HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-2011 Council Packet Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 22, 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
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 Work Session of August 8, 2011
3. Regular Council Meeting of August 8, 2011
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
4. #11-3513 Ryan Companies US, Inc., 450 & 550 Old Crystal Bay Road North – Preliminary and
Final Plat with Easement Vacation – Resolution
* 5. #11-3522 Steiner & Koppleman, LLC on behalf of Nancy Bigos, 3350 Fox Street – Variance –
Resolution
6. Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115kV Transmission Line – Draft Comment Letter
City Engineer’s Report
7. Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
8. Forest Lake Drive Storm Sewer Improvements
9. Request for Payment No. 2 and Final – North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
10. Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
11. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Support of Programs
12. Engineering Services – Request for Proposals
City Attorney's Report
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 22, 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
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications
13. Licenses & Permits
Firearm Use Permit – Annual Club
Massage Therapist
* 14. Bills
Adjournment
Upcoming Issues and Events
2011
08/22 – Council Work Session, Monday, 6:00 pm
08/22 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
09/05 – HOLIDAY, Labor Day
09/07 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m.
09/12 – Council Work Session, Monday, 6:00 pm
09/12 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
09/19 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Mayor McMillan)
09/26 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
10/14-11/15 – Leaf and Grass Disposal, Mondays-Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.
10/05 – Planning Commission Work Session, Wednesday, 5:30 p.m.
10/10 – Council Work Session, Monday, 6:00 pm
10/10 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
10/17 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Dave Rahn)
10/24 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Monday, August 8, 2011
6:00 p.m.
Page 1 of 1
Present: Mayor Lili McMillan, Council Members Doug Franchot, Aaron Printup, and Dave Rahn.
Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson and
City Clerk Lin Vee
Finance Director Ron Olson reviewed potential revenue sources and expenditures for 2012, including
expected increases and decreases. Council discussed the impact of increasing and decreasing both
revenues and expenditures, as well as the tax levy required to fund the proposed budget.
Olson noted that the preliminary budget and tax levy must be adopted by September 15, 2011 and the
final budget and tax levy will be adopted at the December 12th meeting. While the preliminary tax levy
adopted in September can be decreased, it cannot be increased when the final tax levy and budget are
adopted in December.
Council scheduled a work session for August 22nd to continue discussion of the 2012 preliminary budget.
There were no comments regarding Information Update items.
The meeting closed at 6:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
________________________________________ _______________________________________
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Item #02 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 1 of 1]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
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 and Council Members Doug Franchot, Aaron Printup, and David Rahn. Representing
Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Clerk Lin Vee, Assistant
Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, City
Attorney Soren Mattick, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member
Cynthia Bremer was absent.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 o’clock p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays
0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 25, 2011
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of July
25, 2011, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PRESENTATION
3. LMCC PRESENTATION
Sally Koenecke and Tom Fletcher, representatives of LMCC, were present.
Fletcher stated they are entering into a three-year negotiating period to renew the franchises for the next
five to fifteen years. The LMCC is limited by the Federal Communications Commission on what can be
put into the agreement. Mediacom will be attending the LMCC's August 16th meeting to discuss their
plans and answer any questions the LMCC should have. On September 8th there will be informal
discussions with Mediacom at the committee level. The LMCC is currently soliciting community input
on the franchises.
Fletcher stated the reality is that the LMCC has to renew the franchise unless the city can show cause,
such as poor performance. Over the years Mediacom has performed satisfactorily as evidenced by the
complaint logs that have been kept. Mediacom averages approximately three to four complaints per
month. Fletcher stated in his view Mediacom has done a good job in handling those complaints.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 1 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
Fletcher stated one comment they have received was to bring in another competitor to this area, such as
Comcast. Fletcher indicated they have asked Comcast and Media Charter and they both have responded
in writing that they are not interested. Fletcher pointed out this is not a very dense area and it would be
expensive for another company to come in and provide the same service.
Fletcher stated the number one discussion item will probably be whether Mediacom can expand their
service area. Mediacom has indicated they are open to expanding coverage. The current franchise
agreement basically says they have to build out if they have 30 homes per cable mile and after that there
is no requirement to expand. The FCC has deregulated Mediacom as far as pricing and the LMCC has no
authority over requiring Mediacom to expand the number of channels they offer. Approximately half of
the committee is technically oriented and the LMCC will be hiring a technical consultant. The LMCC has
no ability to regulate internet or phone service since those are provided separately.
Franchot suggested that the key steps be laid out on the three year negotiation process.
Fletcher stated Mediacom would like a shorter negotiation period, such as six months, but that is not
likely to happen.
Franchot commented that the best outcome would likely be a two-year negotiating process. Franchot
asked whether the LMCC shows what technology is available on the maps they have provided.
Fletcher indicated it does not show the technology that is provided but it shows how the infrastructure is
laid out.
Franchot noted that Mr. Fletcher mentioned that the LMCC does not have any real authority over the
internet or phone. As it relates to what is currently called cable TV, Franchot asked what impact there
would be if that should switch more to the internet.
Fletcher stated his concern would be that the LMCC would experience a decrease in their revenue.
Franchise fees are based on cable revenues and not internet revenues. If things shift to the internet, the
potential pot of revenues may disappear or decline. Mediacom also sells a lot of internet and phone
service so they likely would do just fine.
Franchot asked whether the LMCC would have the funding available to televise the city council meetings
if that change should occur.
Fletcher indicated that service likely would be impacted by the decrease in fees.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this item.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Franchot noted that the LMCC has an e-mail address and phone number on their website that can be
accessed by the general public.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 2 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
McMillan noted the City did receive a letter from an Orono resident regarding the cost of running internet
to their house and the fact that they received a high quote from Mediacom to connect to their system even
though Mediacom's existing cable is located approximately 2,500 feet from their house. McMillan asked
how much time is spent by the LMCC in terms of finding solutions for those residents in Orono who do
not have access to cable.
