HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-02-2020 Council Work Session Packet
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
Monday, November 2, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Meeting to be held electronically
Pursuant to MN Statute 13D.021
1. 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Michael Grochala, Kendra Lindahl
2. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding Metal Roofs, Katie Larsen
3. Capital Equipment Plan, Hannah Lynch
4. 2021 Engineering Services, Michael Grochala
5. Stormwater Utility Discussion, Michael Grochala
6. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council
7. Establish Date for 2021 Budget Work Session
8. Review Regular Agenda
9. Adjourn
How to Join the Meeting
Phone: Dial 1-312-626-6799
Meeting ID: 892 5021 6968
Weblink:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89250216968
WS – Item 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: November 2, 2020
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Adoption
Background
On November 25, 2019, the City Council authorized submittal of the draft 2040 Comprehensive
Plan to the Metropolitan Council as required by Minnesota Statutes §473.864. Over the past
year, City staff has worked with Metropolitan Council staff to address completeness issues
related to regional plans. On October 28, 2020, the Metropolitan Council took action to
authorize the City to put the plan into effect.
Kendra Lindahl of Landform, the City’s Planning Consultant, will be present to provide an
overview of the plan and required modifications based on the Metropolitan Council review.
The draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update can be found here: https://www.ci.lino-
lakes.mn.us/compplan.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting consideration to adopt the 2040 Comprehensive Plan at the November 9, 2020
regular council meeting
Attachments
1. November 9, 2020, Regular Agenda Report, Item 6A.
1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 6A
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Kendra Lindahl, Landform
MEETING DATE: November 9, 2020
TOPIC: Consider Resolution No. 20-128 Adopting the 2040
Comprehensive Plan
CASE NUMBER: N/A
APPLICANTS: City of Lino Lakes
OWNERS: Multiple
REVIEW SCHEDULE:
Complete Application Date: N/A
P & Z Board Meeting: N/A
City Council Work Session November 2, 2020
City Council Meeting: November 9, 2020
60-Day Review Date: N/A
INTRODUCTION
Staff is requesting City Council adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
The current plan can be found on the City website: https://linolakes.us/compplan.
BACKGROUND
The Comprehensive Plan is the community’s vision for development in Lino Lakes. Although it
is a physical plan, it reflects the community's social and economic values. These values are
translated into the type of land use the city desires and programs regarding economic
development, housing, parks, transportation and other key areas.
The Comprehensive Plan helps communities determine how to plan for investment in sewer,
water, roads, parks, and other infrastructure. When evaluating how land will be used in the
future, communities also consider housing needs, employment patterns, recreational space and
commercial activities. Planning where different uses will go helps communities maximize
efficient delivery of services to businesses and residents, which helps manage costs. Identifying
land uses provides a guide to the city to tell them if a development is located on a parcel that is
consistent with the infrastructure and city services provided to that area.
2
When the city adopts the Comprehensive Plan, it provides general guidance to landowners about
how the city expects the land to develop. The City Council must then adopt a Zoning Map and
Zoning Ordinance standards to implement that plan and begin work on other implementation
items.
Process
The city kicked off the 2040 update process with a Joint Council/Board meeting on May 15,
2017. The City met with residents, boards and City Council and held open houses throughout
the 2 ½ year process. The City prepared newsletter articles, created a website and created a My
Sidewalk page to provide information and opportunities for feedback on the plan.
The public hearing was held on April 10, 2019 and on May 13, 2019, the City Council approved
Resolution 19-54 authorizing distribution of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for adjacent
jurisdiction review. The plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council on November 27, 2019
and the Metropolitan Council completed their review on October 28, 2020.
Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 - Introduction
This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan builds a foundation for the chapters to follow, by
describing the community and its regional context, and setting forth the vision of Lino Lakes’
future that guides the entire plan. This chapter provides the Community Vision statement.
This chapter provides information about the history of Lino Lakes and describes how the city fits
in the regional context. It describes the process that the city went through to create the 2040
Comprehensive Plan and summarizes the results of the surveys done as part of the process.
Chapter 2 - Community Background
This chapter summarizes background information helpful for understanding the natural
environment, the built environment and the people of Lino Lakes. The information presented
here is a snapshot of the community using data collected from a variety of sources including the
2030 Comprehensive Plan, the United States Census Bureaus’ Decennial Census and
Community Surveys, the Metropolitan Council and from the city’s own Geographic Information
System (GIS). This chapter provides demographic data and maps of the existing conditions.
Chapter 3 - Land Use
The Land Use Plan builds on the city’s vision and establishes a policy framework in which future
development will occur and how the city will accommodate forecasted household and
employment growth. This chapter provides direction to landowners and developers about how
and when development is expected by providing land use classifications with density ranges and
planning parameters, as well as sewer staging.
3
The Council originally intended the 2040 Plan as an update to the 2030 plan and few significant
changes were expected. However, there were changes to the land use plan and the staging plan
and the chapter includes graphics to identify exactly where those changes occurred.
The land use chapter will be implemented by adopting a new Zoning Map to correspond with the
land use changes and the city will update the City Code to implement the comprehensive plan
goals as noted in the Planning Districts (in this chapter) and the Implementation chapter.
Chapter 4 - Housing
The Housing Plan satisfies the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and
stipulations of Minnesota Statute §473.859, Subd. 2(c) and Subd. 4. The plan includes
background information on current housing supply and an assessment of current and future
housing needs. Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan includes implementation strategies for the
Housing Plan and other plan chapters.
The city developed a Land Use Plan that identifies residential areas at a variety of density ranges
and will incorporate areas with higher density housing options. This will accommodate a wider
variety of housing types including senior housing, live/work units, and multi-family in a variety
of styles from rental, condo and townhomes. Single family options will range from entry-level
single family, move-up for growing families and “executive housing” to meet the needs of a
changing population. This shift to provide a more diverse housing supply supports future
economic development objectives by retaining existing residents and attracting new residents
from all social and economic backgrounds and is an essential component for sustainable growth.
These areas will provide much needed housing options for the city’s work force, young
professionals, families, and senior residents. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan continues to
accommodate these housing options.
The city is required to show how the comprehensive plan will accommodate their share of the
regional demand for affordable housings. “Affordable” housing is defined as housing that is
affordable to low-and moderate-income families. The Metropolitan Council has calculated Lino
Lakes’ share of the region’s need for low- and moderate-income housing for the decade of 2021-
2030 to be 515 new units.
The city must demonstrate that it has guided residential land at densities sufficient to create
opportunities for construction of affordable housing, to accommodate its share of the region’s
affordable housing need for 2021-2030. The regional and local plans will be updated again in ten
years, at which time the city will need to accommodate the need for affordable units in the
following decade of 2031-2040.
Chapter 5 - Economic Development
This chapter will set goals and policies for economic development, document some of the key
indicators of the city’s economy, describe available economic development assistance tools and
describe the economic development priorities as established in the city’s Economic Development
Strategic Plan. This chapter also provide employment and commuter patterns.
4
Chapter 6 - Transportation
The purpose of the Transportation Chapter is to provide the policy and program guidance needed
to make appropriate transportation-related decisions when development occurs, when elements
of the transportation system need to be upgraded or when transportation problems need to be
addressed. The Transportation Chapter demonstrates how the City of Lino Lakes will provide for
an integrated transportation system that will serve the future needs of its residents and
businesses, support the city’s development plans, and complement the portion of the
metropolitan transportation system that lies within the city’s boundaries.
Chapter 7 - Local Water Management Plan
The City of Lino Lakes’ Local Water Management Plan (LWMP) is a local management plan
that meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes §103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, the Rice
Creek Watershed District Watershed Management Plan (dated January 2010, as amended
November 9, 2016), and the Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization Watershed
Management Plan (dated October 26, 2016). Minnesota Statute §103B.201 states that the
purposes of the water management programs are to:
• Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
• Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
• Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater
quality;
• Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater
management;
• Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
• Promote groundwater recharge;
• Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and
• Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and
groundwater.
Chapter 8 - Sanitary Sewer
The 2040 Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan has two primary purposes. The first purpose is to
provide recommendations and guidance to the City of Lino Lakes by evaluating the sewer
system requirements needed from now through the year 2040 and beyond. This is completed by
developing a strategy to implement a sanitary sewer system in accordance with the anticipated
growth and development patterns of the city, as forecasted in the City of Lino Lakes 2040 Land
Use Plan and devising a proposed infrastructure system that can be feasibly and economically
constructed to support this growth.
