaced with 6-inch trees. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 11 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 27 (11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Curtis stated the City does not have a tree protection requirement outside the 0-75 foot zone and buffer areas. Franchot asked whether the applicant has met with the neighbors and had this plan approved by them. Schneider indicated the neighbors have reviewed the plan and are in favor of it. Schneider stated they have two buffer areas that will remain. One is along Kelly Avenue, which will remain as is, and the other buffer area is next to the wetlands. Some of the trees are actually located in the buffer zone and will be maintained. The buckthorn and other invasive weeds will be removed. The neighbors have agreed to some landscaping outside of the buffer area, which will leave a fairly dense area of screening. McMillan stated she did not want to require the removal of existing hardwoods in order to replant other smaller trees. Schneider stated under the buffer ordinance, they are able to plant certain new trees in the buffer zone. If they exist in the buffer and are not considered a noxious tree, they can stay. McMillan noted there is reduced parking proposed due to the usage. McMillan asked whether future use of the property would be constrained by the limited parking and what would happen if the building is used for something else. Curtis indicated the use would be contained due to the limited parking. There is a provision in the resolution that states this site is approved for the use proposed and that if someone else occupies the building, they would need to come back to have the conditional use permit amended. Gaffron noted Item 6 of the resolution approving the conditional use permit states the following: “This conditional use permit approval is specifically for an assisted living facility, and future conversion to some other permitted or conditional use within the B-4 Zoning District is not guaranteed based on the parking limitations and possible other factors inherent within the approved site plan.” Gaffron stated that language places the owners on notice that if the parking cannot handle a different use, they may not be granted a conditional use permit for that new use. McMillan stated technically they may be required to add additional parking if the use changes. Gaffron noted retail parking requirements would be significantly more and they would have to find a way to add additional parking. McMillan asked whether there is something in the resolution governing the maintenance of the filtration system. Gaffron indicated there is and that the Watershed District will also have a covenant concerning the maintenance. Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6001, a Resolution Approving a Preliminary Plat and Vacation of Easements for Properties Located at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 12 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 27 (11. #11-3471 TERRY SCHNEIDER WITH KLINGELHUTZ DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF WOODHILL SENIOR COLLATES OF NAVARRE, 2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued) Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6002, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for Properties Located at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH – CUP SUBSTATION ROUTING PERMIT Joe Sedarski, Chris Rogers and Gene Cox were present on behalf of Xcel Energy. Curtis stated in August Xcel Energy began the process of making an application to expand and upgrade their existing substation at 3960 Sixth Avenue North. This project includes a complete rebuild of the existing substation and an increase in operating voltage from 69 kilovolts to 115 kilovolts. A new transmission line is also proposed. The final route for the new, overhead transmission line has not yet been determined but will be subject to review and approval. This type of project is typically reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). However, Xcel may seek local review and approval because their project meets the exemption set out in the Statute. The exemption applies to projects involving transmission lines between 100 and 200 kV, and substations with a voltage designed for and operating at 100 kV or more. Both are being proposed on this site. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 216.E.05 and MN Rule 7850.5300, Xcel may seek local review and approval from the City via our conditional use permit process for their substation expansion and new transmission line route. Pursuant to MN Statute 216.E.05, Subd. 1(b) and MN Rule 7850.5300, Subpart 4, the City has 60 days in which to refer review and permitting back to the PUC. As the application is not yet complete, that 60-day clock has not begun. City Zoning Code lists public service structures as an allowed conditional use within all districts in the City. Specifically, Section 78-393(6) applies to the RR-1A District where this property is located. Staff initially understood the local review sought by Xcel was only the CUP for the substation expansion. Staff now better understands that accepting Xcel’s request for local review includes the substation and approval of the routing for the new transmissions line route. Because the review process cannot be split between the City and the PUC, the City must review either both aspects of this proposal or neither. In the opinion of Staff, the City does not have the appropriate level of expertise needed to fully review the routing of the new transmission lines. Based on the City Attorney’s discussions with the PUC, we believe the City’s comments and recommendations on the application, specifically related to land use, screening, setbacks, etc., will be implemented in the PUC’s review and approval of the project. The City does not have a history of reviewing this type of application and Staff would recommend the City defer the review of this application to the PUC pursuant to 216.E.05, Subd. 1(b), and Rule 7850.5300, Subpart 4. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Michael Kuruvilla, 760 Hunt Farm Road, stated he is president of the Hunt Farm Road Homeowners Association. Kuruvilla stated an application is being put forward but that the homeowners association has concerns since this is located at their back door. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 13 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 27 (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, Continued) expansion and that the people of the City Council and Staff are the experts on the Community Management Plan. The homeowners association is requesting the City Council not relinquish their responsibility to the citizens by referring this to the PUC. This expansion would diminish their property values. The homeowners association is not going to tell Xcel where to build but they would like Xcel to consider alternative routes. Peter Schoon, 994 Hunt Farm Road, indicated he was shocked by this project. The proposed towers and substation are rather monumental. Schoon displayed some pictures of their neighborhood with some 110 foot poles superimposed on the pictures. Schoon pointed out that one of these towers would be in his back yard. The poles are also rather substantial in diameter and would be within 120 feet of the current smaller wood poles in his back yard. Xcel is proposing a row of thee towers across the wetland. These towers would negatively impact the wetlands, the wildlife in the area, their quality of life, and from an aesthetic point of view, the equipment would destroy the area. Schoon indicated a number of different types of wildlife live in the area and he has a substantial number of photographs of the wildlife in the two and a half acre area. The noise output is approximately 60 bp, which is equivalent to running a vacuum cleaner. Schoon stated this is a land use issue and that he would request the City Council retain their authority over this issue and not surrender it to the state. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and the existing power lines. Peter Dassel, Hunt Farm Road, stated he just moved into his house in October and that he has had to replace the septic system, new roof, and he is now facing this issue. Dassel stated the impact to his property is not as great as some of the other neighbors, but that the City cannot abdicate the wetland issues to the states. Mattick indicated Staff is recommending that this application go to the PUC. The City would provide some input on the various issues, but that the PUC would decide the route. Dassel questioned whether this is the best route and, based upon the impact to the wetlands, there should be some alternatives. Xcel needs to demonstrate avoidance and minimization of the wetlands and in his opinion there are other options out there that are not being considered. Dassel suggested that perhaps a different parcel of land be considered for this expansion. Dassel stated based on a visual look, if the towers were located on the north side of 12, there would be less impact on the wetlands than on the south side of Highway 12. Dassel stated that impact could be borne out by a wetland delineation, which unfortunately cannot be accomplished until the spring sometime. Dassel requested the City Council give closer scrutiny to what is being proposed and the impacts to the neighbors. Bremer noted MN Rule 78.50, Subpart 6, would allow review by the City, but that in her view the City does not have enough regulations on the books currently to deal with all aspects of this project. Bremer asked what type of regulations the City has currently to deal with this type of project. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 14 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 27 (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, Continued) Mattick stated Rule 78.50 speaks for itself and that the City needs to have something in place to regulate it. The City has it listed as a conditional use, but beyond that, the criteria to govern it would be the City’s general CUP regulations as it relates to routing or sighting. Mattick noted the PUC would have a whole separate list of regulations than what the City has. The PUC would require an environmental assessment and other things that are not currently in the City’s ordinances. Mattick noted he has spoken with the PUC and they have indicated it is the City’s call on whether they want to review the application. Orono has very few review criteria specific to the sighting or routing of the towers, which poses a problem for Staff. There is nothing in the City’s ordinances regarding the height of the towers or the separation of the towers to give guidance to Staff. Mattick stated the City Council does have the option to review the application if they are comfortable that there are enough regulations currently on the books to provide guidance to Staff on how to proceed. Bremer noted an environmental assessment would be required and asked what that would entail. Mattick stated it would look at the impact of the project on the wetland and things of that nature. White asked whether alternative sites would be listed in the assessment. Mattick indicated they would not be. Based on the size of the project, Xcel does not need to produce a certificate of need. Mattick pointed out that the PUC handles these sorts of things routinely and that there are legitimate questions that need to be asked but that he is not sure if Staff would be able to answer those questions. Mattick stated this is basically an approve or deny type of application based on the City’s current regulations. Bremer asked if the application is complete at this point and whether the 60 day time period has commenced. Mattick stated they have received an application but it is not complete at this point. Mike Kuruvilla commented the City Attorney has not seen the plan and the neighbors have not