HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2016 Council PacketWORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday, April 4, 2016
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Community Room (not televised)
6:00 P.M.
1. NE Drainage Study Update, Diane Hankee and Katy Thompson
2. FEMA Floodplain Map Revisions, Diane Hankee and Katy Thompson
3. Stormwater Re-use Feasibility Study, Diane Hankee and Erin Heydinger
4. Wellhead Protection Plan, Diane Hankee and Erin Heydinger
5. ACE Program, John Swenson To Follow
6. Advisory Board Applicant
7. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions
8. Monthly Progress Report
9. Review Regular Agenda
10. Adjourn
WS – Item #1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: April 4, 2016
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee and Katy Thompson, WSB Engineering
Re: NE Lino Drainage Feasibility Study Update
Background
WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB) was tasked to prepare a Feasibility Study for the
proposed Peltier Lake outfall in northeastern Lino Lakes, Minnesota. The project seeks
to determine the economic and environmental impacts of providing a new outfall to
Peltier Lake.
The Northeast area of Lino Lakes is bound by Main Street to the south, the City of Hugo
to the east, and Peltier Lake to the west and Rehbein Street to the north. It includes
portions of Lino Lakes, Centerville, and Hugo. Land use in this area is predominantly
agricultural. A majority of this watershed currently drains to the south via field drains to
Clearwater Creek and ultimately to Peltier Lake. Clearwater Creek has had a history of
significant bank erosion problems and Peltier Lake is impaired for nutrients, with
phosphorus having been identified as the main pollutant.
The surface water in the Northeast area of Lino Lakes was landlocked until the
installation of agricultural field drains in the early 20th century. The agricultural drainage
systems have limited capacity, and as such, cannot convey any additional runoff from
development within the watershed. In addition, the agricultural drains do not provide any
water quality benefits for Peltier Lake and Clearwater Creek.
The Northeast Lino Lakes Area Drainage Feasibility Study update evaluates water
quality improvements and a new surface water outlet to Peltier Lake. The purpose of the
feasibility study is to:
• Confirm modeling results and parameters
• Examine design alternatives and develop a preferred alternative
• Prepare preliminary plans and cost estimates
• Develop and recommend proposed alignment
• Identify effected property owners and stakeholders
• Identify all necessary permits
• Identify potential funding options
Council authorized completion of the feasibility study in September 2015. The draft
feasibility study was completed in January 2016 and during review by City staff, an
additional outlet alternative was requested to be included in the study. The original
preferred alternative included a 72-inch pipe outlet to Peltier Lake from 20th Avenue, a
new culvert crossing under I-35E, storm sewer along the proposed Otter Lake Trail
extension, and regional ponding facilities to detain peak storm flow and prevent
increasing the flood levels on Peltier Lake.
The requested alternative includes the new culvert crossing under I-35E, storm sewer and
regional ponding facilities; however it replaces the 72-inch pipe outlet with an open
channel greenway between Peltier Lake Drive and 20th Avenue. The conceptual
alignment and typical cross-section have been developed with the intent to provide live
storage for flood events within the channel; be in agreement with the City’s AUAR and
greenspace requirements; and avoid wetland impacts as much as possible.
The greenway option also provides additional water quality treatment opportunities for
the study area, above and beyond the City’s and RCWD’s development requirements. At
the January Environmental Board meeting, additional data on the water quality
calculations for the pipeline option was requested. RCWD provided guidance on the
calculation of water quality impacts for this conceptual analysis using a simple land use
analysis. This analysis is based on a 1.1-inch rainfall depth, which corresponds to
RCWD volume reduction requirements, and uses total phosphorus concentrations
provided by the District. Environmental Board member Heiskary provided different total
phosphorus concentrations which change the calculations.
Heiskary’s calculations result in the need for additional water quality treatment BMP’s.
WSB staff is reviewing the basis for these revised numbers and will adjust the design
accordingly. It is expected that that greenway option would be able to accommodate
additional treatment requirements with minimal additional cost.
Finally, the Environmental Board requested information on how existing drainage rights
would be maintained at the January board meeting. The proposed project will not
adversely impact existing drainage rights. No property will lose drainage rights due to
the installation of the new outlet; the design of the system includes all upstream flows
and will continue to pass ditch flows downstream, as under existing conditions. With the
new outfall, it is likely that upstream property owners will experience increased capacity
and less maintenance of their system as water can move through the system more
efficiently. As development in the study area occurs, these individual developments,
along with the property owner, will have to petition the Rice Creek Watershed District
for re-alignment or abandonment of the drain tile on their property. This process is
dictated by the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103E and includes public hearings to ensure
no adverse impacts to benefitted landowners will occur.
The following is a tentative schedule to finalize the feasibility:
April 2016 – Hold informational meeting with property owners and other
stakeholders
April 2016 – Present the final feasibility study to the Environmental Board for
review and consistency with the AUAR
May 2016 – Formally present the final study to Council.
WSB & Associates staff will be in attendance at the work session to provide an update on
the project.
Requested Council Direction
None required. Information only.