The second purpose is to produce documentation that can be used by state and local agencies,
particularly the Metropolitan Council, for future local and regional planning purposes. As a
result of projected population increases and land use changes in Lino Lakes, the Metropolitan
5
Council estimates that sanitary sewer flows will increase approximately 54 percent between 2010
and 2040. This Sanitary Sewer Plan outlines the locations in which the Metropolitan Council can
expect to see increased wastewater flows, allowing the Council to determine if capacity upgrades
will be required in the region. This plan was developed in conjunction with the Land Use plan.
Chapter 9 - Water Supply Plan
This chapter describes Lino Lakes’ plan to meet its existing and future water supply needs in a
safe and dependable manner. First, it evaluates the existing Lino Lakes water system to identify
any needs or deficiencies. Second, it identifies the future water system needed for the city’s
growth through full build out based on the city’s population projections described in Chapter 1
and the 2040 and Full Build Land Use Plans described in Chapter 3 of this plan.
This plan recommends that the city consider two water treatment plants, one in the southern
region of the city (Water Treatment Plant No. 1) and one in the northern region of the city
(Water Treatment Plant No. 2). The city is currently considering the future location of Water
Treatment Plant No. 1 to be near the future water tower site along Birch Street. The
recommended location for Water Treatment Plant No. 2 is within the potential future well field,
located in the northern region of the city. Both water treatment facilities would be designed for
the removal of iron and manganese. The city would update the feasibility study before designing
a water treatment facility.
Chapter 10 - Parks, Greenways and Trails
The Parks, Greenways and Trails chapter is an update that builds on the strong history of parks
and natural resource planning in Lino Lakes, including the 2004 Parks, Natural Open Space /
Greenways and Trail System, which was updated in 2011 as part of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan update, and adopted by reference in Chapter 2, the Resource Management System Plan.
This chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan brings together and replaces those separate studies
with a cohesive plan that reflects the community’s long held belief that ongoing development
must be in harmony with preserving the innate character of the city. The common vision and
goal that has been carried throughout the various comprehensive plans and park plan updates is a
continued focus on preserving the natural open space character of the city.
Chapter 11 - Community Facilities
The purpose of this chapter is to provide goals and policies for community facilities, inventory
the various community facilities within the City of Lino Lakes, and to identify future community
facility needs to accommodate the need for new services. One update from the 2030 plan is a
note that the public works building has outgrown their current space due to the continued growth
of the city. The City Council will continue to evaluate options for improvements.
6
Chapter 12 - Implementation
The Comprehensive Plan is the principal tool for guiding the development of Lino Lakes. The
community’s vision for the future will be realized only if the plan is implemented. The purpose
of this section is to provide guidance on using the plan. Using the plan requires balancing the
community aspirations and adapting to conditions that will change over the life of the plan. It
also provides a “to-do list” of work the city should do to ensure that the plan is implemented in
the future.
SUMMARY
Staff recommends adoption of 2040 Comprehensive Plan with the minor changes required by the
Metropolitan Council, including modifications to lower our population, housing and employment
forecasts. The current Comprehensive Plan reflects these changes.
Findings of Fact
The following are Findings of Fact for adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan:
1. Minnesota Statutes §473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if
necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls
at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan
system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the
comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and
2. Minnesota Statutes §473.858 and §473.864 require local governmental units to complete
their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and
3. The City of Lino Lakes authorized the review and update of its Comprehensive Plan; and
4. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a planning tool intended to guide the future growth and
development of the City of Lino Lakes in a manner that conforms with metropolitan
system plans and complies with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and other applicable
planning statutes; and
5. The City of Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan reflects a community planning process
involving elected officials, appointed officials, city staff, community organizations, the
public at large, developers, and other stakeholders; and
6. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan and all
public comments, and thereafter submitted its recommendations to the City Council, and
7. The City conducted a public hearing on April 10, 2019 on the proposed 2040
Comprehensive Plan; and
7
8. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §473.858, the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan was
submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school
districts for review and comment on May 22, 2019; and
9. The Lino Lakes City Council adopted Resolution 19-158 authorizing the proposed 2040
Comprehensive Plan to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review; and
10. At its regular meeting on October 28, 2020, the Metropolitan Council completed its
review of the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan and found that the Plan meets the
requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; conforms to the metropolitan
system plans for transportation (including aviation), water resources, and parks; is
consistent with Thrive MSP 2040; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent
jurisdictions and affected special districts and school districts; and
11. The proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes all revisions made during the review
process and responds to additional advisory comments that are part of the Metropolitan
Council’s actions authorizing the City of Lino Lakes to place its proposed 2040
Comprehensive Plan into effect.
Next Steps
Following adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the city has nine months to amend the zoning
ordinance and Zoning Map to bring them into compliance with the amended Comprehensive
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 20-128 adopting the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
This action requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 20-128
1
CITY OF LINO LAKES
RESOLUTION NO. 20-__
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes §473.864 requires each local governmental unit to
review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and
official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms
to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not
conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan
system plans; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes §473.858 and §473.864 require local
governmental units to complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes authorized the review and update of its
Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a planning tool intended to guide
the future growth and development of the City of Lino Lakes in a manner that conforms
with metropolitan system plans and complies with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act
and other applicable planning statutes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan reflects a
community planning process involving elected officials, appointed officials, city staff,
community organizations, the public at large, developers, and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §473.858, the proposed 2040
Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special
districts and school districts for review and comment on May 22, 2019, and the statutory
six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the proposed 2040
Comprehensive Plan and all public comments, and thereafter submitted its
recommendations to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a public hearing on April 10, 2019 on the
proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lino Lakes City Council adopted Resolution 19-158 authorizing
the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for
review; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on October 28, 2020, the Metropolitan
Council completed its review of the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan and found that
the Plan meets the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; conforms to the
metropolitan system plans for transportation (including aviation), water resources, and
2
parks; is consistent with Thrive MSP 2040; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent
jurisdictions and affected special districts and school districts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes all revisions made
during the review process and responds to additional advisory comments that are part of
the Metropolitan Council’s actions authorizing the City of Lino Lakes to place its
proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan into effect.
NOW THERE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA, that the Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive
Plan is adopted and is effective as of the date of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to §473.864 and §473.865 of the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the City of Lino Lakes will: (1) review its fiscal devices
and official controls; (2) if necessary, amend its fiscal devices and official controls to
ensure they do not conflict with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or permit activity in
conflict with metropolitan system plans; and (3) submit amendments to fiscal devices or
official controls to the Metropolitan Council for “information purposes.”
Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this ___ day of _______, 2020.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member
_______________and was duly seconded by Council Member ________________ and upon
vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
_______________________________
Rob Rafferty, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________
Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
1
WS – Item 2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 2
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
November 2, 2020
City Council
Katie Larsen, City Planner
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Regarding Metal Roofs
Background
At the September 9, 2020 Planning & Zoning Board meeting, the Board directed staff to
draft a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding metal roofs.
At the October 14, 2020 Planning & Zoning Board meeting, the Board held a public
hearing. The Board meeting can be viewed on the City’s website. There were no public
comments. The Board recommended on a 4-3 vote to amend the zoning ordinance to
allow for metal roofs on single family homes with either hidden fasteners (i.e. standing
seam) or exposed fasteners as follows:
§ 1007.043 GENERAL BUILDING AND USE PROVISIONS.
(2)Building Type and Construction.
(a)Single Family Dwellings. All single family detached dwellings in the R,
R-X, R-1, R-1X, R-EC, and R-2 Districts shall meet the following design criteria:
3.Single family dwellings shall have at least a four/twelve (4/12) roof pitch
and shall be covered with shingles, or tiles, or a standing seam metal roof
hidden fastener (i.e. standing seam) metal roof, or exposed fastener metal
roof provided the exposed fasteners are the same color as the metal
roofing material. Exposed galvanized metal finishes are not allowed. All
metal panel roofing shall be installed per the most current edition of the
MN State Residential Building Code.
ANALYSIS
The City Zoning Ordinance currently allows for standing seam metal roofs as follows:
§ 1007.043 GENERAL BUILDING AND USE PROVISIONS.
(2)Building Type and Construction.
2
(a) Single Family Dwellings. All single family detached dwellings in the R, R-
X, R-1, R-1X, R-EC, and R-2 Districts shall meet the following design criteria:
3. Single family dwellings shall have at least a four/twelve (4/12) roof pitch
and shall be covered with shingles or tiles or a standing seam metal roof.