Fletcher stated expanding the service area is becoming a higher priority and that the LMCC could
consider possibly obtaining a fixed price per unit or per foot for any additional cable service outside the
agreed to service area, which may help reduce the cost.
McMillan asked if there are a number of other cities that are also lacking coverage.
Fletcher indicated that Victoria and Minnetrista are two communities who are lacking coverage.
McMillan stated she would also like to talk about the fiber optic project.
Gabriel Jabbour, 994 Tonkawa Road, stated he would urge the City Council to strongly pass a motion
taking Orono out of Tonka Connect. Jabbour commented there is a serious problem in Orono and the
history has been lost on how the City has gotten to this point. There is a major inequity in the system and
there are people who do not receive any services. Those people represent geographically perhaps the
majority of the residents while others might eventually receive streaming video on demand.
Jabbour commented that this project is a waste of time. Jabbour indicated he has spoken with a number
of other cities, such as Shorewood, Victoria, and Greenwood. Greenwood passed a motion 5-0 against
the fiber optic project. A couple of major cities in the area, such as Mound and Wayzata, are not
members of the LMCC. Not only is the City wasting their time, but they are spending taxpayer money
doing studies for a pie in the sky project that the LMCC does not have the know-how, does not have the
ability or the finances to do the project.
Jabbour stated that people continuously say that the franchises are paying for it. Jabbour pointed out that
when a government agency or cities receive money, it becomes taxpayer money. That argument was
heard during the discussion of Old Crystal Bay Road. When that money is used, a certain resource is
depleted and other revenue streams need to make up for those dollars spent. Jabbour reiterated he would
like the City Council to pass a resolution taking the City of Orono off of Tonka Connect or asking the
City's LMCC representative to aggressively and passionately do what they can do to stop it.
Jabbour stated the other thing that frustrates him is that the members of the Council are elected officials,
and while there are lots of opportunities for volunteerism and partnerships between agencies, the Council
should not abandon its responsibility to a nonelected committee. Jabbour noted the City of Shorewood
removed their representative because he did not represent their point of view but that the LMCC decided
to keep him as chairman of Tonka Connect.
Jabbour indicated he has started getting e-mails from Chanhassen from a group called Tonka Disconnect.
Jabbour commented fiber optic should be provided by the private sector and that the City should be
entering into partnerships with departments and agencies such as the police and fire departments.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 3 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
Jabbour noted the City has worked hard to get their AAA rating by Moody’s and that the City should not
be in partnership with cities that have junk bond ratings.
Jabbour encouraged the City Council to vote down the fiber optic project and to have the City’s
representative to the LMCC follow the City's direction.
Franchot noted he is the City’s representative to the LMCC and is currently serving as the vice chair.
Franchot indicated he has spoken with Mr. Jabbour in the past about his opposition to the fiber optic
project and has asked him for supporting documentation on some of his assertions. Franchot commented
there is almost a total lack of accuracy on Mr. Jabbour's facts. If the Council were to take his
recommendation to heart, the Council would be taking a recommendation that is littered with
misinformation. Franchot pointed out it is not taxpayers' money that would go into this project but that it
is fees for a service, which is what people are paying now. There is nothing about the current LMCC that
was ever envisioned to run any effort that might come from the fiber optic plan.
Franchot stated as to the question of why the City would sign up with a group to provide this service, one
should go back to the history of how cable was originally provided to this area. In the past the City could
not get a cable company to talk to any of the communities around Lake Minnetonka to put in a cable
system because of the small size of the area and the costs associated with providing that service. The
LMCC came about because it was the only way that our communities could get any cable. That system
has worked very well for the 20-plus years that it has been in existence.
Franchot pointed out the effort around the fiber optic project has been one of exploration and is an effort
to find solutions to the problems with the current system. Franchot commented he has to point out that
Mr. Jabbour is stating a lot of things that simply are not true. Franchot indicated that Mr. Jabbour has
previously stated that fiber optic technology is obsolete technology and that he has asked for information
to support that claim, which has not been forthcoming.
Jabbour noted he has only spoken with Council Member Franchot one time at a luncheon meeting and
that he was informed Mr. Franchot had just left a cable commission meeting. Jabbour stated he informed
Mr. Franchot at that time that he could get the chief engineer of Cisco Systems to come and address the
City Council. Jabbour indicated he did not discuss this project any further with Council Member
Franchot after that.
Franchot stated his recollection of the meeting is different and that he remembers Mr. Jabbour speaking
about a WiFi system that would make fiber optic obsolete. Franchot indicated he requested information
about the system, which has never been provided.
Jabbour indicated that would be the Cicso system he was speaking of and that he offered to have the chief
engineer come speak to the City at his expense.
Franchot stated that has never been offered to him.
Jabbour commented it is possible he could make errors out of stupidity but not out of malice. Jabbour
commented that Council Member Franchot is stating that he is misrepresenting the facts but that to the
best of his knowledge he is not misrepresenting the facts. Jabbour stated Council Member Franchot is
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 4 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
attempting to diminish the facts by stating this is not taxpayer money when it is taxpayer money. Jabbour
stated it is more than likely that the City will be asked to bond for this project.
Franchot stated the next stage of the project is the stage the LMCC needs to do to see if this is a sensible
project, which is to create a business plan, determine the financial requirements of the project, and
describe what would be needed and what the demand is. If the demand is not there, then it should not be
pursued.
McMillan commented there is an enormous amount of unknowns in this project and that the local City
Councils are discussing whether they should go down this path of spending money on a study that may
demonstrate the project is not feasible.
McMillan commented other city councils are very concerned that the taxpayers might be on the hook for
these bonds and that another bigger point being discussed is whether the LMCC should be spending
money on studies. The cost of the business plan is $50,000 and bonding would be $90,000. The LMCC
is talking about $150,000 being spent in the next year on studies for a fiber optic network project that may
not be viable. McMillan stated there is a lot of concern about whether this is a path cities should pursue
and that in her view the local city councils should vote on this. The LMCC has completed the market
study and she did not see anything that came out of the market study that says they should be rushing
ahead to do this project.