Attachments
1. Location map
2. Conceptual greenway design
3. Preliminary water quality calculations
4. Revised water quality calculations per S. Heiskary 3/24/16
Feasibility Report
Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project
WSB Project No. 02029-790 Appendices
kj
Clearwater Creek20th AvenuePeltier Lake
Lino Lakes Stormwater
Greenway Option
N
LEGEND
kj Outlet Control Structure
Proposed Stream
Channel Bankfull
Top of Floodplain Bank
Project Area
Proposed Regional Storage
Existing Wetlands
0 500
Feet
4
Bankfull
Greenway Channel Cross-Section
4Floodplain and
Wet Meadow
4100-Yr Flood Elevation
4
4H:1V Vegetated Slope
4Top of Bank
Table 1. Total Phosphorus Concentrations by Land Use [RCWD]
LAND USE CATEGORY
Agricultural Row Crops
Open Space / Meadow
Urban Impervious Area
Urban Open Space
Table 2. Existing Conditions ‐ UNTREATED
AREA S TP
LAND USE CATEGORY [ac] [in][in][ac‐ft] [lbs]
Agricultural Row Crops 1,060 81 2.41 0.13 11.14 0.320 9.70
Open Space / Meadow 315 65 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.00
Urban Impervious Area 42 99 0.07 1.02 3.57 0.100 0.97
Urban Open Space 0 73 3.79 0.03 0.00 0.110 0.00
TOTAL 1,417 78 1.17 14.71 10.67
Table 3. Proposed Conditions ‐ UNTREATED
AREA S TP
LAND USE CATEGORY [ac] [in][in][ac‐ft] [lbs]
Agricultural Row Crops 80 81 2.41 0.13 0.84 0.320 0.73
Forest / Woods 311 65 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.00
Urban Impervious Area 559 99 0.07 1.02 47.53 0.100 12.92
Urban Open Space 467 73 3.79 0.03 1.10 0.110 0.33
TOTAL 1,417 82 1.17 49.47 13.99
3.32 lbs
44 ac‐ft
6.99 lbs
‐3.68 lbs
0.17
0.9
0.008
0.7
0.11
ASSUMED RUNOFF
C
0.40
0.10
0.90
0.30
0.32
0.01
0.10
TP CONCENTRATION
[mg/L]
ESTIMATED EXPORT
[lb/ac/yr]
Water Quality Treatment Volume Required by RCWD
Reduction in Loading Gained via Water Reuse, Treatment Ponding or Infiltration BMPs
Estimated Decrease in Total Phosphorus Load from Required Treatment
TP CONC
[mg/L]
WEIGHTED
CN
1.1‐IN EVENT
RUNOFF VOLUME
TP CONC
[mg/L]
WEIGHTED
CN
1.1‐IN RUNOFF
Estimated Increase in Total Phosphorus Load Without Treatment
Table 4. Existing Conditions ‐ UNTREATED [Revised per S. Heiskary 3/24/16 email]
AREA S TP
LAND USE CATEGORY [ac] [in][in][ac‐ft] [lbs]
Agricultural Row Crops 1,060 81 2.41 0.13 11.14 0.320 9.70
Open Space / Meadow 315 65 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.00
Urban Impervious Area 42 99 0.07 1.02 3.57 0.400 3.88
Urban Open Space 0 73 3.79 0.03 0.00 0.200 0.00
TOTAL 1,417 78 1.17 14.71 13.58
Table 5. Proposed Conditions ‐ UNTREATED [Revised per S. Heiskary 3/24/16 email]
AREA S TP
LAND USE CATEGORY [ac] [in][in][ac‐ft] [lbs]
Agricultural Row Crops 80 81 2.41 0.13 0.84 0.320 0.73
Forest / Woods 311 65 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.00
Urban Impervious Area 559 99 0.07 1.02 47.53 0.400 51.70
Urban Open Space 467 73 3.79 0.03 1.10 0.200 0.60
TOTAL 1,417 82 1.17 49.47 53.03
39.45 lbs
44 ac‐ft
26.51 lbs
12.92 lbs
Reduction in Loading Gained via Water Reuse, Treatment Ponding or Infiltration BMPs
Estimated Decrease in Total Phosphorus Load from Required Treatment
WEIGHTED
CN
1.1‐IN EVENT TP CONC
[mg/L]
WEIGHTED
CN
1.1‐IN RUNOFF TP CONC
[mg/L]
Estimated Increase in Total Phosphorus Load Without Treatment
Water Quality Treatment Volume Required by RCWD
WS – Item #2
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 2
Date: April 4, 2016
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee and Katy Thompson, WSB Engineering
Re: FEMA Floodplain Map Revisions
Background
As part of a national five-year map modernization effort, FEMA flood insurance rate
maps have been updated for Anoka County, effective December 16, 2015. These maps
are used to determine flooding risks and flood insurance premiums for property owners.
The City of Lino Lakes was first mapped in 1976, with the last map revision occurring in
1982.
Since the adoption of the new flood risk maps, residents in Lino Lakes have begun
receiving notices from their mortgage lenders notifying them of their flood risk and
requirements for flood insurance. These notices are part of updates to the National Flood
Insurance Program due to the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the Homeowner
Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.
National Flood Insurance Program Updates
The Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 phases out subsidies for grandfathered rates
and requires homeowners pay for the full risk of their property, as determined by the
elevation of their home in relation to the flooding source elevation. The Homeowner
Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 gave lenders the ability to purchase flood
insurance, at the borrower’s expense, if at any time during the life of the loan it is
determined that the home is not covered by flood insurance or is inadequately covered by
flood insurance. After FEMA updates the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, lenders review the
revised data against their policies and notify affected borrowers of the need to obtain
flood insurance within 45 days of notification or the lender will purchase insurance on the
borrower’s behalf.
Since Lino Lakes was first accepted into the National Flood Insurance Program in 1978,
there have been only minor changes to the floodplain extents. With the latest map
revision in 2015, the maps were provided digitally and updated with aerial photos and
landmarks to make the maps easier to read. With the older maps, it was sometimes
difficult to determine if a structure was in or out of the floodplain; now with the new
maps, residents potentially being notified for the first time that they are in the floodplain,
even though they may have always been in it.
2015 Flood Insurance Study
WSB reviewed the data that was provided to FEMA during the map update process. The
City provided topographic information and Letter of Map Revisions to the FEMA
contractors. The City also requested that Rice Creek Watershed District submit their
technical modeling on the City’s behalf.
Rice Creek Watershed District provided FEMA with a lake level frequency analysis for
the Chain of Lakes, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for Clearwater Creek, Hardwood
Creek, Rice Creek, and Anoka County Ditches 10-22-32, 15, 25, 31 and 46. For the lake
level frequency analysis, RCWD reviewed all available gage records on the lakes and
interpolated the 100-year flood elevation for each lake. For the modeling, RCWD
reviewed both the 100-year 24-hour storm and the 100-year 10 -day storm, which
simulates flooding caused by spring snowmelt. The higher of the two 100-year events
was used to establish the 100-year floodplain elevation and extents. The result of the
RCWD studies is that the 100-year flood elevations on the Chain of Lakes increased due
to the longer gage record available since 1981.
FEMA uniformly accepted RCWD’s data for the Chain of Lakes, Rice Creek, ACD 15
and 10-22-32. FEMA accepted portions of the ACD 25, Clearwater Creek and
Hardwood Creek studies. Areas with approximate Zone A were essentially left
unchanged.
Revising the Effective Maps
After the maps have been adopted and published, there are a few options for communities
to contest the final mapping. The first option would be to authorize a City-wide
independent detailed study to determine the floodplain elevations and extents. This is an
expensive option and does not guarantee that the results would be any different than the
2015 maps.
A second option would be to revise the approximate Zone A areas and establish flood
elevations for these areas for future reference and existing homeowners’ benefit. Areas
under development are already required to establish a base flood elevation as part of the
development review.
A third option would be to enter into the Community Rating System which would allow
the City to provide discounted rates on flood insurance to its residents.
WSB & Associates staff will be in attendance at the work session to answer questions.