The issue revolves around hidden fasteners (standing seam) vs. exposed fastener metal
roofs. The City ordinance clearly states a standing seam metal roof is allowed on single
family dwellings. The Planning & Zoning Board wanted to consider both hidden and
exposed fastener systems on single family dwellings.
Staff researched neighboring community zoning ordinances and found varying
requirements from not allowing any metal roofs on single family homes (e.g. Andover,
Anoka, Forest Lake) to allowing only standing seam (e.g. Shoreview) to allowing
standing seam with restrictions (e.g. Blaine). The City of Hugo does not address metal
roofs at all. Some communities also differentiate between residential, commercial and
industrial uses.
The pros and cons of hidden fasteners vs. exposed fasteners differ. Planning staff
discussed with Building Department staff, researched, and viewed several websites and
online videos. Suggested online videos for Board members to watch include:
• https://sheffieldmetals.com/learning-center/standing-seam-vs-exposed-fastener-
metal-roofing/
• https://youtu.be/-4i8UZQ07X0
Attachment A shows a side by side visual comparison of hidden vs exposed fasteners.
Attachment B shows a side by side comparison of pros and cons of each product. As you
can see, there are pros and cons to each product.
Hidden Fastener
(i.e. Standing Seam) Exposed Fastener
Weather Tightness X
Easier to Install X
Cost X
Maintenance X
Low Sloped Roof X
Panel Strength X
Aesthetics X
Compatibility with solar
panels and snow retention X X
Credit to Metal Roofing Learning Channel August 31, 2020
Staff’s opinion is that standing seam provides a higher aesthetic value with less
maintenance. Exposed fastener systems require proper installation and more
maintenance.
3
Requested Council Direction
Discussion only. The 1st reading of the ordinance amendment will be presented to the
Council on November 9, 2020.
Attachments
1. Exposed vs. Standing Seam Visual Comparison
2. Hidden vs. Exposed Fastener Side by Side Comparison
WS – Item 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 3
Date: November 2, 2020
To: City Council
From: Hannah Lynch, Finance Director
Re: Capital Equipment Plan
Background
The Council is being asked to consider the Capital Equipment Plan. The Plan includes the
2021 capital equipment requests for the Fire, Police, and Public Services Departments.
This Plan focuses on equipment funded by the tax levy within the Capital Equipment
Revolving Fund. Equipment within the Water and Sewer Departments is funded by user
fees and will be considered at the next Budget Work Session and throughout the rate
study process.
Capital equipment within the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund is currently financed
through the tax levy. Certificates of Indebtedness are issued annually which spread the
capital cost over 3 years at a 1% interest rate. The attached Capital Equipment Plan
assumes that no more Certificates of Indebtedness will be issued, but instead, an annual
capital levy will be established. These levy dollars will go directly to the Capital
Equipment Revolving Fund to be used on current capital equipment needs as outlined in
the Plan.
The Capital Equipment Plan is a forecast. The goal was to keep the City’s tax capacity
rate stable at 39.87% while making conservative assumptions in regards to the Net Tax
Levy and Net Tax Capacity over the next 10 years. The Council will see an annual update
of this Plan with a focus on the next immediate fiscal year’s capital purchases. Each year
the mechanic will continue to evaluate equipment to determine if replacement is
recommended.
Tax levies are needed to pay back previous equipment certificates until 2023. As a result,
a capital levy is not feasible until 2022. During this transition in financing methodology
cash reserves in the Capital Equipment Revolving Fund will need to be utilized in 2021.
During fiscal years 2022-2030 a capital levy would be available along with the Fund’s
cash balance to finance capital equipment.
Requested Council Direction
If the Council is supportive of the Capital Equipment Plan and requested 2021 capital
equipment purchases, staff will incorporate it into the 2021 Annual Budget which will be
on the December 14th City Council agenda for approval.
Attachments
Capital Equipment Plan – To Follow
Fire 2021 Capital Request Detail – To Follow
Police 2021 Capital Request Detail – To Follow
Public Services 2021 Capital Request Detail – To Follow
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Estimated Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated EstimatedDepartment Unit # Item Useful Life Amounts Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Amounts (1)Fire T11 Tender - Station #1 -$ -$ -$ -$ 282,500$ 282,500$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fire T21 Tender - Station #2 - - - - - 292,500 292,500 - - - - Fire A21 Quint - Station #2 - - - - - - - 1,100,000 1,100,000 - - Fire 618 Ford Explorer 8 - 45,000 - - - - - - - 57,005 - Fire 617 Ford Explorer 8 - - 46,350 - - - - - - - 58,715 Fire 619 Ford Explorer 8 - - - 47,741 - - - - - - - Fire 600 Ford Explorer 8 - - - - 49,173 - - - - - - Fire BOAT21 Rescue Boat - - - - - 50,648 - - - - - Police 301 Unmarked Admin Vehicle 6 - - - - 43,709 - - - - - 52,191 Police 302 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - 51,500 - - - - 59,703 - - - Police 303 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - - 53,045 - - - - 61,494 - - Police 304 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - - - 54,636 - - - - 63,339 - Police 306 Unmarked Investigation Vehicle 8 - - - - - 45,020 - - - - - Police 307 Unmarked Investigation Vehicle 8 - - - - - 45,020 - - - - - Police 308 CSO Vehicle 6 - - - - 43,709 - - - - - 52,190 Police 309 Marked Investigation Vehicle 8 - - - - - - 46,370 - - - - Police 311 Marked Investigation Vehicle 7 - - - - - 45,020 - - - - - Police 314 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - - - 54,636 - - - - 63,338 - Police 315 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - - - 54,636 - - - - 36,338 - Police 316 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 44,471 - - - - 56,275 - - - - 65,238 Police 317 Unmarked Patrol Vehicle 5 38,325 - - - - 56,275 - - - - 65,238 Police 382 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - 51,500 - - - - 59,703 - - - Police 392 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - 51,500 - - - - 59,703 - - - Police 393 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - 50,000 - - - - 57,964 - - - - Police 394 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - 50,000 - - - - 57,964 - - - - Police 396 Marked Patrol Vehicle 5 - 50,000 - - - - 57,964 - - - - Police 397 Unmarked Admin Vehicle 6 - - - 42,436 - - - - - 50,671 - Police 398 Unmarked Admin Vehicle 6 - - - - 43,709 - - - - - 52,191 Police 399 Unmarked Patrol Vehicle 5 - - - 53,045 - - - - 61,494 - - Public Services 417 GMC Sierra 1500 9 41,262 - - - - - - - - - - Public Services 418 Ford F550 Roll-Off 9 99,837 - - - - - - - - - - Public Services 268 Ford F350 w/ Dumpbox 9 64,189 - - - - - - - - - - Public Services 807 Ford F250 9 56,525 - - - - - - - - - - Public Services 224 John Deere 544J Loader 13 - 212,000 - - - - - - - - - Public Services 132 Case 85XT Skid Steer 13 - 60,000 - - - - - - - - - Public Services 119 John Deere LV4100 Tractor 13 - - 20,000 - - - - - - - - Public Services 200 Sterling L8500 Single Axle Dump Truck 13 - - 250,000 - - - - - - - - Public Services NEW Electric Man Lift 10 - - - 25,000 - - - - - - - Public Services 214 Chevy 1 ton 4x4 with plow 9 - - - 57,000 - - - - - - - Public Services 403 GMC Sierra 3500 with Dump Box 9 - - - 57,000 - - - - - - - Public Services 239 Ford L8000 Bucket Truck 9 - - - 150,000 - - - - - - - Public Services 142 Vermeer BC1500 Chipper 15 - - - - 45,000 - - - - - - Public Services 251 Caterpillar 420E Backhoe 13 - - - - 150,000 - - - - - - Public Services 117 John Deere 6410 Tractor 13 - - - - 125,000 - - - - - - Public Services 135 John Deere 4710 Tractor 13 - - - - 35,000 - - - - - - Public Services 404 Bobcat Toolcat 5600 10 - - - - - 64,600 - - - - - Public Services 415 Ferris Zero Turn Mower 10 - - - - - 15,000 - - - - - Public Services 252 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper 13 - - - - - 250,000 - - - - - Public Services 405 Ferris Zero Turn Mower 10 - - - - - 15,000 - - - - - Public Services 140 John Deere 5525 Tractor 10 - - - - - - 128,000 - - - - Public Services 215 Ford Sterling Dump Truck 13 - - - - - - 250,000 - - - - Public Services 803 GMC Sierra 4wd Reg Cab Pickup 9 - - - - - - 36,700 - - - - Public Services 218 Ford Sterling L850 Dump Truck 13 - - - - - - - 252,500 - - - Public Services 225 Ford F-350 4x4 Pickup 9 - - - - - - - 100,400 - - - Public Services 137 Ingersol Rand Air Compressor XP185WJD 13 - - - - - - - - 19,700 - - Public Services 255 F350 4x4 Reg Chas Cab DRW 9 - - - - - - - - 73,480 - - Public Services 256 F550 4x4 Reg Chas Cab DRW 9 - - - - - - - - 73,480 - - Public Services 258 Falcon 2-ton Asphalt Hot Box 10 - - - - - - - - 25,220 - - Public Services 259 GMC Sierra 4WD Reg Cab 9 - - - - - - - - 35,600 - - Public Services 406 John Deere 3720 Tractor 13 - - - - - - - - 51,900 - - Public Services 409 Progressive Mower TD-65B 8 - - - - - - - - 25,600 - - Public Services 414 Bobcat Toolcat 5600 (Trade-in) 10 - - - - - - - - - 72,760 - Public Services 210 Mack Truck 13 - - - - - - - - - 314,070 - Public Services 262 F550 Hook Roll-off Truck 9 - - - - - - - - - 64,400 - Public Services 263 F550 4x4 with Plow 9 - - - - - - - - - 64,400 - Public Services 260 Mack Truck 13 - - - - - - - - - - 324,970 Public Services 267 Ford F250 Reg Cab 4x4 9 - - - - - - - - - - 55,300 Public Services 411 Kubota RTV-X1120D 5 - - - - - - - - - - 17,500 Public Services 412 Ford F-250 9 - - - - - - - - - - 41,690 Grand Total 344,609$ 467,000$ 470,850$ 485,267$ 981,708$ 1,217,858$ 927,462$ 1,632,009$ 1,527,968$ 786,321$ 785,223$ Fire Annual Total -$ 45,000$ 46,350$ 47,741$ 331,673$ 625,648$ 292,500$ 1,100,000$ 1,100,000$ 57,005$ 58,715$ Police Annual Total 82,796$ 150,000$ 154,500$ 148,526$ 295,035$ 247,610$ 220,262$ 179,109$ 122,988$ 213,686$ 287,048$ Public Services Annual Total 261,813$ 272,000$ 270,000$ 289,000$ 355,000$ 344,600$ 414,700$ 352,900$ 304,980$ 515,630$ 439,460$ Assumptions:(1) Current dollars with 3.00% annual inflationCity of Lino LakesCapital Equipment PlanCapital Outlay ScheduleCapital Equipment Revolving Fund 402
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated EstimatedAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsAmountsRevenuesProperty taxes-$ -$ -$ 321,000$ 595,000$ 1,220,000$ 1,095,000$ 940,000$ 1,440,000$ 1,500,000$ 800,000$ 700,000$ Interest earnings (1)23,772 5,978 5,734 1,322 36 1,334 3,930 2,941 3,296 1,609 1,545 1,897 Miscellaneous973 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Revenues24,745 5,978 5,734 322,322 595,036 1,221,334 1,098,930 942,941 1,443,296 1,501,609 801,545 701,897 ExpendituresCapital outlayFire- - 45,000 46,350 47,741 331,673 625,648 292,500 1,100,000 1,100,000 57,005 58,715 Police85,879 82,796 150,000 154,500 148,526 295,035 247,610 220,262 179,109 122,988 213,686 287,048 Public Services298,024 261,813 272,000 270,000 289,000 355,000 344,600 414,700 352,900 304,980 515,630 439,460 Total Expenditures383,903 344,609 467,000 470,850 485,267 981,708 1,217,858 927,462 1,632,009 1,527,968 786,321 785,223 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures(359,158) (338,631) (461,266) (148,528) 109,769 239,626 (118,928) 15,479 (188,713) (26,359) 15,224 (83,326) Other Financing SourcesIssuance of certificates of indebtedness 388,535 294,235 - - - - - - - - - - Proceeds from sale of capital assets (2)71,591 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total Other Financing Sources460,126 314,235 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Net Change in Cash Balance100,968 (24,396) (441,266) (128,528) 129,769 259,626 (98,928) 35,479 (168,713) (6,359) 35,224 (63,326) Cash Balance, January 1496,864 597,832 573,436 132,171 3,642 133,412 393,038 294,110 329,589 160,876 154,517 189,741 Cash Balance, December 31597,832$ 573,436$ 132,171$ 3,642$ 133,412$ 393,038$ 294,110$ 329,589$ 160,876$ 154,517$ 189,741$ 126,416$ Assumptions:(1) 1.00% of previous year ending cash balance(2) Based of off historical averages and current conditionsRevenues, Expenditures, and Cash Balance ScheduleCity of Lino LakesCapital Equipment PlanCapital Equipment Revolving Fund 402
Adopted Adopted Adopted PreliminaryEstimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Operating LevyGeneral Fund (1)8,165,859$ 8,193,124$ 8,368,756$ 9,232,367$ 9,693,985$ 10,178,685$ 10,687,619$ 11,222,000$ 11,783,100$ 12,372,255$ 12,990,868$ 13,640,411$ 14,322,431$ Debt LevyCertificate of Indebtedness 2015A 70,258 - - - - - - - - - - - - Certificate of Indebtedness 2015B 214,090 213,119 214,216 - - - - - - - - - - Certificate of Indebtedness 2016 167,097 167,559 - - - - - - - - - - - Certificate of Indebtedness 2017 113,087 111,395 111,353 - - - - - - - - - - Certificate of Indebtedness 2018 - 115,211 107,100 106,050 - - - - - - - - - Certificate of Indebtedness 2019 - - 140,119 140,307 139,493 - - - - - - - - Certificate of Indebtedness 2020 - - - 105,929 106,042 106,299 - - - - - - - G.O. Bond 2012A 176,390 180,012 178,080 175,896 178,794 176,109 - - - - - - - G.O. Bond 2015A 219,227 215,972 222,692 219,227 171,012 172,692 174,267 170,487 171,484 172,364 172,626 172,758 171,708 G.O. Bond 2015A - Abatement Portion 55,151 54,206 48,536 47,696 46,856 51,266 50,321 49,376 48,313 - - - - EDA Lease/Revenue Bond 2015 319,397 315,722 317,297 316,877 301,238 305,538 304,538 303,388 302,088 300,638 304,038 302,138 305,088 G.O. Tax Abatement Refunding Bond 2016C 276,176 289,097 301,571 313,567 325,054 - - - - - - - - G.O Bond 2018A - 200,000 481,799 483,899 485,212 485,737 485,474 484,214 482,639 485,527 482,114 480,644 484,109 G.O Bond 2021A - 2021 Street Improvements- - - - 68,250 341,250 334,425 327,600 320,775 313,950 307,125 300,300 293,475 G.O Bond 2024A - 2024 Street Improvements- - - - - - - 115,500 577,500 565,950 554,400 542,850 531,300 G.O Bond 2027A - 2027 Street Improvements- - - - - - - - - - 200,000 600,000 600,000 Bonding Contingency- - - - - - - 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Total Debt Levy 1,610,873$ 1,862,292$ 2,122,762$ 1,909,448$ 1,821,950$ 1,638,890$ 1,349,025$ 1,750,565$ 2,202,799$ 2,138,428$ 2,320,303$ 2,698,689$ 2,685,679$ Capital LevyCapital Equipment Revolving Fund - - - - 321,000 595,000 1,220,000 1,095,000 940,000 1,440,000 1,500,000 800,000 700,000 Total Tax Levy 9,776,732$ 10,055,416$ 10,491,518$ 11,141,815$ 11,836,935$ 12,412,575$ 13,256,644$ 14,067,564$ 14,925,899$ 15,950,683$ 16,811,170$ 17,139,100$ 17,708,110$ % Increase3% 4% 6% 6% 5% 7% 6% 6% 7% 5% 2% 3%Total Levy Dedicated to Capital Equipment 564,532$ 607,284$ 572,788$ 352,286$ 566,535$ 701,299$ 1,220,000$ 1,095,000$ 940,000$ 1,440,000$ 1,500,000$ 800,000$ 700,000$ Assumptions:(1) 5.00% annual increaseCity of Lino LakesCapital Equipment PlanTax Levy Schedule
Adopted Adopted Adopted Preliminary Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Net Tax LevyTotal Tax Levy 9,776,732$ 10,055,416$ 10,491,518$ 11,141,815$ 11,836,935$ 12,412,575$ 13,256,644$ 14,067,564$ 14,925,899$ 15,950,683$ 16,811,170$ 17,139,100$ 17,708,110$ FD Distribution (1)(1,360,639) (1,375,292) (1,447,780) (1,472,118) (1,560,453) (1,654,358) (1,753,623) (1,858,664) (1,970,237) (2,088,235) (2,213,917) (2,329,271) (2,361,267) Total Net Tax Levy 8,416,093$ 8,680,124$ 9,043,738$ 9,669,697$ 10,276,482$ 10,758,217$ 11,503,020$ 12,208,900$ 12,955,662$ 13,862,447$ 14,597,254$ 14,809,829$ 15,346,844$ Net Tax CapacityTax Capacity (2)21,289,294 22,687,236 24,949,162 26,559,675 28,153,256 29,842,451 31,632,998 33,530,978 35,542,836 37,675,407 39,935,931 42,332,087 44,872,012 FD Contribution (3)(1,215,584) (1,322,808) (1,486,922) (1,537,086) (1,613,940) (1,694,637) (1,779,369) (1,868,338) (1,961,755) (2,059,842) (2,162,834) (2,270,976) (2,384,525) TIF Captured Value (4)(421,495) (606,568) (719,368) (769,651) (768,809) (1,169,311) (1,004,631) (1,044,150) (1,086,447) (852,668) (892,799) (936,140) (982,948) Total Net Tax Capacity 19,652,215$ 20,757,860$ 22,742,872$ 24,252,938$ 25,770,506$ 26,978,503$ 28,848,997$ 30,618,490$ 32,494,635$ 34,762,897$ 36,880,298$ 39,124,971$ 41,504,539$ Tax Capacity Rate 42.826% 41.817% 39.766% 39.870% 39.877% 39.877% 39.873% 39.874% 39.870% 39.877% 39.580% 37.853% 36.976%Assumptions:(1) 5.00% annual increase in FD Distribution Value multiplied by the City's previous year tax capacity rate. 5 year historical average increase was 7.5%.(2) 6.00% annual increase. 5 year historical average increase was 7.5%.(3) 5.00% annual increase. 5 year historical average increase was 6.8%.(4) Captured Net Tax Capacity for TIF districts 1-5, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12, and future 1-13 per the approved TIF Plans.City of Lino LakesCapital Equipment PlanTax Capacity Rate Schedule