seen the plan and that a decision should not be made until that is done. The substation would fall under the City of Orono’s land use plan. White requested Mr. Kuruvilla ask a specific question regarding the project. Kuruvilla stated the substation would come under the City’s land use plan. White noted that Mr. Kuruvilla has already pointed out that the City Council and the citizens are the best judges of the City’s land use plan. White indicated the City Attorney is advising the City Council on the best way to proceed given the City’s current regulations. Mattick stated he is not suggesting that substations and routes do not affect the land because they do, but that the PUC would address that. The local authorities have the option on minor projects to review the application. The PUC administers these and reviews these differently than a city would. The City would consider this a conditional use and Xcel would be granted a conditional use permit if they meet all of the Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 15 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 27 (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, Continued) City’s criteria, which is pretty vague at this point. Mattick pointed out that this is not a typical land use application and that the PUC is not confined to your typical CUP criteria. Mayor White asked whether Xcel currently has a right-of-way easement along the highway. Chris Rogers indicated it would require additional easements. Rogers stated the plan depicted on the overhead shows the existing line in blue, which is a 115 kV line. The red line is the proposed route. Mayor White asked whether the easements would be obtained from the state. Rogers stated the route being proposed would have the poles pretty much along the railroad right-of-way and would involve obtaining private easements. The north/south route is basically a triangular shape and would run on Xcel property until it turns in a northwesterly direction. White pointed out on the overhead the piece of property owned by Xcel. Rogers indicated it is a 16-acre piece of property and consists largely of woods. Dassel noted the easements would need to be obtained through condemnation proceedings against the homeowners association. White concurred that Xcel would need to acquire an easement from the private landowners. Murphy commented that this is similar to the Highway 12 project given the impact on the neighbors. Murphy asked for clarification on the proposed route. Gene Cox stated the blue line is the existing 115 kV line and that the proposed line would go along the route depicted by the red dots. The existing line is currently at capacity. Commencing at Mr. Schoon’s property, the three poles would be converted to a single pole structures with a concrete foundation. At that point there would then be a monopole design which will traverse the route of the red dots to the substation and back out. The monopole structures will have wires on each side since they are looping it into the substation and back out. The blue line would become a continuous loop that is severed at the red dot located on Mr. Schoon’s property. Rogers stated the last red dot is an existing three pole structure that currently exists on Mr. Schoon’s property and Xcel would propose bringing the route in a northeasterly direction to almost the buffer area. The red line would be shifted northeasterly and further away from the private properties, which will help save trees and other vegetation. Murphy asked what the three-pole structure is exactly. Cox indicated it is actually three separate structures and that the existing blue line that goes through Mr. Schoon’s property would consist of A-frame structures. Murphy asked what other alternatives were considered. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 16 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 27 (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, Continued) Rogers stated they need to get from Point A, which is the substation, to Point B, which is the 115 kV line. Roger indicated they are willing to meet with Mr. Schoon and Mr. Kuruvilla again to discuss alternative routes. One of the options considered was to take it through Baker Park. Xcel did meet with Three Rivers Park in early November and Three Rivers Park has issued a two page letter outlining their criteria. That letter has been provided to Mr. Schoon and Mr Kuruvilla. The other alternative is to run it between Highway 12 and the railroad tracks, but that is not ideal since there is a force main located in that area as well as other utilities. Rogers stated if the proposed route is followed, it would not be in the wetlands on Mr. Schoon’s or Mr. Kuruvilla’s property but would be closer to the railroad. Murphy asked how much taller the new poles are. Cox indicated the existing structures are between 60-70 feet and the new poles would be approximately 15 feet higher. The tallest structure would be the corner structure because they are transitioning from the A-frame structure into a vertical design. Bremer asked why Xcel made application to the City rather than to the PUC. Sedarski indicated one factor is the small size of the project and the other factor is to go to the City in the hopes that there will be local support for the project. The proposed route will impact relatively few property owners. Sedarski noted Xcel also has other projects scheduled around the same time. Bremer asked what is incomplete about the application. Sedarski indicated part of the process is to introduce the project to the public and to obtain public comment on the environmental assessment and the route alternatives. The PUC would not require Xcel to look at alternative routes. Xcel, however, does review that at as a matter of course. Sedarski noted Xcel is not done with the environmental assessment. Rogers indicated plans for the substation expansion and transmission lines have not yet been finalized and submitted. Sedarski pointed out they did send letters to the affected landowners and they are in the process of collecting comments. Xcel has completed a wetlands delineation and that has been approved by the Watershed District. Murphy asked what the general time line is for the project. Cox stated the time line will be based on the permitting process they end up following. Cox stated this is a local project and the substation is a distribution substation, which would feed both commercial and residential properties. Cox stated permitting would typically be a six to eight month long process and construction would start sometime in 2012 depending on when the permitting process is complete. Sedarski noted the six to eight month process would be if they go before the PUC. McMillan asked what area would be upgraded as part of this project. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 17 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 27 (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, Continued) Cox stated it would be essentially a 15-20 mile perimeter around the substation. The existing line is at capacity and does not have full protection because it does not have a shield wire. The 115kV line would provide for better voltage support, superior reliability and protection. Currently there is only one source of power to the area and with the upgrade, if one side of the service goes down, the other side would be able to provide power, which increases the reliability of the system. Mayor White asked what noise level is generated. Sedarski stated they do monitor the noise as part of the EA process and Xcel will be providing those numbers. Dassel asked why this project would not require a full environmental impact statement. Sedarski stated this process is not part of the environmental quality board where the environment assessment is used to determine whether an environmental impact statement is required. Xcel is requesting permitting from the City and the City has 60 days to decide whether to accept the application. In the environmental assessment there is information on the wetlands, and Xcel will review all the impacts and do whatever mitigation is necessary. Xcel follows certain construction techniques that are designed to minimize the impact to the wetlands and would do the construction during the winter. Dassel noted impacts can also be felt outside the wetlands, such as runoff. Sedarski indicated the environmental assessment will provide the design. McMillan asked what the PUC process would entail. Sedarski stated the process before the PUC would involve a similar process as the City’s except for an environmental assessment being completed. Xcel would still hold a public meeting with the residents, which is not required under the PUC rules. Once application is filed, it typically takes six to eight months with the PUC. The PUC offers two options for review. The ultimate review process with the PUC does not require Xcel to look at alternate routes but the full permitting process does, which is the only difference between the two processes. McMillan asked why this project does not require the full permitting process. Sedarski indicated the voltage and the distance determines which process should be followed. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. Mayor White commented that in his view the City does not have the expertise or established criteria to handle this type of application. McMillan indicated she is in agreement with Mayor White. Murphy stated he is sympathetic to the concerns of the residents, but that in his view it would take a lot of time and energy on the part of the City to deal with this application and that Xcel will probably get what Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 18 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 27 (12. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY, 3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, Continued) they want anyway. Murphy encouraged the residents to take their comments to the PUC, and suggested that the City work with the citizens as much as possible. Mattick stated the City does have the opportunity to provide comments to the PUC on the application. Michael Kuruvilla stated he would like Xcel to know that the residents are not against Xcel but that this is not a good spot for the substation or the transmission lines. Franchot stated he is in agreement that the City should stand strong with the residents, but that he is unsure whether the City should handle this or turn it over to the PUC. Franchot stated he would like the answer to be that the City can do a better job on this application than the PUC, but that he is not sure whether that is really the case. Franchot moved, McMillan seconded, Application #10-3486, Xcel Energy, 3960 Sixth Avenue North, to accept Staff’s recommendation and refer this matter to the Public Utilities Commission. Murphy commented it is likely that Xcel will come in below the maximum decibel level but that it will still seem noisy to the neighbors. Murphy again encouraged the residents to provide their comments to the PUC. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Bremer Opposed. 