Requested Council Direction
None required. Information only.
Attachments
1. 1982 Flood Insurance Rate Map
2. 2015 Flood Insurance Rate Map
3. 2015 Digital Data
4. Changes Since Last FIRM
5. Example of Structures Affected by Floodplain at Reshanau Lake
1982 FIRM
2015 PANEL
2015 DIGITAL DATA
35E
35E
35E
35W
35W
35W
LEGEND
City Boundaries
Floodplain Decrease
No Change
Floodplain Increase
N
0 2,000
Feet
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY CHANGES SINCE 1982 FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Legend
Always Out
Added (25)
Removed (21)
Always In (61)
Document Path: K:\02029-210\GIS\Maps\Impervious.mxd
Reshanau Lake Structure Analysis
Notes:1. A total of 225 parcels aroun d the lake
¯800 0 800400 Feet
R e s h a n a u L a k e
BFE: 886.2 (1981) 887.0 (2015)
1 inch = 800 feet
1
WS – Item #3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 3
Date: April 4, 2016
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee and Erin Heydinger, WSB Engineering
Re: Feasibility Study for Mattamy Water Reuse
Background
The City Council approved Resolution 15-53 on June 8, 2015 authorizing the Feasibility
Study for the Mattamy Water Reuse. The feasibility study has been completed and
presented to City’s Environmental Board for Approval on March 30, 2016.
The feasibility Study provides an overview of three options for stormwater reuse in the
proposed Mattamy development:
1. Reusing stormwater to irrigate public places;
2. Reusing stormwater to irrigate public places and the townhomes; and
3. Reusing stormwater to irrigate the entire development.
A water balance was conducted to determine if there was sufficient water quantity
available for each of the three options. The balance evaluated runoff, precipitation,
evaporation, and irrigation. The proposed stormwater pond will receive enough runoff to
implement Options 1 or 2, but a potable water connection will be required to implement
Option 3. The developer has reservations regarding option 3 based on their past
experience.
In addition, the cost of each of the three options was estimated. After considering water
supply and cost, WSB recommended that the City implement Option 2: reusing
stormwater to irrigate public places and the townhomes for an estimated cost of
$463,000. Financing was delineated for the recommended option, as well as ownership
and maintenance recommendations. It is recommended that development fees cover
$197,000 of the total cost, with the remaining funded by the City’s Trunk Water fund.
Requested Council Direction
Staff will be recommending acceptance of the Mattamy Homes Water Reuse Study and
implementation of Option 2 at the April 11, 2016 City Council meeting.
Attachments
2
1. Mattamy Homes Water Reuse Study
City of Lino Lakes, MN
600 Town Center Parkway • Lino Lakes, MN 55014
June 8, 2015
Mattamy Homes
Water Reuse
City of Lino Lakes
Hennepin, MN
WSB Project No. 2988-01
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
FEASIBILITY REPORT
MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE
FOR THE
CITY OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA
June 8, 2015
Prepared By:
WSB & Associates, Inc.
477 Temperance Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-286-8450
651-286-8488 (Fax)
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
DRAFT
Greg F. Johnson, PE
Date: March 30, 2016 Lic. No. 26430
Prepared By:
DRAFT
Erin J. Heydinger
Date: March 30, 2016
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 4
2. MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE .................................................................................. 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5
2.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 5
2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................ 6
3. FINANCING ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 OPINION OF COST ............................................................................................................ 8
3.2 FUNDING ............................................................................................................................ 8
4. RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A
Figure 1 – Project Location
Figure 2 – Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces
Figure 3 – Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes
Figure 4 – Option 3: Irrigating Entire Development
Appendix B
Table 1 – Estimated Annual Irrigation
Appendix C
Table 1 - Water Balance Summary
Table 2 – Option 1 Cost Summary
Table 3 – Option 2 Cost Summary
Table 4 – Option 3 Cost Summary
Appendix D
Water Balance Tech Memo
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed Mattamy Homes Development is a 400 acre residential development located east
of Interstate 35E and north of Main Street in the City of Lino Lakes. Surface water management
for the project would include storm water quality, storage and rate control. The storm water
storage area will hold a significant amount of water that can be used to provide irrigation verses
conventional groundwater use for irrigation.
Over the past three years, management of both surface water and groundwater resources have
received increased awareness both locally and regionally. Lino Lakes is included in the North
and East Metro Groundwater Management District established by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). The goal is to protect of water resources through sustainable water use
solutions such as the one being proposed.
The water reuse project was evaluated through a water balance analysis and multiple options for
an irrigation reuse system. The options for an irrigation reuse system are:
1. Irrigate the park and public spaces
2. Irrigate the townhomes, park, and public spaces
3. Irrigate the entire development, including single-family residences
The options were evaluated based on the estimated costs, ownership, storm water requirements,
and maintenance. Option 2 is recommended: it includes irrigat ion of the townhomes, park and
public spaces.
The estimated project cost for Option 2 is $463,000 which includes 10% construction
contingency and 20% indirect costs. Funding for the project is proposed through development
fees generated from surface water management fees, and City trunk water system funds.
This project is feasible and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint, and should be
constructed as proposed herein.
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
2. MATTAMY HOMES WATER REUSE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Authorization
On June 8, 2015, the City of Lino Lakes City Council authorized the preparation of a
feasibility report for the Mattamy Homes Water Reuse project.
2.1.2 Scope
The Mattamy Homes Development includes a large storm water storage area that can be
used as an irrigation source. The proposed project includes storm water used for
irrigating the development. This report evaluates several options for water reuse and
considers water resources, cost, regulatory requirements, and value of the reuse irrigation
system.
2.1.3 Data Available
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following:
City of Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan
City of Lino Lakes Base Map and/or Topography Maps
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Usage Reports
Grading plans and plat for the Mattamy Homes development
2.2 GENERAL BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Project Location
The Mattamy Homes Development is located in the City of Lino Lakes, west of Interstate
35E, east of 20th Avenue North, north of Main Street, and south of the bounds extended
by 77th Street East. A map showing the project area can be found in Figure 1, Appendix
A of this report.
2.2.2 Existing Conditions
The existing land use at Mattamy Homes is agricultural, with stormwater currently
running through the site via Anoka County Ditch 55 (ACD-55) and Anoka County Ditch
72 (ACD-72). These ditch systems receive storm water runoff from watersheds located in
the cities of Hugo and Lino Lakes and discharge to Peltier Lake. A study is being
completed to address the surface water in the NE area or Lino Lakes. This report
assumes that ditch water is not available as a source for irrigation and will be addressed
through the NE Drainage Study.