Franchot noted the market study found that 77 percent of the population would be interested in purchasing
from a public system.
McMillan pointed out the survey did not ask whether the citizens would be interested if taxpayer money
would be on the line, which should have been asked. McMillan stated the question is whether the City
wants to go down the path of funding a high risk and expensive build-out of a fiber optic system versus
the private sector.
Franchot stated 61 percent of the citizens said they thought it would be fine if the public were involved.
Rahn commented that anyone who reads a survey can have major differences of opinion based on how
they read it. The City Council is up here for the public and that what he gleaned from the survey was that
they would only be in favor of it if it was a cost saving measure; and that if it wasn't going to save them
money, they were not interested in it. Rahn stated he sees this as more of a private enterprise type of
venture and that if it was possible that someone could make money at it, someone would have done it.
Rahn stated in his view the risks of the project were not fully explained.
Printup asked how many Orono residents were surveyed.
Franchot indicated approximately 143 residents.
Printup stated the City’s responsibility is largely public safety and infrastructure, and that in his view the
fiber optic project does not fits into that governmental role.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 5 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
Franchot stated there is a strong case to be made that it is necessary infrastructure. Franchot pointed out
that there are still some Orono residents who do not have internet access.
Printup asked how much was spent on the survey and how much money they are talking to go to the next
step.
Franchot stated one of the key questions that the Commission has kept in the forefront is what the
Commission is permitted to do under the joint powers agreement, and under that agreement, the
Commission does have the ability to explore new technology. The next stage of the project would cost
approximately $55,000, which the LMCC does have the money for, and would result in an in depth
business plan that would answer all of the questions that have been raised tonight. Franchot stated in his
opinion it would be money well spent.
Franchot stated beyond that phase is where you would start to get into what it would actually take to
finance and build out the system, and that at that point the cities would need to sign on to some type of
expanded LMCC or agree to the creation of a new public entity, probably a JPA, that would go ahead and
bond for the project and build it and then contract with a professional firm to operate it.
Franchot indicated the LMCC would utilize revenue bonds, which do not cost the cities or the taxpayers
money. Franchot stated it is similar to a person going to the grocery store and spending what could be
considered taxpayer money. The money is not going to a city entity but would be going to a publicly
owned entity that would then operate the system. In theory it would have local control and local customer
service. Franchot commented the LMCC has a commitment to building out an infrastructure system that
many people feel is critical to the City's future and would also positively impact the value of the homes in
the area. Franchot noted there is ample research that indicates that good broadband access is a positive on
home values.
Printup stated in his view it belongs more in the private sector.
Franchot stated if they could have gotten a private sector business interested in this, the LMCC would
have jumped all over it.
Jabbour stated it is the law that the minute they receive those funds, they are considered taxpayer monies.
Franchot asked who the "they" is that he is referring to.
Jabbour stated the money that is to be spent on the study would be taxpayer money. Jabbour commented
that is money that could be used to pay down the building or to improve access or to stream local
programs better on the internet. Jabbour stated it is absolutely rubbish to think that when you start taking
a source of income to say that it is not costing the city. For Orono to improve the system, the City has to
give the LMCC money. Jabbour noted the LMCD has a Save the Lake Fund and that when he sends in a
donation to the Save the Lake Fund, it has to be treated as taxpayer money and they have to abide by all
the regulations that go along with it.
Jabbour stated when he was the president of the merchants group in downtown Minneapolis, he asked the
MBA Program at the Carlson School of Business to do all these studies for free. Jabbour stated the
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 6 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
studies were done as a class project at no cost to them. The MBA Program gives priority to
municipalities and nonprofits. Jabbour stated for the LMCC to spend $55,000 on a study that they could
get for free from the Carlson School of Business is unforgiveable. Jabbour commented this project will
never see the light of day and that seven cities have already unanimously voted against it.
Franchot commented it is unfortunate that those cities made their decision before they had all the facts.
Franchot noted the LMCC does listen to the cities and that they may decide not to go ahead with the next
phase of the project, but it is unfortunate that they did not wait until all the facts were compiled.
Jabbour stated he would like every citizen in Orono to have the best services available, but that Orono
should only provide the central services that they are good at providing and leave the private sector to
provide those other services.
Franchot asked if the City should get out of the community garden business, the golf business, and the
Big Island Park business as well.
Jabbour stated those are services that are culturally acceptable to all cities.
Printup asked whether Council Member Franchot would be able to vote against funding this fiber optic
plan.
Franchot stated he could vote against it but he does not intend to do so at this point. Franchot noted the
money is not currently in the recommended budget, so it may be a moot point.
Printup asked if the City Council were to give direction that the Council is opposed to the project,
whether Council Member Franchot would go along with that direction.
Franchot stated he would report that that is where the City Council is at but that he would likely still vote
for it. Franchot noted there is nothing in the JPA that says the appointed representatives have to vote a
certain way and that the City Council has the option of appointing someone else to the commission.
McMillan stated in her view as the City’s representative, if the majority of the Council is against
something, he should do what the Council would like done or step aside.
Franchot indicated he would defer to the City Attorney on that point.
McMillan noted the LMCC, in order to provide their community programming, will need to provide all of
the latest technology, such as the tablets and iPads, and that there will need to be money in the budget for
that.
Franchot stated the money for the technology enhancements is already in the budget and would go
forward. Franchot commented the LMCC is not restricting the service that would be offered to the cities
one iota.
McMillan stated in her view the two are competing items and could possibly be a drain on the LMCC's
budget if they go down that path.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 7 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
Franchot stated the $90,000 would have to be spent by some other entity, such as whoever is authorized
to take the project forward. Franchot noted the next phase would cost the LMCC $55,000.
Franchot suggested the City Council not take a stand on this tonight since the likelihood of it being in
next year’s budget is not very high. Franchot stated in his view the City Council does not have all the
information to make a good call.
McMillan stated it was her understanding that that money was already in the 2012 budget.