ONE VISION. ONE MISSION. LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
Lino Lakes Public
Safety Department
Memo
DATE: October 30, 2020
TO: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator
FROM: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
RE: 2021 Fire Fleet Replacement
I requested that City Mechanic Brett Olander evaluate the following vehicles:
• 617
• 618
This request was based on the mileage and age of the vehicles and Council’s desire to
more consistently plan for future capital equipment bonding.
City Mechanic Brett Olander’s report is attached to this memo.
I am recommending that we replace vehicle 618 in 2021.
The State of MN awarded the state contract for Ford police SUVs to Tenvoorde Motor
Co. in St. Cloud, MN. The estimated cost to replace these vehicles is $45,000 each; this
includes the vehicle and all associated emergency equipment purchases and installation.
The total estimated cost for all three vehicles is $45,000.
Page | 1
#618
#618 is a Ford Police Interceptor (Utility) that was built in January of 2013. It is used as a Fire SUV by
the Public Safety Department. This vehicle was originally #387 and was used as a patrol vehicle for the police
department before being converted into a Fire SUV in 2016. It currently has 84,450 miles. Although it has less
than 100,000 miles, it is no longer covered under the powertrain warranty due to it being over 5 years old. If
any major mechanical issues happen to the engine, transmission or drivetrain, we would be paying for those
repairs “out of pocket”.
#618 has a lot of the common problems that we see on these vehicles as they age. The front timing
cover is leaking which would require removing the engine from the vehicle in order to repair. This is a costly
and time consuming repair.
Page | 2
It has worn out front lower control arm bushings that are in need of replacement.
#618 also has worn out rear trailing arm bushings from years of aggressive driving.
Page | 3
It also has the typical rust around the lock cylinder on the rear hatch, on the bottom of the rear hatch and on
the inside of the rear doors. These are issues that will only continue to get worse over time.
Page | 4
Both of the output shaft seals on the rear differential are leaking and in need of replacement.
This squad is out of powertrain warranty and we will be responsible for all major repair costs in the
future. Due to the potential repair costs, the current mechanical issues and the rust issues, I am
recommending #618 for replacement for the 2021 budget year.
ONE VISION. ONE MISSION. LINO LAKES PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
Lino Lakes Public
Safety Department
Memo
DATE: July 16, 2020
TO: Sarah Cotton, City Administrator
FROM: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
RE: 2021 Fleet Replacement
Per the Vehicle Replacement Policy passed by City Council on April 10, 2017 and
further directed during the 2021 Budget Assumption discussion on July 6, 2020, I
requested that City Mechanic Brett Olander evaluate the following vehicles:
• 396
• 393
• 394
• 392
• 399
• 302
• 303
This request was based on the mileage and age of the vehicles and Council’s desire to
more consistently plan for future capital equipment bonding.
City Mechanic Brett Olander’s report is attached to this memo.
I am recommending that we replace vehicle 396, 393 and 394 in 2021.
The State of MN awarded the state contract for Ford police SUVs to Tenvoorde Motor
Co. in St. Cloud, MN. The estimated cost to replace these vehicles is $50,000 each; this
includes the vehicle and all associated emergency equipment purchases and installation.
The total estimated cost for all three vehicles is $150,000.
Page | 1
CIP Request 2021 (Police)
#396
#396 is a Ford Police Interceptor (Utility) that was built in February of 2015. It currently has the highest
mileage of the police fleet with 114,184 miles. It will likely have in excess of 130,000 miles by the time a
replacement vehicle arrives to replace it next year. This vehicle has most of the common issues that we see
with these SUV’s as they get older.
The most concerning issue that it has is the PTU (Power Take-off Unit) leak. This is an issue that is not
uncommon on these vehicles. Unfortunately, this PTU did not start to leak until it was already out of it’s
powertrain warranty. We were quoted a cost of $1600.00 to have the PTU replaced on this vehicle. This
vehicle is also in desperate need of new lower control arms , due to extremely worn-out bushings. New lower
control arms and an alignment would cost an additonal $663.82. #396 also has serveral other worn -out
bushings and a leaking motor mount.
On top of the mechanical repairs mentioned, #396 has a variety of rust issues that are starting to form.
It is starting to rust in all of the common spots that these SUV’s are known for. The main areas are around the
lock cylinder on the tailgate, on the inside lip of the tailgate and on the inside lip on both rear doors. These
areas will only continue to get worse as time goes on. This vehicle would be my first priorty for replacement in
the police fleet.
Page | 2
The PTU (Power Take-off Unit) is leaking fluid and is in need of replacement. W e have had a handful of these
replaced under powertrain warranty but unfortunately this one did not fail until the warranty had already
expired. This is an issue that will only continue to get worse.
Page | 3
Both lower control arm bushings are worn out and in need of replacement. These will need replaced in the
immedatiate future. The cost to replace both lower control arms and perform an alignment is $663.82
#396 has variety of other bushings that are worn out and in need of replacement. Worn -out bushings are
typical for a police car that has been driven hard for over 100,000 miles. #396 also has a leaking engine mount
that will need to be replaced in the immediate future.
In addition to the mechanical issues, this squad also has all of the typical rust issues that start to arrise on
these vehicles as they age. This includes the the missing paint around the liftgate lock cylinder, the rust on the
bottom lip of the tailgate and the rust on the inside lip of the rear doors. These rusty areas will continue to
get worse and the rust will spread as time goes on.
Page | 4
Considering the high mileage of the vehicle, the current mechanical issues, the rust issues and the lack of a
powertrain warranty to cover any future costly repairs, I recommend replacement of squad #396 for the 2021
budget year.
Page | 5
#393
#393 is a Ford Police Interceptor (Utility) that was built in March of 2014. It is used as a patrol vehicle
by the Public Safety Department. It currently has 84,422 miles. Although it is not currently over 100,000
miles, it will definitely be over 100,000 miles by the time it’s replacement vehicle arrives in 2021. Although it
has less than 100,000 miles, it is no longer covered under the powertain warranty due to it being over 5 years
old. If any major mechanical issues happen to the engine, transmission or drivetrain, we would be paying for
those repairs “out of pocket”.