2.2.3 Stormwater Management
The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) Rules state that stormwater volume and rate
control must occur in any location with new or reconstructed impervious surfaces, such
as the Mattamy development. Stormwater infiltration is the preferred method of volume
control. Prior to this feasibility study, an analysis was conducted to determine if the site
was suitable for infiltration. Because a large portion of the site is within a vulnerable
portion of the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA), and the Minnesota
Department of Health recommends that infiltration not occur in a vulnerable DWSMA, it
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
was determined that infiltration is not feasible. In this instance, the RCWD Rules state
that stormwater irrigation can occur in lieu of infiltration as a volume reduction practice.
The three scenarios in this study reflect this determination.
2.2.3 Current Irrigation Practices
The City currently regulates irrigation within the community to promote water
conservation. It is estimated that irrigation accounts for 43% of the potable water used in
the City each year (Appendix B, Table 1). The large proportion of water allocated
towards irrigation presents an opportunity for the City to reduce its summer demand on
the potable water system through water reuse.
2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
There were three options identified to coincide with the Mattamy development
Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces with Storm Water
Option 1 includes a water reuse irrigation system for public open spaces within
the Mattamy Homes Development. This system includes the park in the center of
the development as well as the berm on the east side of the development. In total,
the irrigated area for Option 1 is 11 acres. A figure depicting Option 1 is shown as
Appendix A, Figure 2.
Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes with Storm Water
Option 2 includes a water reuse irrigation system for public open spaces and
multi-family residential (townhome) area in the southeastern portion of the
development. The townhome area includes 12 acres of green space that will
require irrigation, in addition to the 11 acres irrigated in the public space. A figure
depicting Option 2 is shown as Appendix A, Figure 3.
Option 3: Irrigating all of the Mattamy Development with Storm Water
Option 3 includes a water reuse irrigation system for public open spaces, multi-
family residential townhomes, and single-family residences. A fourth municipal
utility would be installed throughout the development . The third option requires
homeowner education and interaction for system management and coordinatation
with City maintenance staff. The total irrigated area for Option 3 is 144 acres. A
figure depicting Option 3 is shown as Appendix A, Figure 4.
A water balance analysis was completed and can be found in Appendix D. The water
balance summary for each option:
Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces with Storm Water
The water balance model indicates that the storm water stored can sufficiently
supply water for irrigation of the public spaces with minimal pond level
fluctuations.
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes with Storm Water
The water balance model indicates that the storm water stored can sufficiently
supply water for irrigation of the public spaces and townhomes with minimal
pond level fluctuations.
Option 3: Irrigating all of the Mattamy Development with Storm Water
The water balance model indicates that the storage area cannot supply enough
irrigation water to support this option. The model showed that storage levels will
reach significantly low levels and that the reuse system would require
supplementation from the municipal water system. The cost to supplement the
water reuse system with the municipal supply is not a cost that required with
Option 1 or 2. In addition there will be vegetation issues if the storage area is
drawn down this low, along with it is anticipated that residents will not desire to
have the storage area this low.
Option 2 is recommended because it provides the most surface water reuse without a
fourth municipal utility system and individual service lines. Option 2 can be
implemented without supplementation/connection to the municipal water system.
2.3.1 Pump and Pipe Materials
Appendix C includes pump and forcemain layouts for each option, as well as suggested
meter locations. The pump size should be determined by the irrigation designer, and they
sho uld be controlled by soil-moisture sensors, to ensure that watering is dictated by
weather and soil conditions. The proposed forcemain is 2 to 4” diameter, high density
polyethylene (HDPE).
2.3.2 Water Quality
Prior to each irrigation season, it is recommended that the storage area be tested for water
quality. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has recommended water quality
parameters as outlined in Appendix D. If the parameters are not met, additional
treatment should be considered to ensure the storage water remains of high enough
quality to use for irrigation.
2.3.3 Ownership Recommendation
It is recommended that the City own and operate the system, and within the townhome
area, the City should have a maintenance agreement with the HOA where they are
responsible for maintaining the system in the townhome area.
2.3.4 Metering, Usage, and Billing
It is recommended that the park and berm irrigation systems be operated with
independent meters so that the townhome maybe invoiced for their water usage to
support maintenance of the system. Watering restrictions should remain in place for
consistency and promote water conservation.
2.3.5 Permitting
A Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) permit will be required. The project will meet
volume reduction, treatment and rate control per RCWD rules. A Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriations permit will also be required for the project.
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
2.3.6 Right of Way
The proposed reuse system with Option 2 would be constructed within public right of
ways and public land or land owned by the Home Owner Association for the townhomes.
Option 3 may require additional easement or right of way dedicated through platting for
the distribution system.
3. FINANCING
3.1 OPINION OF COST
The detailed opinion of probably cost for each of the three options can be found in Appendix C
of this report. The opinions of cost incorporate estimated construction costs and include a 10%
construction contingency and 20% for indirect costs (legal, administrative, engineering, and
financing items).
Table 4 below provides a summary of the estimated cost for each of the three options
considered:
Option Construction with
Contingency
Indirect
(20%) Total
Option 1: Public Areas
Irrigated $296,000 $60,000 $356,000
Option 2: Public Areas and
Townhomes Irrigated $386,000 $77,000 $463,000
Option 3: Public Areas,
Townhomes, and Single-
Family Homes Irrigated
$2,151,000 $431,000 $2,582,000
3.2 FUNDING
Funding for the project is proposed through development fees generated from surface water
management fees, and City trunk water system funds. The proposed funding for Option 2 is
outlined as follows:
Funding Source Amount
Surface Water Management $197,000
Trunk Water $266,000
Total $463,000
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
The trunk fee is calculated based on 40% of the $4,069 trunk water fee for each townhome unit,
based on the estimated water savings. It was assumed that each townhome is one Residential
Equivalency Unit (REU).
The project may be eligible for grants from the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services
for Targeted Storm Water. Grant funding opportunities will be evaluated during the design of
the project.
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
4. RECOMMENDATION
The project is feasible, necessary, and cost -effective from an engineering perspective. WSB &
Associates, Inc. recommends construction of the proposed improvements as detailed in this
report. The economic feasibility of this project will be determined by the City Council.