Franchot stated he had the understanding that Mayor McMillan already knew it was taken out of the
budget.
Sally Koenecke, LMCC, stated they have a contingency of approximately $60,000 in the 2011 budget,
which has not yet been spent. The contingency is put in yearly in case projects like this come up. The
LMCC did a study approximately five years ago on wireless and found that wireless would be difficult in
this area because of the trees and lake and it is at that point that the LMCC started to look at fiber optics.
The 2011 contingency was looked at as a possible source of money for this study.
McMillan asked if the study is a line item in the budget.
Koenecke indicated the contingency fund is a line item but that there is no specified purpose for those
funds. The executive committee at its last meeting did say they were not going to spend that money for
fiber optic but that is only a recommendation to the LMCC.
McMillan asked what the vote specifically is going to be on August 16th.
Koenecke indicated the budget was created and then brought to the executive committee. The executive
committee has reviewed it and fine tuned it. The full commission will discuss it at the August 16th
meeting. The budget will be discussed and they will talk about how they arrived at where they are and it
is possible the budget could be changed at that time.
Franchot asked what would happen after the commission meeting on August16th.
Koenecke indicated every year the budget is taken to the cities. If the Council requests, an LMCC
representative will present the budget to the City. Koenecke noted the budget would be approved by the
full commission and then taken to the various cities for approval after that. The cities have an opportunity
at that time to weigh in on any particular budget item.
Franchot asked what percent of the cities have to approve the budget.
Koenecke indicated it would be a majority.
McMillan asked if it would be helpful if the commission knows how the Orono City Council feels about
the fiber optic project.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 8 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 21
(3. LMCC PRESENTATION, Continued)
Koenecke stated each city has the opportunity to weigh in if they want to. Usually that input comes when
the budget is brought to the cities for approval. As far as the representatives voting on the fiber optic
project, that would be up to the individual cities.
Printup moved, Rahn seconded, not to support the LMCC in pursuing the business model for the
fiber optic plan, Tonka Connect, and to encourage Orono's LMCC representatives to vote in
opposition to the plan at the LMCC level.
Franchot commented he would be interested in knowing how the City plans to respond to the citizens who
do not have service.
Ayes 3, Nays 1, Franchot Opposed.
McMillan asked Franchot to let the City Council know how he plans to vote prior to the next City Council
meeting.
Printup asked whether Mr. Wyatt would be willing to vote no on the plan.
Mr. Wyatt stated he is not sure how it would be framed for a vote. Mr. Wyatt asked whether they would
be voting on it as a separate item or as part of the entire budget.
Koenecke stated it would depend on where the discussion goes and that the executive committee is
recommending that there be no funding for Tonka Connect. Koenecke indicated she is not sure which
direction the discussion will go and since some cities have indicated they are in favor of it, they may
challenge the recommendation of the executive committee, which would then likely lead to a vote on the
project.
Mr. Wyatt stated in his opinion there is still a misunderstanding on how the taxpayers would be involved
and that this project has worked well in other areas. Wyatt stated he is not sure what people understand
about it at this point.
McMillan stated when she was the City's representative to the LMCD, she came before the Council and
asked how they stood on certain issues and was then given direction on how to proceed. McMillan stated
in her view the city representative should do what the City Council says. McMillan stated it is important
that if the two representatives have any issue with carrying forth the motion of the City Council that they
should let the City Council know right away. McMillan requested the representatives to the LMCC make
a decision by August 15th on how they plan to vote on this issue and to let the Council know by that date.
McMillan noted she has gotten a number of good comments regarding the televising of the City Council
meetings. McMillan indicated there have also been some issues with the web streaming for Macs and
requested that the LMCC look into that.
Koenecke indicated they are aware of the problem and are looking into another vendor.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 9 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 21
4. LMCD REPORT – ANDREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE
McDermott stated he had misunderstood that the LMCD would be inspecting at all sites during the
government shutdown and that inspections did not occur during that time at Gray’s Bay and Maxwell's
Bay because they are owned by the state.
McDermott reported the milfoil harvesting program is up and running again but that one of the boats had
capsized and ended up with a hole in one of the pontoons. Thanks to Multi Services, Minnetonka
Portable Dredging, and Gabriel Jabbour, they were able to get the boat off of the bottom of the lake and it
has been hauled to the county site off of County Road 19. The League of MN Cities has been contacted
regarding insurance coverage. At the present time they believe it is repairable. Due to that accident, the
LMCD stopped the harvesting program and had all of the equipment inspected. They are looking at
whether they should just have longer days or how this will impact the harvesting.
On Friday there will be an inspection of Carman’s Bay to see how the herbicide treatment went this
summer. At the present time everyone feels it went well and that the majority of the complaints were
regarding a native plant that looks similar to milfoil. McDermott indicated he will have more information
on the herbicide treatment by the next city council meeting.
McDermott reported that the state has purchased equipment for three boat washing operations in an effort
to kill zebra mussels but that he is not sure how they will be deployed throughout the state.
Rahn asked if there is concern that the lake will not get down to the level that the LMCD would like by
the fall.
McDermott indicated it will depend on the amount of rain that is received this fall and that they are
attempting to lower the level of the lake but that it has been difficult given the heavy rainfalls this
summer. The dam has repeatedly been open and shut to control the water level.
Rahn commented that it appears to still be almost full.
McDermott stated if this area continues to get lots of rain, it will remain high.
McMillan commented the volunteers for the community garden requested a truck load of milfoil to be
used as fertilizer and that was dropped off over the weekend. McMillan stated it will be interesting to see
if milfoil can be used on a regular basis at the community garden.