#393 has a lot of the same issues as #396. It’s PTU (Power Take -off Unit) is leaking and will need to be
replaced or resealed, depending on the condition of the PTU once it has been taken apart. It also has a front
timing cover leak which would require removing the engine from the vehicle in order to repair. This is a costly
and time consuming repair. It has worn out bushings from years of aggressive driving. It also has the typical
rust around the lock cylinder on the tailgate and on the inside of the rear doors.
Page | 6
The PTU (Power Take-off Unit) is leaking on squad #393. This repair is no longer covered by the
powertrain warranty due to the age of the vehicle. The cost for a repair from Ford is roughly $1,600.
The front timing cover on the engine also has a small leak. The engine needs to be removed from the
vehicle in order to remove and reseal the timing cover. This is a very time consuming and/or expensive repair.
It is currently only a small leak but it will likely get worse with time.
Page | 7
#393 has a variety of worn out and cracked bushings due to it’s age and aggressive driving. These will
eventually need replaced as they continue to degrade.
Page | 8
#393 is showing the same rust issues as #396. The paint is coming off around the lock cylinder on the
tailgate and the inside of the rear doors are starting to rust as well.
This squad is also out of powertrain warranty and we will be responisble for all major repair costs in
the future. Due to the potential repair costs, the current mech anical issues and the rust issues, I am
recommending #393 for replacement for the 2021 budget year.
Page | 9
#394
#394 is a Ford Police Interceptor (Utility) that was built in March of 2014. It is used as a patrol vehicle
by the Public Safety Department. It currently has 93,248 miles. Although it is not currently over 100,000
miles, it will be over 100,000 miles very soon. Just like #396 and #393, this vehicle is no longer covered under
the powertain warranty due to it being over 5 years old. If any major mechanical issues happen to the engine,
transmission or drivetrain, we would be paying for the repairs “out of pocket”.
#394 has a lot of the same issues as the two previously menti oned vehicles. It has a leaking PTU and a
variety of worn-out rubber bushings, due to years of aggressive driving. It also has the most undercarriage
rust of any of the current police vehicles.
Page | 10
Just like with #396 and #393, the PTU (Power Take-off Unit) on #394 is leaking. It is leaking from two
spots. The rear pinion seal on the PTU is leaking but that can be replaced relatively easily and affordably.
Unfortunately, it is also leaking from th e case halves just like the other two squads. This is a costly and time
consuming repair that involves removing the PTU and dissasembling it or replacing it entirely.
Page | 11
#394 has several worn-out bushings including the sway bar bushings. The rubber bushings are cracking and
breaking apart due to age and years of aggressive driving.
Page | 12
#394 has lost it’s paint and is rusting around the lock cylinder on the tailgate. It is just starting to rust on the
inside of the rear doors but it is not as severe as the other vehicles already mentioned. However, the
underbody rust underneath the car is the worst of all of the police vehicles currently owned by the city.
Due to the age, the mileage, the mechanical issues and the rust, I am recommending #394 for replacement in
the 2021 budget year.
Other Police Vehicles Inspected
The following police vehicles were also inspected and no major mechanical issues were found at this time.
#392
#399
#302
#303
#392 is a 2014 model year and currently has just over 90,000 miles. It is no longer covered by a powertrain
warranty and we will be responsible for all future repair costs. No major mechanical issues were found with it
at this time, but due to it’s age, mileage and lack of warranty, it does leave the city open to the possibility of
large repair bills in the future.
Page | 13
Other Rust / Replacement Issues
As mentioned earlier, we are running in to rust issues on our older police and fire SUV’s, primarily on the
tailgate (bottom lip & around keyhole) and on the bottom lip of the rear doors. We have gotten quotes from a
couple of body shops on two different possible solutions. The cheaper solution is to try to repair the rusted
portions and repaint the panel, but they are unable to give any warranty at all on the rust coming back. It’s
possible that a year from now the rust will come right back. The other solution is to replace the whole panel
(tailgate, door, etc) and repaint it. This solution would solve our rust issue but it is quite expensive.
This was a quote from last year for repairing the rust on the left front door (no warranty) and replacing the
right rear door and hatch with all new panels on #388. I have a tough time spending $4,000 on rust repairs on
a vehicle that is worth maybe $9,000. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of paying money for a repair
that might only last a short period of time. I think that we need to develop a plan on what we are going to do
Page | 14
for the rust issues on these squads in the near future. I also think that this plan could affect the cost benefit
that we have been seeing from holding on to these vehicles for a greater length of time. The most severe rust
is on our three oldest SUV’s which were moved from the police department over to the fire department (617,
618, 619). These vehicles all have far under 100,000 miles (86k, 83k, 68k). These fire vehicles do not see near
the miles that the majority of our city vehicles see. They are accumulating between 2,000-4,000 miles per
year. I don’t see any possible way that we will be able to hold on to these vehicles up to 100,000 mi les
without spending excessive amounts of money on rust related issues due to their age and salt (regardless of
their mileage). I think it is wise to come up with a plan on how we are to deal with these fire SUV’s that see
very little mileage annually and will not get to 100,000 miles anytime in the near future.
On a similar note, I think that we need to develop a replacement plan for our two city hall “staff” vehicles
(#375, #378). They are currently driving old Ford Crown Victoria’s leftover from the old police fleet. These
vehicles are very rarely driven and also see very little mileage annually. Both staff cars are being driven
roughly 1,000 miles per year. It seems wasteful to replace staff cars with brand new cars considering the
limited miles that they are driven. I would like to see the staff cars replaced with either used police SUV’s or
used public works trucks. We should come up with a plan for replacement of these staff cars because their
replacement will likely affect the replacement of either police or public works vehicles in the near future.
2021 BUDGET
REPLACEMENT FOR VEHICLE #224
JOHN DEERE LOADER - $212,000
#224 is a 2007 John Deere 544J Wheel Loader with 2,800+ hours of use. One of its primary uses
is to plow streets and cul-de-sacs for the Streets Department. It is also used by all of the Public Services
departments to move dirt/mulch, load trucks with gravel/rock, load and unload heavy items out of vehi-
cles/equipment and a variety of miscellaneous tasks. This is a very versatile piece of equipment that
gets used by all of the Public Services departments year-round. Unfortunately, the wheel loader is
starting to show its age. It was “out of service” for a period of time last winter due to some hydraulic
issues. One of the hydraulic valve segments on the machine failed and it cost $7,452 to replace. There
are still a handful of other valve segments in the same valve block that could fail at any time.
This unexpected down time left the Streets Department without one of its large pieces of equip-
ment for snow removal. The time that it takes Public Services to get resident ’s streets clear in a snow
emergency is greatly increased when one of the large pieces of snow removal equipment goes down.
Also, the repair costs on such a big piece of equipment are usually quite large. Over the last two win-
ters we’ve also spent around $2,000 in parts to repair the wing and the hydraulic cylinder at the rear of
the wing. We have been very fortunate and had few repairs on this machine, besides general mainte-
nance, until the last couple of years. Now we are starting to see a large increase in issues/repairs. We
recently had to install new batteries and a new alternator on #224 at a cost of $917.
As mentioned, this wheel loader is a crucial piece of equipment during snow events and any
amount of time that it is “out of service” greatly affects our ability to clear the streets in a timely fash-
ion. Due to the recent increase in large repair bills, the age of the machine, the rust and the potential
for large repair bills in the future, I am recommending the replacement of #224 for the 2021 budget
year.
2021 BUDGET
REPLACEMENT FOR UNIT #132
CASE SKID STEER - $60,000
Unit #132 is a 1999 Case 85XT Skid Steer. The city currently has the “useful life” of this machine
set at 13 years. This machine ha almost 2,500 hours of use and will be 22 years old in 2021. It has been
a very reliable piece of equipment for us and its reliability over the years has allowed us to keep it far
past its projected “useful life”. Unfortunately, we have recently been having some intermittent issues
with the right side hydraulic drive motor. The right side motor has periodically stopped working and left
the operator unable to do anything except spin the machine in circles. If the drive motor needs re-
placed, it would be a very expensive and time consuming repair. It also has a leaky valve, which causes
the hydraulic arms to settle and not stay at the desired height. The “ride control” option on the ma-
chine is also not working at the moment, which would need to be addressed. The machine is currently
worth around $13,000-$15,000. I believe that at this point in the machine’s life, we are better off
putting our money towards a replacement machine rather than to keep this machine in use.