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
APPENDIX A
Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces
Figure 3: Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes
Figure 4: Option 3: Irrigating Entire Development
%&c(
%&c(
Rehbein St
73rd St
Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77th St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure1_MatamyHomeProjectArea.mxdÜ
Figure 1Mattamy Homes Project Area
0 1,000Feet
Project A rea
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
Irrigation Source
Ponds
Par k
Berm
ROW
"/
"/
%&c(
Rehbein St
73rd St
Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77th St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure2_Scenario1.mxdÜ
Figure 2Option 1 - Parks and Berm
0 1,000Feet
Irrigated Area
"/Pump
Park Irrigation System
Berm Irrigation System
Project A rea
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
Irrigation Source
Ponds
Par k
Berm
ROW
%&c(
Rehbein St
73rd St
Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77t h St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure3_Scenario2.mxdÜ
Figure 3Option 2 - Parks, Berm, and Townhomes
0 1,000Feet
Irrigated Area
"/Pump
Park Irrigation System
Berm Irrigation System
Townhome Irrigation System
Project A rea
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
Irrigation Source
Ponds
Par k
Berm
ROW
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
%&c(
Rehbein St
73rd St
Brian Dr20th Ave N20th Ave N77th St E Document Path: K:\02988-010\GIS\Maps\Figure4_Scenario3.mxdÜ
Figure 4Option 3 - Entire Development Irrigated
0 1,000Feet
Irrigated Area
"/Pump
Single Family Irrigation System
Park Irrigation System
Berm Irrigation System
Townhome Irrigation System
Project A rea
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
Irrigation Source
Ponds
Par k
Berm
ROW
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
APPENDIX B
Table 1 - Estimated Annual Irrigation
Pumping Data
2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
January 25,888,000 25,071,000 27,807,000 25,983,000 26,187,250
February 23,596,000 22,437,000 23,407,000 22,194,000 22,908,500
March 23,542,000 24,787,000 23,681,000 24,295,000 24,076,250
April 26,549,000 35,803,000 27,568,000 25,505,000 28,856,250
May 32,688,000 48,084,000 35,966,000 36,576,000 38,328,500
June 61,591,000 66,619,000 38,388,000 42,654,000 52,313,000
July 66,370,000 95,916,000 83,252,000 64,403,000 77,485,250
August 59,137,000 93,978,000 101,316,000 73,428,000 81,964,750
September 69,350,000 90,784,000 89,821,000 47,160,000 74,278,750
October 51,635,000 56,177,000 34,861,000 33,170,000 43,960,750
November 25,097,000 24,722,000 24,858,000 24,064,000 24,685,250
December 26,704,000 25,046,000 24,703,000 25,310,000 25,440,750
Total 492,147,000 609,424,000 535,628,000 444,742,000 520,485,250
Summer Usage:367,320,000 487,361,000 411,172,000 322,896,000 397,187,250
Winter Usage:124,827,000 122,063,000 124,456,000 121,846,000 123,298,000
Average Monthly Winter Use:24,659,600
Average Monthly Summer Use:56,741,036
Average Estimated Irrigation:224,570,050
Percent of Total:43.1%
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
APPENDIX C
Table 1 - Water Balance Summary
Table 2 – Option 1 Cost Summary
Table 3 – Option 2 Cost Summary
Table 4 – Option 3 Cost Summary
Irrigated Area (ac)Volume Required to Irrigate Area (gal)Average Days Irrigating from Lake YearlyAverage Daily Irrigation Demand (gal)Annual Lake Water Used (MG)Annual Lake Water Used (ac‐ft)Annual Potable Water Used (MG)Option 1: Irrigate Park and Berm10.79 42,000156 35,3366.54 20.06 0Option 2: Irrigate Park, Berm, and Townhome23.04 88,000156 74,03813.69 42.02 0Option 3: Irrigate Entire Development*143.7 547,000134 460,215 73.09 224.3 12.05*Numbers assume an 11' protective depth
Item No. Description Unit
Estimated
Total
Quantity
Estimated
Unit Price
Estimated Total
Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00
3 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 2" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 6,991 $18.00 $125,832.87
5 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
6 IRRIGATION METER AND CONTROLS EACH 2 $3,000.00 $6,000.00
7 LIFT STATION, FILTER, CONTROLS, AND APPURTENANCES* LUMP SUM 2 $55,000.00 $110,000.00
8 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT 250 $3.50 $875.00
9 CONCRETE PUMP PAD EACH 2 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
SUBTOTAL $269,207.87
+ 10% CONTINGENCY $26,920.79
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $296,128.66
+ 20% INDIRECT $59,225.73
TOTAL $356,000.00
Opinion of Probable Cost
A. Irrigating Public Spaces (Park and Berms)
Item No. Description Unit
Estimated
Total
Quantity
Estimated
Unit Price
Estimated Total
Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $16,700.00 $16,700.00
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00
3 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 2" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 6,991 $18.00 $125,838.00
5 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
6 IRRIGATION METER AND CONTROLS EACH 3 $3,000.00 $9,000.00
7 LIFT STATION, FILTER, CONTROLS, AND APPURTENANCES* LUMP SUM 2 $55,000.00 $110,000.00
8 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT 250 $3.50 $875.00
9 CONCRETE PUMP PAD EACH 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00
11 4" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 3,807 $18.00 $68,531.73
SUBTOTAL $350,444.73
+ 10% CONTINGENCY $35,044.47
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $385,489.21
+ 20% INDIRECT $77,097.84
TOTAL $463,000.00
B. Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes
Opinion of Probable Cost
Item No. Description Unit
Estimated
Total
Quantity
Estimated Unit
Price
Estimated Total
Cost
1 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 1 $93,100.00 $93,100.00
2 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LUMP SUM 1 $500.00 $500.00
3 DEWATERING LUMP SUM 1 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
4 2" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 6,991 $18.00 $125,838.00
5 ELECTRICAL SERVICE LUMP SUM 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
6 IRRIGATION METER AND CONTROLS EACH 8 $3,000.00 $24,000.00
7 LIFT STATION, FILTER, CONTROLS, AND APPURTENANCES* LUMP SUM 6 $55,000.00 $330,000.00
8 SILT FENCE, TYPE HEAVY DUTY LIN FT 250 $3.50 $875.00
9 CONCRETE PUMP PAD EACH 6 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
10 CONNECT TO POTABLE WATER EACH 6 $8,000.00 $48,000.00
11 4" FORCE MAIN HDPE LIN FT 36,944 $18.00 $664,992.00
12 POTABLE WATER SYSTEM OVERSIZING LUMP SUM 1 $650,000.00 $650,000.00
SUBTOTAL $1,955,305.00
+ 10% CONTINGENCY $195,530.50
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $2,150,835.50
+ 20% INDIRECT $430,167.10
TOTAL $2,582,000.00
C. Irrigating Entire Development
Opinion of Probable Cost
Feasibility Report
Mattamy Homes Water Reuse
WSB Project No. 2988-01
APPENDIX D
Water Balance Technical Memo
engineering planning environmental construction 701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4800
Fax: 763-541-1700
Equal Opportunity Employer
wsbeng.com
January 21, 2016
Mr. Mike Grochala, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, MN 55015
Re: Mattamy Homes Water Reuse – Water Balance Technical Memorandum
WSB Project Number 02988-01
Dear Mr. Grochala:
We are providing you this technical memorandum to summarize the results of the water balance
model for the water reuse feasibility study in the Mattamy Homes development. This document
describes the methodology used to calculate the quantity of stormwater available and the amount
used for irrigation purposes.