Rahn commented to his understanding they also haul it out to the arboretum.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – DENISE LESKINEN, REPRESENTATIVE
Leskinen stated she had nothing to report but would be available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 10 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 21
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
*4. #11-3510 CASEY HANKINSON ON BEHALF OF RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., 2725
WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 6062
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6062, a Resolution Granting a
Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-823(1) for the property
located at 2725 Wayzata Boulevard West. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
5. #11-3514 BRIAN PETERS, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD – VARIANCES – RESOLUTION
NO. 6063
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting structural coverage, hardcover and setback variances in order to
replace the existing 18’ x 22’ garage with a more functional, larger 24’ x 24’ garage. Within the 0-75’
zone 21.1 percent hardcover exists after the removal of landscape areas. The applicant is not proposing
changes to this zone. The applicant is requesting a variance within the 75-250 foot zone to allow 47
percent hardcover where 57.9 percent currently exists; a structural coverage variance to allow an increase
of 141 square feet resulting in 17.3 percent structural coverage where 16.3 currently exists; and a rear
setback variance to allow a 9.7 foot setback where a 10 foot setback is required.
At the time of Staff and Planning Commission review, the applicant’s survey contained some inaccurate
information regarding hardcover, existing conditions and proposed changes. The major discrepancies
were regarding landscape areas that had been previously removed yet the survey did not reflect the
removals. The Planning Commission reviewed the application based on the information contained within
the Staff report and packet and received clarification from the applicant during the meeting.
Based on the clarification provided by the applicant, on July 18, 2011, the Planning Commission voted
6-0 to recommend approval of hardcover, setback and structural coverage variances to construct the
proposed garage, provided the applicant assured removal of the landscape areas from both zones.
The applicant has since submitted revised, corrected survey information reflecting the accurate hardcover
calculations. The actual hardcover numbers have changed slightly since those calculated during the
Planning Commission meeting. The 0-75 foot zone actually has 21.1 percent existing hardcover and the
75-250 foot zone actually is proposed to be reduced from 57.9 percent to 47 percent hardcover.
Staff recommends approval of the variances per the draft resolution.
Rahn stated he is surprised that this application is being recommended for approval when previous
Councils held the other garages in the neighborhood to a smaller size and that now the new standard is a
24' x 24’ garage. Rahn asked whether the Council is going to maintain uniformity or whether that is the
new size that the City is going to approve. The property is over in structural coverage. The Planning
Commission struggled with that issue. Rahn commented that the other two properties would have liked to
have larger garages and asked at what point the City Council should require the applicant to make
adjustments to the size.
Franchot asked if it makes any difference that this lot is quite a bit bigger than the two other lots.
Rahn stated in his view you have more practical difficulty or hardship with a smaller lot. Rahn stated the
issue is about being in compliance with structural coverage.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 11 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 21
(5. #11-3514 BRIAN PETERS, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD, Continued)
Franchot stated he thought Council Member Rahn was speaking about keeping the garages in the
neighborhood a similar size. Given the size of the lot, a slightly larger garage would not appear to have as
much massing.
Rahn stated that is why the City deals in percentages because that takes the lot size into consideration.
Franchot stated in his view the coverage on the subject property is less on a percent basis than on the
neighboring basis.
Mattick stated the two neighboring properties got more than what the City’s Code allows and that Council
Member Rahn's point is whether this will become the new norm. The question becomes whether the
applicant could get by with a 20’ x 20’ or a 22’ x 22’ garage, and that the burden rests with the applicant
to convince the City Council that it is necessary.
Brian Peters, Applicant, stated the massing is not near the other two properties and that the 24’ x 24’
allows some functionality to store two cars and a snow blower. Peters stated in his opinion his neighbors
would stand up here and say they wish they could have a wider garage. The small lot restricts you from a
larger garage but that he has a 100-foot wide lot. Given the larger lot size, the garage would not affect
massing.
Franchot asked whether any of the neighbors have voiced opposition to this project.
Peters indicated they have not. The property was purchased through foreclosure and was in need of some
repairs. Some of the other houses in the neighborhood do have three car garages but that he is not sure
whether they required variances. Peters stated a 24’ x 24’ garage relative to the neighborhood fits in the
middle of what is in that immediate area. Peters noted due to the high water table, he is unable to have a
basement and the extra two feet does make a big difference.
McMillan asked what the dimensions are on the existing garage.
Peters indicated it is 18' x 22'.
Rahn moved, Franchot seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6063, a Resolution Granting
Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1435, 78-1403, and 78-1288, for the property
located at 1978 Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*6. #11-3515 KEENAN & SVEIVEN ON BEHALF OF GINA PAULUCCI, 320 WOODHILL
ROAD – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 6064
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6064, a Resolution Granting a
Conditional use Permit for Land Alteration Pursuant to Section 78-966 and 78-968 for the property
located at 320 Woodhill Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 12 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 21
*7. #11-3516 ROBERT S. SNYDER, 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD – VARIANCE –
RESOLUTION NO. 6065
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6065, a Resolution Granting a
Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 for the property located at 1513 Bay Ridge
Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT
*8. APPROVE FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT OF GRINDER STATION #1 (2635 NORTH
SHORE DRIVE)
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to accept the quotation in the amount of $5,000 from Geislinger
and Sons, Inc., of Watkins, Minnesota, for force main replacement at GS#1. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
*9. FOX STREET SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to award the contract in the amount of $17,725.00 from RPU, Inc.,
for completion of the Fox Street Extension project with project funding paid by the property owner
at 3125 Fox Street who has executed a special assessment agreement. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
10. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 – NORTH FARM ROAD SANITARY SEWER PROJECT
Kellogg stated this is a project that was started last fall and is in a neighborhood located on the south side
of County Road 6. It has a private road. Eighty percent of the property owners petitioned to have this
project move forward, so the Council approved the project and a pressure system was installed. The
assessments were adopted last fall. Total costs for the project came in under the estimate slightly.
Rahn asked in regards to the extra piping to protect the existing system, whether that was unforeseen or a
better idea as the project was being completed.
Kellogg stated each property is served by a small force main. The main trunk was installed along one
side of the road. There were more properties on one side of the road than the other but that it made more
sense to put the main on the other side of the road due to some wetland issues. Prior to the construction,
the City has information on where the septic systems are located and his office estimates where the
property owner might likely hook up to sewer on their property.