13. #10-3489 SUSAN AND JUSTIN KELLEY AND CLAUDIA AND SCOTT WEISBERG, 2980 AND 2990 SUSSEX ROAD – LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT/VACATION OF EASEMENT – PUBLIC HEARING – RESOLUTION NO. 6003 Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a lot line rearrangement for the properties located at 2980 and 2990 Sussex Road. The applicants would like to move the current lot line 53 feet to the south. Due to an error in publication timing for the vacation of easements, the Planning Commission’s public hearing only applied to the lot line rearrangement. The City Council will hold the public hearing for the vacation as well as review the lot line rearrangement. The appropriate utility companies were notified. They have provided comments on the vacation and only one, Xcel Energy, had a line which required a new easement. Mayor White opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mayor White closed the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Bremer moved, Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6003, a Resolution Approving a Lot Line Rearrangement and Easement Vacation for Properties Located at 2980 and 2990 Sussex Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 19 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 27 14. #10-3493 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COLUMBARIUM – RESOLUTION NO. 6014 Mayor White noted some of the neighbors are in attendance tonight and would like to make some statements regarding this application. Joe Anderson, 2464 Dunwoody Avenue, stated his main concern is the use of the private roadway that they own and making sure that their roadway is not used for parking or the storage of equipment during construction. White asked whether the road is posted as a private road. Anderson indicated it is. Dave Owen, Good Shepherd Church, indicated they understand that concern. Anderson stated he also has a concern that there will be additional traffic generated as a result of the columbarium. Mattick asked if there is currently parking allowed on the road. Anderson indicated there is not. Mayor White noted parking on the street would make it difficult for emergency vehicles to access that area. Mattick stated if the road has been signed and posted, the vehicles could be ticketed. Murphy asked what might occur as part of this project that would affect the use of that roadway differently than what it is already being used for. Dave Owen stated he does not envision Good Shepherd doing anything different than what it currently does once the inurnment garden is constructed. Owen noted the inurnment garden is for their members only and that they currently hold memorial services. Paul Carlson, 2466 Dunwoody, stated there are some private easements that are of concern. One of the easements is owned by the church as they previously owned the land on Tract F. The church was granted an easement via a quitclaim deed for $1 in 1963. Carlson stated to his understanding that easement still exists. The neighbors have a concern that the church will decide to use their rights under that easement. They have asked the church to rescind or revoke their easement that exists on that private drive. In 1997, Paula Zachman purchased the home on Tract F, which eliminates the purpose for the easement. The second agreement is a road maintenance agreement that supersedes the one that was signed in 1986 by the church and was conferred to Paula Zachman when she purchased the property. Carlson stated they have concerns that the easement document has survivability and the church will allow people to park there. Mayor White asked what the easement says. Carlson stated the easement reads for driveway purposes as a means of ingress and egress to Tract F, registered land Survey No. 660 over and across Tract H, which is the driveway. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 20 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 27 (14. #10-3493 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Mayor White asked if they own Tract F and if that is only to allow access to their property. Zachman indicated they own Tract F. Carlson stated he does not think the church is planning on using this easement, but the documents are good forever and the situation could change at some point in the future. Carlson stated they would like that situation resolved. White noted that is a matter between the church and the property owner. Bremer pointed out the City does not have the authority to revoke the easement. Carlson stated they would like the City to resolve it as part of the conditional use permit. Mattick indicated he has not reviewed the documents and asked what the connection is between the easement and the proposed use. Mattick asked where the church’s easement is. Carlson stated they have an easement on H to F. Mattick asked if the church can use the driveway to gain access to F. Carlson indicated they can and that in his view they have a strong legal argument to get the easement revoked. Mattick noted they are not using F to get to the inurnment area. Carlson stated the church could use that easement to park or gain access to the church and that the inurnment garden will increase the amount of traffic to the church. Mattick stated in his view the easement does not allow traffic to go to the church based on the representations made by Mr. Carlson. Mattick stated before the City Council tonight is an application for the church property. The easement does not say that the people can drive on Tract F, park their cars and then enter the church property. Mattick noted none of the application impacts that easement. Carlson indicated he would agree with that. Mayor White stated Mr. Carlson is requesting the City use its leverage to not allow that at some point in the future. Carlson stated he would like the issue with the easement resolved as part of the CUP. White stated the easement is a separate issue. Mattick stated the Council can impose conditions but they have to reasonably relate to the application that is before them and Tracts F and H do not relate to this property and there have been no representations Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 21 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 27 (14. #10-3493 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) made that the church will use Tract F. Mattick stated as the easement has been represented to him, it does not allow anyone to gain access to the church. David Owen stated he just became aware of this tonight and that he is doubtful that anyone in the congregation was aware of the easement. Owen stated he cannot represent what the church council will want to do as it relates to the easement. (Cynthia Bremer leaves at 10:03 p.m.) Carlson stated they met with the church on this issue approximately one week