Project Background
The City of Lino Lakes wishes to implement a water reuse program using water from the lake in
the Mattamy Homes development to irrigate portions of the development. There are three
potential scales with respect to water reuse that were evaluated. The first is using water in the
lake to irrigate the development’s park and the berms on the eastern edge of the development.
The second is to irrigate the park and the berms as well as the townhomes in the southeastern
corner of the development. Finally, the water balance modeled the feasibility of irrigating the
entire development, including single-family homes, with water from the lake.
Water Balance Theory
The water balance presented in this document evaluates the amount of water provided to the
pond via stormwater runoff, the amount that will be withdrawn for irrigation, and the resulting
lake levels. The estimate takes into consideration precipitation, runoff, evaporation, irrigation
demand, and pond overflow. While water balances rely on historic data and do not predict future
climate patterns, they are a helpful tool when determining if stormwater irrigation is feasible, and
if so, whether or not potable water augmentation will be required.
Calculating Drainage Area
To determine the amount of water available for irrigation, the drainage area to the lake was taken
from the current Lino Lakes Northeast Study being conducted by WSB & Associates for the
City. In addition, drainage information was obtained from the the developer to estimate the area
in the future development that will drain to the lake.
Mr. Mike Grochala
January 21, 2016
Page 2
The purpose of the water balance is to determine if the lake holds enough water for irrigation
purposes throughout the irrigation season. Therefore, a conservative approach was taken when
estimating the drainage area; only the immediate drainage within the development was
considered for the water balance.
Calculating Precipitation
Rainfall data was obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Data was available
beginning on May 1, 1959, and extending to June 30, 2015. Days in which rainfall data was
missing were assumed to have received no precipitation.
Calculating Runoff
The water balance uses the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service method for determining runoff. This method, commonly known as the SCS
Runoff Curve Number method, has widespread use in hydrologic modeling. The curve number
for the drainage area was calculated as part of the Lino Lakes Northeast Study. The curve
numbers for the drainage area within the development was estimated using soil type and single-
and multi-family residential published curve numbers. Using the calculated curve numbers, an
S-value (the amount of maximum soil moisture retention after runoff begins) was determined
using the following equation:
ܵൌ 1000
ܥݑݎݒ݁ ܰݑܾ݉݁ݎ െ10
From the S-value, the initial abstraction (Ia) was calculated as 0.2*S, per the USDA. To predict
the amount of runoff (Q) from a particular rain event, the USDA gives the equation:
The equation dictates that there is no runoff from a storm where the amount that falls (in inches)
is less than the initial abstraction. In the single-family residential area, a storm of 0.47 inches is
required, and in the multi-family residential (townhome) area, a storm of 0.26 inches is required.
In the model, runoff from the three areas was considered independently to ensure the most
accurate estimate of total runoff volume possible. Using the equation above, the runoff entering
the lake was evaluated for each rain event from the historical rainfall data.
Calculating Pond Volume
Pond volume was determined using contour data from the grading plan for the lake. First, a stage
to surface area relationship was developed using surface area from the grading plan. Once the
surface area was evaluated at several elevations, the trapezoidal method was used to estimate
overall pond volume as well as the volume at several elevations. The storage capacity of the
pond is approximately 122 million gallons, with a volume of 86 million gallons at the normal
water elevation. The total possible volume was assumed to be the volume at the overflow
Mr. Mike Grochala
January 21, 2016
Page 3
elevation. The grading plans assume a normal water level of 900 feet, which was set as the initial
lake volume for modeling purposes.
Calculating Evaporation
Based on the estimated volume contained in the lake, the surface area was calculated in Excel
using the Forecast function. The Forecast function gives a predicted value of a variable using a
linear regression analysis. In this case, the function uses the elevation-surface area data
calculated in the pond volume analysis to predict what the surface area would be for any volume
of water. This is a necessary component for the model because the volume analysis as outlined in
the previous section gives volume at one foot increments only. Once the surface area is
estimated, the amount of evaporation is predicted using the pan evaporation method with a pan
coefficient, as outlined by the University of Minnesota. The guiding document recommends a
pan coefficient of 0.75 for Minnesota. The equation used is below:
ܧݒܽݎܽݐ݅݊ ൌ ܹܽݐ݁ݎ ܵݑݎ݂ܽܿ݁ ܣݎ݁ܽ ሺ݂ݐ
ଶ ሻݔ 0.75 ݔ 36.98 ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ
12 ݄݅݊ܿ݁ݏ/݂ݐ
The value of 36.98 inches is the average pan evaporation for the State of Minnesota between
1974 and 2004. The equation above provides annual evaporation. Therefore, in the water
balance, the value was divided by 180, or the approximate number of days in which evaporation
occurs annually.
Calculating Irrigation Requirements
Using aerials and plans provided by the developer, the irrigated area was estimated for the
berms, park, townhomes, and single-family homes. It is estimated that to maintain a lawn, one
inch of water is required per week (including precipitation). 1-inch of irrigation weekly results in
an average of 1/7, or 0.14, inches per day. Therefore, if the rainfall is greater than 0.14 inches in
a given day, it was assumed in the water balance that irrigation did not occur that day.
Rice Creek Watershed District rules dictate that stormwater irrigation occurs, at maximum, from
April 15 to October 15 for the generation of volume reduction credits. The water balance
calculates irrigation between these dates.