Kellogg stated as in other projects, the property owners in this neighborhood had the option to dictate
where they wanted the curb stop on their property. The added length of pipe is the relocation of the
service from where they were originally shown on the plans. There was one property located in the cul-
de-sac area that had their curb stop depicted in one location but was moved approximately 50 feet due to
an uncertainty of where the curb stop was going to go.
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve Change Order No. 1 for the North Farm Road Sewer
Project, E.J. Mayers, in the amount of $1,905. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 13 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 21
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Rahn thanked the Public Works Department for improving and installing one of the Navarre signs near
Lord Fletchers.
Kellogg stated they are working on installing the rest of the signs.
Printup noted National Night Out was held last week and was a good success.
McMillan commented one of the things the City needs to keep track of is the I&I costs. There is a section
of pipe on Old Highway 12 that the City could possibly go out to bid for replacement. McMillan noted
the plans have already been prepared for replacement of that pipe.
Kellogg indicated this was a pipe segment that was identified a number of years ago in terms of capacity
issues. It flows from Medina, goes to Old Crystal Bay Road and is directed to the golf dome and into
Long Lake. From there it goes into the Metropolitan Council's meter station. Kellogg noted it was that
meter station that identified an exceedance last June and the City was assessed a surcharge of $55,000
from the Metropolitan Council.
Kellogg stated after that incident happened, he went out with Public Works and identified locations where
the I&I exceedance likely happened. They have televised the pipe and it is delaminating, which allows it
to take on ground water. In addition, all the manholes are in the ditch bottom and not well protected. An
alternate was prepared as part of the Old Crystal Bay Road project for the replacement and upsizing of
that pipe. Replacement of that pipe will greatly reduce the City’s I&I and the City will be in a position
for future development on the Dumas property.
Kellogg stated the plans and specs are already done and are currently sitting on the shelf. Kellogg
indicated they have had conversations with the Metropolitan Council and they have agreed to contribute
the $55,000 surcharge to the project.
McMillan asked whether the City already received a bid on that project.
Kellogg stated they have received a bid on the project but that he would suggest rebidding it in January
and build it next year. Kellogg stated it is a pipe bursting type operation so it is not something that is
conducive to cold and frozen weather. Part of the problem is the manholes need to be dug up and
replaced. There is also an existing Metropolitan Council force main in that area that would need to be
avoided.
Franchot asked whether the City could hook into the Metropolitan Council line.
Kellogg indicated the City has done that in the past on a temporary basis. The pipe that goes from
Highway 112 to the south side of the golf come was also the same type of material and was delaminating
and undersized. Until that could be replaced, the City put in a bypass lift station in the northeast corner of
Morries' property. What that accomplished was that in the event of higher flows, those flows would then
be diverted to the lift station and pumped into the Metropolitan Council force main. The Metropolitan
Council gave the City permission to do that on a temporary basis. The Metropolitan Council normally
does not allow that type of connection but that was an emergency situation. Kellogg stated once the
gravity pipe was replaced, then that lift station was abandoned and they disconnected from the force main.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 14 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 21
(MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued)
Kellogg stated one of the issues is that there is not a lot of room to locate the pipe horizontally. They will
also need to install manholes that are water tight. This project would be paid for out of the sewer fund.
The $55,000 charge against the City from the Metropolitan Council should have been spent this year but
they have indicated they will still allow that $55,000 to be used toward this project in 2012.
Printup asked if the Metropolitan Council charges a penalty on an annual basis.
Kellogg stated the Metropolitan Council has assessed fines for the past five years but that they are now
working on a different methodology and a different penalty system. The details of that penalty system
have not yet been announced. Kellogg noted the Metropolitan Council's penalty system ended at the end
of June last year but the City had the exceedance five days before the end of June. The City has also been
notified that since that exceedance in June of last year, they have had two additional exceedances this
spring.
Printup asked whether the Metropolitan Council has identified the location of those exceedances.
Kellogg indicated they are only able to identify a general area. Kellogg stated it is basically from Long
Lake Boulevard to Jamestown Road and everything south of County Road 6.
Printup asked whether the City would be penalized if the City replaces a section of pipe in that area.
Kellogg stated as long as the City can demonstrate that it was the likely source they would not get
penalized. The Old Crystal Bay Road system is aging but it is more likely that it is coming in the area of
Highway 112. Metropolitan Council's meter station is telling them that it is likely a surface source of the
water, which will happen after a big rain event. The exceedance goes away after the ditch is empty.
Printup asked whether credit would be given for that penalty if another road project is done elsewhere in
the City.
Kellogg stated under the old five year policy, the City has been getting credit for everything that has been
done in the past few years. The City's last exceedance was in 2010 where they incurred a $55,000
penalty, and in the following year the Metropolitan Council requires that the City do the improvements or
pay the penalty.
Franchot asked if the penalty could be used for credit on a project that was done two years ago.
Kellogg indicated he cannot do that and that the City has always done a project in the past to avoid paying
the penalty.
Franchot asked what action Staff would like the City Council to take on this item.
Loftus noted the City Engineer has indicated the best time to bid this project would be in January and that
they can bring it back to the City Council at that time.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 15 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 21
(MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued)
Kellogg stated if the City Council decided they wanted to still build it this year, they would need to look
at the bid laws but that in his opinion the time would be rather limited. Kellogg indicated over the past
few months they have not been seeing very favorable pricing and contractors are reluctant to take on extra
help at this time of the year. Kellogg noted this is a specialty type of installation and the number of
contractors that are able to do that type of work is limited.
Printup asked whether there would be any penalty from the Metropolitan Council if the project is delayed
to next year.
Kellogg indicated there would not be and that they have written documentation indicating the City can
complete the project next year.
Franchot asked whether the City would incur another fine if there is another exceedance.
Kellogg stated the City will not until the Metropolitan Council comes out with a new penalty system.