ago and attempted to get together over the weekend but were unable to due to the bad weather. Mayor White stated this issue does not relate to the application before them. Mattick agreed that an easement exists but that the church does not own Tract F any longer, so he is unsure who from the church will use the easement to gain access to the Zachman property. Margo Henderson, 2464 Dunwoody Avenue, stated she has not been privy to all of the conversations and that she is unsure about the screening being proposed. Henderson asked whether there will be screening in addition to the screening proposed for the Zachman property. Owen noted they had a meeting with the neighbors on Friday and that Mrs. Henderson’s husband was in attendance. The church has agreed that the whole garden should be screened and the neighbors and church have agreed that a fence would be erected. McMillan asked whether any side views of the fence are available. Owen displayed some pictures of a fence that they are proposing to construct and the surrounding area near the inurnment garden. The fence would be six feet high. Franchot commented he does have some empathy for the neighbors and that it is possible at some point in the future the easement will be used by the church. Franchot encouraged them to discuss the issue with the church. Owen stated he is not in a position to agree to anything regarding the easement tonight but that he would bring it to the church board. Owen stated to his understanding there is no reason for the church to have the easement. Carlson noted they are opposed to the columbarium. Zachman asked if they will be able to have more than 140 columbarium spaces at some point in the future. Curtis stated they would need to come back to the City for approval of any additional spaces. Murphy asked whether Ms. Zachman is attempting to sell her house at the present time. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 22 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 27 (14. #10-3493 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH, 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Zachman indicated they are in the process of selling it and if it does not sell, it will be rented out. She stated they may end up moving back there at some point, which is the basis for their concerns. Carlson stated several real estate agents have indicated a columbarium would have a negative impact on property values. Murphy asked who is all represented of the neighbors and whether the fence is a done deal. Zachman indicated the fence helps. Owen indicated they met with three property owners. There is one other property owner on the street who is a member of their congregation and one other homeowner they did not hear from. At that meeting the neighbors came to a consensus on how to screen the whole garden. The church did attempt to have a meeting on Saturday but was unable to given the bad weather. Owen stated in his view the church has gone the extra yard to appease the neighbors. McMillan stated her initial response to the ordinance was to require the columbarium to be located at least 50 feet from the property line and that the Council elected to go with 50 feet from a residential building. Following that discussion some other issues have come to the forefront, such as the noise issue and the ability for the adjoining property owners to enjoy the use of their property during memorial services. McMillan stated while columbaria are not legally cemeteries, they are used in the same fashion as a cemetery. McMillan stated she would hate to see fences going up all over town. While this is a brand new code amendment, it does not totally fit the bill but it is the law and the church is attempting to mitigate the situation as is required under the code amendment. McMillan stated she personally does not like to have a new code amendment that has issues arise right away. Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6014, a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Property Located at 3745 Shoreline Drive, which will include the erection of a 6-foot fence. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT *15. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 1, NORTH FARM ROAD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 1 for the North Farm Road Sewer Project, E.J. Mayers, in the amount of $30,440.38. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *16. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 1, LIFT STATION NO. 12 IMPROVEMENTS Murphy moved, Franchot seconded to approve Request for Payment No. 1 for the Lift Station 12 Improvement Project, Landwehr Construction, Inc., in the amount of $68,168.58. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 23 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 27 *17. REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 AND FINAL, WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 2 and final for the Willow Drive South Mill and Overlay Project, William Mueller and Sons, Inc., in the amount of $56,296.65. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT None CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *18. PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ROOM AND EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the purchase of Property Room and Evidence Management Software from FileOnQ (Evidence ONQ) for $15,732.18, and an annual cost of $1,300.76 for maintenance and support starting in 2012. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 19. PLANNING COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS McMillan nominated Hue Alexander and John Thiesse to the Planning Commission. McMillan moved, Franchot seconded, to appoint John Thiesse to the Planning Commission for the term ending March 31, 2014. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Franchot moved, Murphy seconded, to appoint Hue Anderson to the Planning Commission for the term ending March 31, 2013. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *20. 