Phase Irrigation Volume per Day (gal)
1. Park and berms only 42,000
2. Park, berms, and townhome area 88,000
3. Park, berms, townhome area, single family area 546,150
Water Balance: Final Calculation and Results
Once all of the above parameters were calculated, the balance was conducted to determine lake
levels throughout the irrigation season. The overall water balance equation is as follows:
ܲ݊݀ ܸ݈ݑ݉݁ ൌ ܫ݊݅ݐ݈݅ܽ ܲ݊݀ ܸ݈ݑ݉݁ ܵݐݎ݉ݓܽݐ݁ݎ ܴݑ݂݂݊ ܦ݅ݐ݄ܿ ܫ݂݈݊ݓ െ ܦ݅ݏ݄ܿܽݎ݃݁ െ ܧݒܽݎܽݐ݅݊ െ ܫݎݎ݅݃ܽݐ݅݊
The average annual precipitation, including snowmelt, was 33.5 inches. The model predicted that
on average, irrigation will occur 156 days each year, out of 184 possible irrigation days. This
Mr. Mike Grochala
January 21, 2016
Page 4
leads to a weekly irrigation depth of 0.84 inches, resulting in a total water depth of 1.6 inches
applied to the turf on a weekly basis, including precipitation. Studies conducted by the
University of Minnesota indicate that this irrigation rate is likely slightly more than necessary
given the soils and precipitation. A small overestimation of the irrigation rate is desired so that
the model is conservative.
Option 1: Irrigating Public Spaces with Storm Water
Option 1 resulted in a daily irrigation rate of 42,000 gallons on days in which irrigation occurred
(days in which precipitation was less than 1/7-inch). The water balance model indicates that the
storage can sufficiently supply water for irrigation of the public spaces with minimal effect on
storage levels. Evaporation and irrigation combined resulted in maximum storage level
fluctuation of 36.8 million gallons (MG), or 4 feet in elevation change. Option 1 is feasible in
terms of water supply.
Option 2: Irrigating Public Spaces and Townhomes with Storm Water
Option 2 resulted in a daily irrigation rate of 88,000 gallons on days in which irrigation occurred.
The water balance model indicates that the storage can sufficiently supply water for irrigation of
the public spaces and townhome properties with minimal effect on storage levels. Evaporation
and irrigation combined resulted in maximum storage level fluctuation of 37.0 MG, or 4 feet in
elevation change. Option 2 is feasible in terms of water supply.
Option 3: Irrigating all of the Mattamy Development with Storm Water
Option 3 resulted in a daily irrigation rate of 547,000 gallons. The storage cannot supply enough
irrigation water to support this option. The model showed that storage levels will reach
approximately two feet in depth during the summer if irrigating at this rate. A protective
elevation can be set, such that at a certain storage depth the irrigation system does not run.
Depending on the elevation chosen, the system will turn off for different time ranges. If, for
example, the protective elevation is 896 feet (corresponding two an eleven foot depth), the
system would run off of potable water an average of 22 days per summer. Given the system and
operating cost, Option 3 is not feasible in terms of water supply.
Please contact me at (763) 287-8319 with any questions.
Sincerely,
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Erin Heydinger
Mr. Mike Grochala
January 21, 2016
Page 5
Sources:
Gulliver, J.S., A.J. Erickson, and P.T. Weiss (editors). 2010. Stormwater treatment: Assessment
and Maintenance. University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls Laboratory. Minneapolis, MN.
http://stormwaterbook.safl.umn.edu/content/evaporation-and-evapotranspiration
Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Nearest Station Precipitation Data Retrieval. Available
online: http://climate.umn.edu/HIDradius/radius_new.asp
USDA. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds – Technical Review 55. Available online:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044171.pdf
1
WS – Item #4
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 4
Date: April 4, 2016
To: City Council
From: Diane Hankee and Erin Heydinger, WSB Engineering
Re: Adoption and Implementation of Wellhead Protection Plan
Background
On February 26, 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) notified the City of
Lino Lakes that its Part 2 Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) was officially approved.
The preparation of the City’s WHPP is a requirement of Minnesota Rules 4720.5100 to
4720.5590. The goal of the Plan is to prevent human-caused contaminants from entering
the water supply wells and to protect all who use the water supply from adverse health
effects associated with groundwater contamination. The Plan falls under the jurisdiction
of the MDH and consists of two parts (Part 1 and Part 2).
Part 1
Part 1 of Lino Lakes’ WHPP was completed in 2014. Part 1 is a technical exercise that
uses groundwater modeling to delineate the wellhead protection area (WHPA), Drinking
Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and includes a well and aquifer
vulnerability assessment. Part 1 addresses the three municipal water supply wells used
by the City and the associated source water aquifer.
Part 2
Part 2 of the WHPP describes how the results of the Part 1 can be applied to best protect
a community’s water supply. Data elements were collected and interpreted, and then
impacts of changes in land and water use were assessed. This allowed issues, problems,
and opportunities to be identified and included in the WHPP.
Next Steps
The goals and objectives of the Part 2 WHPP focus on managing potential contaminant
sources within the DWSMA, reducing the potential contaminant pathways to the source
water aquifer that may be provided by private wells, educating property owners and water
supply users, and working with the cities within the DWSMA to ensure proper
management of the portion within their respective community. Once adopted, the City
must begin implementation of these objectives. Specific goals outlined in Chapter 5 of
the Part 2 Plan fall under the following categories:
A. Well Management
B. Public Education
2
C. Storage Tank Management
D. Septic Systems (ISTS)
E. Stormwater Management
F. Hazardous Waste Management
G. Data Collection
H. Water Conservation
I. Planning and Zoning
J. Implementation
K. Evaluation
Specific examples of implementation activities include educating the public on lawn care
practices, maintain an up-to-date septic system inventory, and notifying storage tank
owners within the DWSMA that the tank is in a source water protection area.
The annual cost for WHPP implementation is approximately $10,000. Source Water
Protection grants from the Minnesota Department of Health are available to offset some
of this cost. These grants are available twice annually and do not require a cost-share.
Staff presented the WHPP implementation plan to the Environmental Board on March
30, 2016 for approval.
Requested Council Direction
Staff is recommending adoption and implementation of the Wellhead Protection Plan
which will be on the City Council April 11, 2016 meeting consent agenda.
Attachments
1. WHPP – Part 2 Objectives and Plans of Action
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page24
CHAPTER FIVE – OBJECTIVES AND PLANS OF ACTION
(4720.5250)
I. OBJECTIVES
Given the issues, problems, and opportunities discussed in Chapter Three and the goals stated in
Chapter Four, the WHP Plan delegates direct management efforts to the following areas to prevent
future contamination of the aquifer and increase awareness of groundwater protection:
A. Well Management
B. Public Education
C. Storage Tank Management
D. Septic Systems (ISTS)
E. Stormwater Management
F. Hazardous Waste Management
G. Data Collection
H. Water Conservation
I. Planning and Zoning
J. Implementation
K. Evaluation
Each activity shall only be implemented in the sections of the DWSMA that are of the vulnerability level that is applicable to that specific action item per MDH requirements. In general, action items shall follow the basic rule for activities relating to the following areas:
Low vulnerability areas – wells
Moderate vulnerability areas – wells and tanks
High vulnerability areas – all land uses and potential contaminant sources, including wells
and tanks
II. Plan of Action
A. WELL MANAGEMENT
Objective A1: Take measures to promote proper sealing of abandoned, unused, unmaintained, or
damaged wells.