Franchot moved, Printup seconded, to direct Staff to bring this project back to the City Council in
November of 2011. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
McMillan noted she met with Tim Hultmann at the Minnehaha Watershed District to discuss water
quality in this area. The Minnehaha Watershed District has provided some history on what has been done
over the years and the results of the studies that they had completed. The Minnehaha Watershed District
has indicated they are interested in getting Orono back on their radar.
Gaffron indicated he has spoken with the Minnehaha Watershed District about what results they have
obtained from other previous projects upstream from the lake. The Minnehaha Watershed District is also
planning one additional project near Holy Name. The Watershed District is looking for higher numbers
of phosphorus reduction for the ponds on County Road 6 and Deer Hill in Medina as well as looking at
internal loading with Long Lake. Spring Hill Golf Club was also mentioned as an area with concerns.
Gaffron indicated he will follow up with the golf course management to determine what they are using as
far as chemicals, but that in his view the golf course is looking at the bottom line and will not spend
money on chemicals that will run off.
Franchot asked if they use well water or use the water from the lake.
Gaffron stated they have ponds on the property and well water but do not draw from the lake.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
*11. SUPPORT FOR MCWD LONG LAKE CREEK PROJECT – RESOLUTION NO. 6066
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6066, a Resolution of Support for the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's Long Lake Creek Improvement Project. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 16 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 21
12. ENGINEERING SERVICES
Loftus noted at the last City Council meeting she was directed to compile some information that was
assembled back in 2008 with regard to an engineering request for proposals. Typically the RFP process is
a two to three month process.
Loftus noted she had asked Council to consider some of Staff’s concerns that were outlined in an e-mail
message to Council and that she is asking Council for direction as to how they would like to proceed.
Franchot stated it was his understanding from the last meeting that they had discussed going from an RFP
to an RFI and that this seems to be a full request for an RFP. Franchot asked whether the Council is
looking for a full blown proposal or a check on the rates that the City is being charged. Franchot noted
very little of what the City does is on a project basis and that it is mostly an hourly charge that the City
pays.
Kellogg indicated the majority of the work is completed on an hourly basis but that some of the charges
are passed on to the applicant.
Franchot commented it would be helpful for him to understand exactly what the Council is requesting.
Rahn stated in his view it would be a helpful discussion to have at the Council's next work session and to
have the discussion coincide with the public works director/city engineer position that the Council is
considering creating. Rahn stated his understanding was that it would be an RFP, but that the City needs
to coordinate it along with a job description for a city engineer/public works director and that those two
processes should move forward in the same time period.
Printup indicated he is in favor of the RFP process.
McMillan stated she is also interested in services in addition to rates and that an RFP is the best method to
ask for that information.
Franchot stated both methods could obtain that information.
Rahn stated Staff could do some fact finding and bring to the Council at their work session what work
they think the public works director/engineer would provide because in his opinion that job description
would go hand-in-hand with the RFP proposal.
Printup commented he would like to see less advising work from Bonestroo and to have that done more
in-house.
Franchot stated that would appear to be a budgeting issue. Franchot indicated he was trying to understand
the direction the Council wanted to pursue since this was an issue that was raised rather unexpectedly at
the last Council meeting.
Rahn stated he would be interested in knowing how many cities have in-house engineers. Rahn stated he
is aware that a number of cities the size of Orono contract every project and have an in-house city
engineer.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 17 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 21
(12. ENGINEERING SERVICES, Continued)
Printup asked if the list of firms obtained from the City Engineers Association of Minnesota is Minnesota
firms or regional firms.
Loftus stated to her knowledge a number of the smaller ones are located in Minnesota but that she is not
personally familiar with all of them.
Printup asked if the list can be broken down detailing where each firm is located.
Loftus stated she can obtain that information.
Printup asked about the sale of Bonestroo to a national engineering firm and added that he has a concern
that Orono will go from being an important component of their business to a smaller component.
Loftus stated to her understanding the merger has not gone through yet at this time.
Kellogg stated as long as Bonestroo works for the City of Orono, the City Council will see the same
faces. Kellogg indicated the merger will allow them to have more depth to draw from on various projects.
McMillan asked if they would still be comparing apples to apples if they send the RFP to some of the
smaller firms and whether that would come out of the same template.
Mattick stated it would depend on what the Council asks for and noted that some engineering firms are
very specialized and would not be able to provide all the services the City is looking for from an
engineering firm. Mattick stated it would also depend on the job description for the public works
director/city engineer position.
Franchot stated it is probably common to have the firm provide a certification that they can provide all of
the services being requested.
Mattick indicated that is part of the process.
Printup commented since the RFP process has not been done in quite some time, the Council is giving the
citizens the transparency that the City is doing whatever it can to keep costs in line.
Franchot stated he would disagree that it was transparent in the way it was dropped on Staff unexpectedly
and that it was anything but transparent. Franchot stated from the comments of the Mayor and Council
Member Printup it was clear that this was already decided. Franchot noted Council Member Rahn had
also been called by Council Member Printup before he brought it up at the Council meeting. Franchot
commented it would be helpful if someone on the council has an idea that they discuss it with the whole
group.
Printup noted that is what the Council is doing right now.
Franchot stated that Council Member Printup at the last meeting had motioned immediately to have the
issue go through a resolution.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 18 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 21
(12. ENGINEERING SERVICES, Continued)
Printup stated he wanted a sense of what the Council thought but that he would be willing to discuss it
with Council Member Franchot later.
McMillan noted they are attempting to bring more of these types of items up for discussion at the City
Council meeting level rather than in a work session.
Franchot stated his point was that there was precious little discussion about an engineering RFP.
McMillan indicated she has received a number of comments from the general public about doing an RFP
process and that it was something she had been thinking about for awhile. McMillan commented the time
is right to go through this process since there are not many projects going on in the City at the present
time. McMillan stated she would prefer to discuss more of these items at City Council meetings rather
than in work sessions since it is important for the public to hear everyone’s rationale.
Franchot indicated he would not disagree with that idea.
Loftus asked whether the Council would like to see a draft RFP at the next meeting. Loftus indicated she
would need a motion to approve the final RFP.