WS – Item 4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 4
Date: November 2, 2020
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director
Re: City Engineering Services
Background
City engineering services have been provided through a consulting engineer since the late
1990’s. Prior to that time, the City used a combination of an in-house municipal engineer
and engineering technician along with a pool of consulting engineering firms. The switch
resulted from the departure of the City Engineer, an internal restructuring and budgetary
considerations. The proposed 2021 Annual Budget includes $159,760 for General
Engineering Services. This amount is distributed between CD Engineering ($109,760),
and the sewer/water operating funds ($25,000 each).
The City of Lino Lakes currently contracts with WSB and Associates for City
Engineering Services. This arrangement has been in place since 2011. WSB provides a
minimum of 36 office hours per week. This is covered by an annual retainer amount of
$88,800, split between the general fund ($62,160) and the sewer/water funds ($13,320
each). Services covered under the retainer include, but not limited to, state aid system
updates, constituent requests, MS4 administration, grading reviews, utility reviews, CIP
updates, assessments, and interagency communication.
The balance of funding is for hourly services outside the scope of the retainer including
traffic evaluations, private utility permit reviews, and small area infrastructure
evaluations. No increase is proposed for 2021.
WSB also provides development plan and construction review, design and construction
services, and special facility planning services on a per project hourly basis. These are
covered by separate agreement. Projects such as the annual Street Rehabilitation
Program fall into this category.
Over the past year, the City Council has discussed whether it was time to go through the
Request for Proposal process again and/or evaluate establishment of an in-house
engineering department.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is requesting council direction regarding engineering services for 2021.
Attachments
1. None
1
WS – Item 5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 5
Date: November 2, 2020
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Stormwater Utility
Background
In response to City Council budget questions, enclosed is the Executive Summary from
the 2010 Financing Storm Water Management feasibility study that discusses
establishment of a stormwater utility. Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Shoreview, and
White Bear Township are surrounding cities that have implemented a utility.
The basic premise behind the storm water utility is that users pay including tax exempt
properties. Charges are based on the volume of storm water runoff and land use, not
property value. The base unit or “Residential Equivalent Unit” (REU) represents a single
family residential home. Multi-family, commercial, industrial and institutional properties
are assigned multiple REU’s based on the land use and size of property.
The 2010 report included an estimated average Stormwater Utility Budget of $533,212
which included funding for personnel, engineering, equipment debt service and
contracted maintenance costs. Based on that budget amount, the estimated monthly fee
per REU was $2.50 (30.00/year).
Staff estimates that a Storm Water Utility could be implemented within 6-9 months from
the date Council initiates the project as follows:
1. Revise feasibility study including budgets, revenue forecasts, and rate
determination – 2 months
2. Public Education Meetings – 1 to 2 months
3. Public Hearings and ordinance adoption – 1 to 2 months
4. Implementation of the Utility – 2 to 3 months
If the Council proposes to move forward with the utility, staff would obtain proposals to
update the study.
2
Council Direction
Staff is requesting Council direction regarding interest in evaluating a stormwater utility.
Attachments
1. Executive Summary, 2010 Storm Water Utility Feasibility Study
Feasibility Study
Financing Alternatives for Lino Lakes' Storm
Water Management Program
Lino Lakes, Minnesota
SEH No. 112316
July 6, 2010
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Executive Summary
As the City of Lino Lakes continues to develop and grow, the impact of urbanization on the City’s surface
water resources continues to increase. In an effort to maintain and improve the existing drainage system,
mitigate the impacts of past and future development and meet the anticipated needs of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water regulatory program, Lino Lakes realizes the need to
continue to develop and implement a comprehensive surface water management program to meet their goals.
The surface water management planning process typically involves four steps.
1. Assessment of the current situation;
2. Analysis of existing and proposed management strategies;
3. Development of program goals and policies, and
4. Identification and Implementation of Capital Improvements.
In order to finance this program the City has requested this study of a Storm Water Management Utility. The
purpose of this study is to identify how the city might utilize the utility to finance their Storm Water
Management Program. For this study, we have evaluated six (6) alternative methods of funding the Lino
Lakes Storm Water Management Program:
1. General Funds/ Ad Valorem Taxes
2. Special Assessments
3. Impact Fees
4. Grants
5. Special Tax Districts
6. Storm Water Utility
Program Implementation
Through an integrated, comprehensive planning approach, Lino Lakes can effectively manage existing and
new development without degrading the valuable water resources. Without proper funding, the program can
become vulnerable when competing against other general fund items or budget constraints.
The Financing Dilemma
The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining storm water facilities continues to increase along with
other municipal costs. In fact, the storm drainage system is often the last and most expensive public utility
for cities to develop.
Baseline costs are the minimum costs to the City that occur annually regardless of property value, economy,
and size. These costs typically include personnel, education, maintenance, and reporting, which are mandated
through the NPDES MS4 program. There are also normal operating costs that fall under baseline costs.
Traditional methods of financing storm water improvements have become more complex in recent years.
Faced with increasing costs and continuous pressure to minimize property taxes, cities may lack the financial
resources to undertake a multi-year storm water management program. In Lino Lakes, general funds, special
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
assessments and the City’s Surface Water Management Fund have typically financed most of the necessary
improvements in the past.
The Storm Water Utility (also referred to in other communities as a Surface Water Utility) is a funding
source that can address the financing dilemma without increasing property taxes. Service charges, which have
been used by communities to finance sanitary sewer and water utilities, are also being applied to surface water
management (Jouseau, 1983). The storm water utility approach is gaining recognition as the most equitable
way to finance storm water management activities (Honchell, 1986). This trend has continued for more that
20 years.
Selecting the Best Option
In evaluating financing options, the following criteria were considered:
Fair
• Charges are based on the volume of storm water runoff, not property value.
• Land Use (Intensity of Development).
• Sound Engineering Basis. Utilizes commonly accepted engineering formulas for calculating runoff
utilizing runoff Curve Numbers (CN). This methodology is known as Equivalent Hydrologic Area.
• The fee should represent a “users pay” philosophy. The more runoff a user property contributes, the
more they should pay.
• Operation and Maintenance costs increase yearly, placing increased pressure on the general levy (ad
valorem) vs. a utility fee based on users pay and the actual budget based upon these costs.
Dependable
• No competition with the general fund.
• Consistent source of revenue.
• Separate, dedicated fund.
• Helps increase the score in the finance section (matching funds) of grant applications.
Acceptable
• No increase in property tax.
• A “user fee”, the more you contribute…the more you pay.
• Small service charge vs. large, one time assessment.
• Understandable rational for the charge and engineering sound.
Simple and Flexible
• Use current billing system
• Includes credits, exemptions and appeals process
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
The following tables identify how the rating criteria are applied to the six funding alternatives.
Storm Water Funding Alternatives Comparison
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Ad
Valorem
Taxes
Special
Assessments
Impact
Fees Grants
Special
Tax
District
User
Fee
Storm
Water
Utility
Fair
Charge Based on
runoff
N
O NO MAYBE MAYBE NO NO YES
Charge not based
upon property value
N
O NO MAYBE MAYBE YES MAYBE YES
Engineering sound
and defendable
N
O NO YES YES YES YES YES
“Users Pay” N
O NO NO YES NO YES YES
Can finance the
maintenance of the
entire system
Y
E
S
YES NO NO NO NO YES
Dependable
Does not compete
with the general fund
N
O NO YES YES YES NO YES
Consistent source of
funding
N
O NO NO NO NO YES YES
Separate Dedicated
Fund
N
O NO YES YES YES YES YES
Increase score in
finance section of
grant applications
(matching funds)
N
O NO MAYBE MAYBE NO MAYBE YES
Acceptable
No increase in
Property Tax
N
O NO YES YES NO MAYBE YES
User Fee N
O NO NO YES NO MAYBE YES
Not a Tax N
O NO NO YES YES NO YES
Understandable and
explainable rationale
Y
E
S
YES YES YES YES YES YES
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Simple and Flexible
Uses current billing
system
Y
E
S
YES YES MAYBE NA MAYBE YES
Includes a credit,
exemptions and
appeals process
N
O NO MAYBE MAYBE NA MAYBE YES
Cost effective to bill Y
E YES YES YES NA YES YES
Legally defendable Y
E YES YES YES NA NO YES
The Proposed Methodology: A Storm Water Utility
As the previous chart demonstrates, the Storm Water Utility is the optimal choice as the funding mechanism
for Lino Lakes Storm Water Management program. The Storm Water Utility is a proven methodology that is
fair, dependable, and acceptable and is relatively simple to implement and flexible enough to incorporate the
needed credits and exemptions to support the storm water program goals and objectives.