2011 FEE SCHEDULE – ORDINANCE NO. 83, THIRD SERIES Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. , Third Series, an Ordinance Adopting the 2011 Fee Schedule and Repealing Ordinance No 66, Third Series. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *21. 2011 OFFICIAL CALENDAR Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the 2011 Official Calendar for the City of Orono. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *22. COUNCIL LIAISON TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS IN 2011 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the council liaison schedule for Council attendance at the Planning Commission meetings during 2011. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 24 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 27 *23. AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE CITY FUNDS FOR CLAIMS RECEIVED Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse city funds in payment of claims received for the December 27th Council meeting which has been cancelled and that such paid claims be presented for formal approval at the January 10, 2011, Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *24. NON-WAIVER OF TORT LIMITS – RESOLUTION NO. 6004 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6004, a Resolution Making a Selection not to Waive the Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Purposes. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *25. APPROVE ANNUAL TRANSFERS Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the Schedule of 2010 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 26. 2011 NON-UNION EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENTS – RESOLUTION NO. 6005 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6005, a Resolution Approving pay Plan Adjustments for Non-Union City Employees for 2011. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *27. AMEND ORONO HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ARRANGEMENT (HRA) – RESOLUTION NO. 6006 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6006, a Resolution Amending the City of Orono Health Reimbursement Arrangement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *28. AMEND ORONO FLEXIBLE SPENDING PLAN – RESOLUTION NO. 6007 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6007, a Resolution Amending the City of Orono Flexible Spending Plan. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *29. MUNICIPAL STATE AID BOND RESOLUTION NO. 6008 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6008, a Resolution Calling for the Annual Certification of MSA Funds for the Debt Service on the Bonds for the Old Crystal Bay Road Project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *30. CITY ENGINEER RATE SCHEDLE Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the 2011 rate schedule for consultant engineering services from Bonestroo and Associates. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 25 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 of 27 *31. AMENDMENT 1 TO RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve Amendment 1 to Residential Recycling Grant Agreement between Hennepin County and the City of Orono for calendar year 2011, and to authorize the City Administrator to execute such agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *32. WAYATA FIRE SERVICE AGREEMENT Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the Wayzata Fire Service Contract with the City of Wayzata and approve payment for fire protection services. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *33. RECOGNITION OF OFFICER WILLIAM “BILL” PERSELL – RESOLUTION NO. 6009 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6009, a Resolution Recognizing Officer William “Bill” Persell for his 16 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Orono as Police Officer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *34. RECOGNITION OF OFFICER ERICK DYER – RESOLUTION NO. 6010 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6010, a Resolution Recognizing Officer Erick Dyer for his Dedicated Service to the City of Orono as Police Officer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *35. RECOGNITION OF OFFICER MATT SILTALA – RESOLUTION NO. 6011 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6011, a Resolution Recognizing Officer Matt Siltala for his Dedicated Service to the City of Orono as Police Officer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *36. RECOGNITION OF ADRIENNE MADSON – RESOLUTION NO. 6012 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6012, a Resolution of Appreciation to Adrienne Madson for her Eleven Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Orono. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT *37. HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION AT 200 HOLLANDER ROAD – RESOLUTION NO. 6013 Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLTION NO. 6013, a Resolution Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Building. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 26 of 27] MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2010 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 27 of 27 38. LICENSES & PERMITS ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSES Club on Sale and Sunday Liquor 1. Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard 2. Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road On Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor 3. Lakeview Golf of Orono 405 North Arm Drive 4. Orono Golf Course 265 Orono Orchard Road South 5. Tanner Enterprises of MN Inc./Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive Off Sale 3.2 Percent Malt Liquor 6. Voyageur Service Centers, Inc./O’Sullivan’s Holiday 2420 Shadywood Road On Sale Liquor and Sunday 7. Orono Liquor Inc./Narrows Saloon 3380 Shoreline Drive Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve the above listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0, McMillan Abstained. *39. BILLS Murphy moved, Franchot seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT White moved, Murphy seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 10:22 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk James M. White, Mayor Item #04 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Approval of Council Minutes 12/13/2010 [Page 27 of 27] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #05 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 File #07-3334 [Total Pages 16] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction Plan Update [Page 1 of 1] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Hennepin County Mitigation Plan [Page 1 of 3] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Hennepin County Mitigation Plan [Page 2 of 3] Item #07 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Hennepin County Mitigation Plan [Page 3 of 3] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 1 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 2 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 3 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 4 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 5 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 6 of 7] Item #08 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Animal Impound Agreement (Crossroads Animal Shelter) [Page 7 of 7] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Declaration of Vacancy in the Office of Council Member [Page 1 of 2] Item #09 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Declaration of Vacancy in the Office of Council Member [Page 2 of 2] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 1 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 2 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 3 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 4 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 5 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 6 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 7 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 8 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 9 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 10 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 11 of 12] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Interview Schedule for Council Vacancy [Page 12 of 12] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 1 of 7] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 2 of 7] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 3 of 7] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 4 of 7] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 5 of 7] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 6 of 7] Item #11 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Annual Appointments [Page 7 of 7] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Selection of Date for 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization [Page 1 of 4] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Selection of Date for 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization [Page 2 of 4] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Selection of Date for 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization [Page 3 of 4] Item #12 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Selection of Date for 2011 Local Board of Appeal and Equalization [Page 4 of 4] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 1 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 2 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 3 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 4 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 5 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 6 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 7 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 8 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 9 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 10 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 11 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 12 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 13 of 14] Item #13 - CC Agenda - 12/10/2011 Extension of Hennepin County Electronic Propietary Data Base (EPDB) Agreement [Page 14 of 14] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Accept Donation from Paulucci [Page 1 of 3] Item #14 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Accept Donation from Paulucci [Page 2 of 3] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 2 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 3 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 4 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 5 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 6 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 7 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 8 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 9 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 10 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 11 of 12] Item #15 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Licenses & Permits [Page 12 of 12] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 1 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 2 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 3 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 4 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 5 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 6 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 7 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 8 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 9 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 10 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 11 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 12 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 13 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 14 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 15 of 16] Item #16 - CC Agenda - 01/10/2011 Bills [Page 16 of 16]