Printup stated another piece of information that he would like to see is a total of what the City has paid in
engineering costs or a vendor list for the past four years.
Loftus noted that would be included in the budget.
Printup indicated he would also like to see a vendor analysis. Printup stated he would like to have that
broken down in descending order of the top 20 percent of bills that are paid.
McMillan requested the Council be provided with the draft RPF a few days prior to the next Council
meeting.
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
12a. HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION AT 3572 LIVINGSTON AVENUE – RESOLUTION
NO. 6067
Mattick stated the building inspector has found another badly fire damaged building. The City has
attempted without success to have the owner repair or remove the hazardous building and clean up the
property. Based on the findings outlined in the Staff report, Staff recommends proceeding with a
hazardous building action. It is anticipated that all remediation and legal expenses associated with this
cause of action will be assessed against the property.
Franchot asked if the house is considered totaled.
Mattick indicated it did sustain some pretty serious fire damage as well as water damage and that it is the
opinion of the building inspector that it is not salvageable.
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 19 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 21
(12a. HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION AT 3572 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, Continued)
McMillan noted this is the third such building this year. McMillan asked how the City would pay for the
cleanup costs.
Olson indicated the monies would come out of the PIR Fund and then the costs would be assessed back to
the property.
Mattick commented that they are seeing a lot more of these hazardous building actions in various
communities. The leading cause of damage is a burst pipe and then fire, which is not the case here. Some
communities are also experiencing destruction of homes from looting. Mattick indicated his firm used to
see two to three of these a year but that has gone up to 20 a year due to the nature of the economy.
Printup moved, Rahn seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 6067 authorizing the issuance of the
demolition order for removal of the hazardous building and abatement of the property located at
3572 Livingston Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Mattick indicated there has also been some discussion about conducting some training on the new
variance standards and other legislative updates. Mattick asked if that is something that Council is
interested in doing or whether they should hold off on training.
Rahn stated it likely will not happen until after the first of the year since the agendas for the City
Council's work sessions are already full.
Mattick stated the training would include removal of nonconformities when processing variances and
some remedial training on variances and CUPs.
Curtis stated in her view the training would be valuable. Curtis noted the majority of the Planning
Commission has participated in the League of MN Cities' online land use training but that the additional
training would be helpful.
Franchot commented it would be a good idea if the Planning Commission and City Council complete the
training together so everyone is on the same page.
Mattick stated the training would also be more in depth than what the League of MN Cities provides and
would be more specific to the types of applications the City deals with on a regular basis.
*13. LICENSES & PERMITS
ONE DAY GAMBLING PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 6068
1. YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis - Ridgedale Branch (raffle)
Fundraising Event
Lakeview Golf Course
405 North Arm Drive
Friday, September 9, 2011
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 20 of 21]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, August 8, 2011
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 21
RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSES
2. Patty Morris
2697 Kelly Avenue
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve the above listed licenses and to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 6068, a Resolution Approving the Minnesota Lawful Gambling Application for Exempt Permit
of the YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis - Ridgedale Branch for a One Day Gambling Permit.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*14. BILLS
Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
ADJOURNMENT
Franchot moved, Rahn seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_______________________________________ __________________________________________
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011
[Page 21 of 21]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #04 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3513 [Total Pages 51]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #05 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
File #11-3522 [Total Pages 37]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115K Transmission Line
Draft Comment Letter [Page 1 of 6]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115K Transmission Line
Draft Comment Letter [Page 2 of 6]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115K Transmission Line
Draft Comment Letter [Page 3 of 6]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115K Transmission Line
Draft Comment Letter [Page 4 of 6]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115K Transmission Line
Draft Comment Letter [Page 5 of 6]
Item #06 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Proposed Xcel Orono Substation & 115K Transmission Line
Draft Comment Letter [Page 6 of 6]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 1 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 2 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 3 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 4 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 5 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 6 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 7 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 8 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 9 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 10 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 11 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 12 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 13 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 14 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 15 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 16 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 17 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 18 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 19 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 20 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 21 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 22 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 23 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 24 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 25 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 26 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 27 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 28 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 29 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 30 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 31 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 32 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 33 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 34 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 35 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 36 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 37 of 38]
Item #07 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Orono Orchard Road Agreement with MCES
[Page 38 of 38]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Forest Lake Drive Storm Sewer Improvements
[Page 1 of 3]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Forest Lake Drive Storm Sewer Improvements
[Page 2 of 3]
Item #08 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Forest Lake Drive Storm Sewer Improvements
[Page 3 of 3]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Request for Payment No. 2 and Final - North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer
[Page 1 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Request for Payment No. 2 and Final - North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer
[Page 2 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Request for Payment No. 2 and Final - North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer
[Page 3 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Request for Payment No. 2 and Final - North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer
[Page 4 of 5]
Item #09 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Request for Payment No. 2 and Final - North Farm Road Sanitary Sewer
[Page 5 of 5]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 1 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 2 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 3 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 4 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 5 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 6 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 7 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 8 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 9 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 10 of 11]
Item #10 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Safe Assure Cooperative Safety Training Agreement
[Page 11 of 11]
Item #11 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Support of Programs
[Page 1 of 4]
Item #11 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Support of Programs
[Page 2 of 4]
Item #11 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Support of Programs
[Page 3 of 4]
Item #11 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Support of Programs
[Page 4 of 4]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 1 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 2 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 3 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 4 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 5 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 6 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 7 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 8 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 9 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 10 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 11 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 12 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 13 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 14 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 15 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 16 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 17 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 18 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 19 of 20]
Item #12 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Engineering Services - Request for Proposals
[Page 20 of 20]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Licenses & Permits [Page 1 of 4]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Licenses & Permits [Page 2 of 4]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Licenses & Permits [Page 3 of 4]
Item #13 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Licenses & Permits [Page 4 of 4]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 1 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 2 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 3 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 4 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 5 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 6 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 7 of 8]
Item #14 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011
Bills [Page 8 of 8]