What is a Storm Water Utility?
Let’s start with what the utility is not. The utility is not a new level of government, nor is the utility a new tax.
The utility is simply a method of financing the baseline costs such as administration, planning,
implementation, and maintenance of storm water management programs (surface water plan) and NPDES
program costs.
The utility is a service charge or fee. A utility fee is typically charged against all developed parcels based on
the premise of “contributors pay”. Where land is in a natural state, most rain soaks into the ground or is
retained in small depressions. Where development has been prevalent, rooftops, driveways, and parking lots
prevent rainfall from soaking into the ground. The rain runs off into streets, ditches, ponds and lakes, creating
the need for drainage systems to protect the quality of our water resources. Therefore, the fee is based on how
much storm water runoff a particular land use contributes.
This consistent, dependable revenue source provides a dedicated fund to manage the drainage system and
water quality improvements without increasing property taxes or using assessments. A utility also provides
the means to handle the increasing costs through small adjustments in the utility charges.
Rate Structure
The utility approach is based on the concept “contributors pay”. The rate structure is based on land use type,
density, parcel size, and the amount of runoff and/or pollution load contributed by a particular parcel. The
general runoff equation is:
Q = Actual Runoff
P = Potential Maximum Runoff
S = Potential Maximum Retention
Q= (P - 0.2S)2
P + 0.8S
S = (1000/CN) - 10
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
The “S” term can be expressed in terms of the runoff index, or curve number (CN).
The graph below, demonstrates the increased amount of runoff generated by different land use types. This
chart clearly demonstrates why a parking lot (with runoff of approximately 1.7 inches) should pay more per
acre than a single-family home with runoff of approximately 0.3 inches. The calculations below are based
upon a 2 inch rainfall in an area with sandy soils.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
ForestPasture (Fair condition)Pasture (Poor condition)1 acre lotsSingle FamilySoybeans (straight row)Corn (straight row)Two Family1/8th acre lotsIndustrialCommercialParking LotsNRCS/SCS Runoff Model
Runoff
(Inches)
Assumptions:
P=2"
Type B Soil
Soil Mosture Condition II
How Will the Utility Benefit Lino Lakes?
The utility benefits the community by providing a dedicated fund for surface water management activities,
including the required activities under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm
Water Permit Program. In addition to the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
activities, benefits may also be realized more generally in the following areas:
• Flood reduction and protection;
• Water quality improvements;
• Wetland protection and enhancement;
• Erosion and sediment control;
• Drainage system construction and maintenance;
• Community education;
• Improved fish and wildlife habitat; and
• Enhanced recreational opportunities.
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
NPDES Phase II Considerations
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the enforcement action taken by the
Environmental Pollution Agency (EPA) to meet the Clean Water Act. Phase II of this program is directed
towards cities with populations greater than 10,000 or cities with impaired or special water such as the
Mississippi River.
Lino Lakes is a mandatory Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and currently has a permit that is
governed by the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For the storm water budget, a figure
of $10,000 per year has been included to address the planned activities.
The Storm Water Utility Utilizes:
• The “Residential Equivalent Unit” (REU). The REU is the “billing unit” that represents the
residential, single-family homes, which make up approximately 90% of Lino Lakes current billing.
The REU is easily understood and facilitates billing by allowing the billing department to enter in one
value (the REU) for all homes vs. nearly 6,000 individual bills that may differ by only a few cents.
The suggested REU for Lino Lakes residential units would be $2.50 per month ($30/year) per
address.
• Intensity of Development (Land Use). As the intensity of development increases, so does the amount
of impervious surfaces, leading to more runoff.
• Equivalent Hydrologic Area (Curve number) This engineering methodology is used to measure the
amount of impervious surface and is utilized in calculating the amount each property should pay
based upon “contributors pay”.
• Program budget. What are the anticipated costs? What must you do? What do you want to do? Below
is the estimated Storm Water Budgets for years 2011 through 2015.
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility Budget
6/28/2010
Estimated Stormwater Utility
Budget
2010 - 2015
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Personnel - 1.5 FTE Baseline $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000
Sweeping/Repairs (contracted) Baseline $50,000 $51,500 $53,045 $54,636 $56,275
Engineering Baseline $60,000 $61,800 $63,654 $65,564 $67,531
Public Education/Training
(NPDES – MS4) Baseline $10,000 $10,300 $10,609 $10,927 $11,255
Materials/Misc supplies Baseline $20,000 $20,600 $21,218 $21,855 $22,510
Equipment (1) Baseline $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500 $57,500
Sub-Total Baseline $307,500 $316,700 $326,026 $335,482 $345,071
SWMP (ditch, pipe, pond)
cleaning Usage $195,000 $200,850 $206,876 $213,082 $219,474
Total Budget $502,500 $517,550 $532,902 $548,564 $564,545
Annual
Average= $533,212
1) Equipment Needs
Sweeper $250,000
Jetter/Vac - 1/2 of Cost (other
San. Swr. $140,000
Single Axle Dump $185,000
$575,000
Estimated 10 year service life /10
Annualized Cost $57,500
The above example assumes 0% funding of the storm water costs of the forecasted street reconstruction by the
Storm Water Utility.
Baseline costs are considered to be the minimum costs of the program activities regardless of overall runoff
and land use.
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Utilizing the land use data, a storm water utility utilizing the “users pay” philosophy of land use and utilizing
the estimated runoff appropriate for the land use would generate an estimated $537,896 per year for the Lino
Lakes Storm Water Management program. This estimate reflects a fully funded program by the Storm Water
Utility and incorporates a number of credit assumptions that may alter the actual revenue generated.
Surface Total Curve Runoff Retention Runoff Depth
Runoff
Vol.
Area Utility # Monthly Revenue Credit Credit
Revenue
Factor Index (inches) (inches) (ac-ft)
Land Use (ac)Factor Address Charge (monthly) Assumption $$ Estimate (per acre) (CN) (S) (Q) (QA)
Residential 8274 1.00 5994 $2.50 $14,985 NA $0 $10.00 70 4.29 0.24 166
High Density
Residential 162 3.30 Per Acre $5,346 20% $1,069 $33.05 85 1.76 0.80 11
Commercial 263 5.14 Per Acre $13,525 30% $4,057 $51.41 92 0.87 1.24 27
Industrial 201 4.01 Per Acre $8,058 25% $2,014 $40.12 88 1.36 0.97 16
Institutional 418 4.01 Per Acre $16,754 40% $6,702 $40.12 88 1.36 0.97 34
Agricultural, Vacant
Road Right-of-Way
Urban Transitional
Open Water
Total 9,317 $58,667 $13,843 253
Inputs:
REU $2.50 /mo.
Rainfall 2.0 inch
(REU)
Residential Lot
Size 0.25 acre
Gross Est. Credits Net
Annual Revenue $704,009 $166,113 $537,896
Lino Lakes SWU Revenue Forecast
E X E M P T
E X E M P T
E X E M P T
E X E M P T
Feasibility Study 112316
City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
From the material presented in this report, the following conclusions have been made:
1. A basic principle of a SWU should be that revenues equal costs.
2. Baseline costs are independent of property value and size.
3. The Storm Water Utility method is the best financing option because it is fair, dependable,
acceptable, and flexible.
4. A Storm Water utility, supported by the service charge, provides financing for storm water
management improvements, based on a particular property’s contribution of runoff water to the
drainage system.
5. The utility benefits a community by providing a dedicated fund for drainage system improvements
and maintenance and water quality enhancement.
6. The key elements to the utility approach are:
a. All properties benefit; and
b. All developed properties should pay.
c. Contributors Pay, based on the relative amount of their contribution.
Recommendations
1. A storm water management utility (Storm Water Utility) should be utilized to help pay for Lino
Lakes’ storm water management program.
2. Fees should be based on runoff contributed to the drainage system, following NRCS criteria and a
two-inch rainfall, and utilizing the curve number values (CN) for a type “B” soil.
3. An ordinance should be prepared as the legal basis for the utility.
4. The existing land use (vs. zoning) should be used to determine the storm water management utility
fees.
5. The recommended rate for the Lino Lakes Storm Water Utility is a $2.50/month ($30/year) REU.
This rate is projected to fund 100% of the forecasted Storm Water Program Budget Costs.