Action A1.1: Make property owners aware of potential technical and financial resources that are
available to assist them in securing grant funding for properly sealing wells.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Anoka County, WellheadProtectionJoint PowersGroup
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: $500 annually
How: Use the City’s website,newsletters,ordirect mailingstomake well owners
aware of well sealing cost‐share programs. Provide information to realtors to
pass along to property owners preparing to sell and during disclosure process.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page25
Action A1.2: Seek funding when available and feasible to locate and/or seal wells located on City property.
Who: City Staff
Cooperators: Anoka and Washington Counties, Consultant
Time Frame: On‐going, when grant funding is available
Estimated
Cost:
$2,000 (grant application); additional cost for sealing TBD.
How: If wells are discovered on City owned property, grant funding shall be sought
after to properly seal the well.
Objective A2: Take measures to identify properties with abandoned, unused, unmaintained, or
damaged wells and potential cross connections between private wells and the City’s water system.
Action A2: Identify properties with potential water supply cross connections or wells that pose a hazard to
the public water supply.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Staff or consultant
Cooperators: MDH, Anoka County,Cityof LinoLakes
Time Frame: 3 to 5 years
Estimated Cost: $5,000 to $6,000 research effort, remaining work dependent on results
How: Through mapping and field investigation, as well as historical records.
When possible, the list of parcels likely to have wells will be incorporated into the
City Building Officials records or shared with other jurisdictions in the DWSMA.
When the application is made to rebuild or demolish an existing building, the
records can be reviewed to determine if a well search is required.
Objective A3: Educate the public about proper well management.
Action A3: Provide links to MDH and County well management websites on the City’s website,
include information in the City’s newsletter or other direct mailings.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Staff or consultant
Cooperators: MDH
Time Frame: Ongoing
Estimated Cost: $500
How: Use the City’s website,newsletters,ordirect mailings. Use local newspaper,
public access or social media sites
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page26
Objective A4: Investigate “unlocated” or undocumented wells within the City and DWSMA.
Action A4: Provide data to MDH, County well management, and the Minnesota Geological Survey
regarding the measured location of “unlocated” and undocumented wells, and investigate the “as
built” construction of wells without construction records.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MDH, Hugo, Centerville,CirclePines,Blaine
Time Frame: 5 to 7 years
Estimated Cost: unknown
How: Apply for grant funding to investigate the location of unlocated wells through
Objective A2, surface measurements, and inspections.
Objective A5: Incorporate WHP initiatives into City Plans
Action A5: The City will use this Wellhead Protection Plan as a resource when updating its Comprehensive
Plan, Local Water Management Plan, Water Supply Plan, and other relevant plans.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Staff orconsultants
Cooperators: City of Hugo, CirclePines,Centerville
Time Frame: When other plans are revised
Estimated Cost: Varies per plan
How: WHP initiatives willbeaddressedandincorporatedinto the City’s variousplan
updates.
Objective A6: Identify New High-Capacity Wells within the DWSMA.
Action A6: The City will identify new high capacity wells that are proposed for construction in or near
the City’s DWSMA, and/or major changes to groundwater appropriations for existing high capacity
wells, to determine whether the pumping of wells will alter the current boundaries of the DWSMA
delineations or other portions of the City’s WHP Plan.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff or consultant
Cooperators: Comprehensive WaterSupplyPlancontents
Time Frame: 3 to 5 years
Estimated Cost: varies
How: City will request to be notified of new permits or changes to existing
appropriation permits for high capacity wells near the DWSMA. If determined
to potentially be impactful, City Staff, Consultant, and MDH will be requested
to evaluate whether proposed pumping will change the boundaries of the
DWSMA delineated for the City’s wells or if the vulnerability of the aquifer
will be affected.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page27
Objective A7: Continue to monitor the water quality from City’s wells (existing and new) to ensure
water quality standards are met.
Action A7: Examine and review the annual water quality reports to ensure maximum levels of
contaminants are not changing.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Consultant
Time Frame: MDH
Estimated Cost: When reports are available
How: No additional cost – staff time
Objective A8: Encourage owners on ISTS and private wells to connect to city services, when they
become available.
Action A8: Re-evaluate the sewer and water connection policy when services become available in the
DWSMA.
Who: City of Lino Lakes CommunityDevelopment staff
Cooperators: City Council
Time Frame: 3 to 5 years
Estimated Cost: No cost
How: Discuss the importanceof connectionstocityservices,asthey become available.
B. PUBLIC EDUCATION
Objective B1: Develop a public support and understanding for the WHP planning through the use
of websites, newsletters, and handouts.
Action B1.1: Include information about WHP and groundwater protection in the City newsletter,
perhaps in conjunction with the City’s MS4 permitting requirements.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MDH, Minnesota Rural Water Association (MRWA)
Time Frame: Ongoing
Estimated Cost: $500 each mailing/posting
How: Identify and obtainexistingeducationalmaterialsavailable from MDH andother
sources. Write newsletter articles describing WHP and include contact
information and website addresses for existing educational resources.
Action B1.2: Provide information about the WHP Plan and links to other WHP related resources on the
City’s website.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: City of Lino Lakes PublicWorksandBuildingDepartments
Time Frame: Ongoing
Estimated Cost: $500 each year of mailing/posting
How: Provide a summaryof WHPgoalsandimplementation.Provide links to WHP
related websites including MDH, Anoka County, MDA, and EPA.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page28
Action B1.3: Educate property owners of rural lands on the issues related to agricultural activity and
how these issues affect or relate to the protection of the aquifer.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff or consultant
Cooperators: MDH, MRWA
Time Frame: Ongoing, when applicable
Estimated Cost: $500 each mailing/posting
How: Coordinate with AnokaCountyandMDHtoprovidebest management practices,
handouts, and other resources for dissemination.
Objective B2: Educate City staff on transportation corridor and pipeline issues
Action B2: Create awareness about transportation corridor and pipelines issues that may affect the
public water supply.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Staff
Cooperators: MDH
Time Frame: Year 1‐3
Estimated Cost: City staff time
How: Post information available online about the importance of addressing and
preventing released contaminants. Communicate the procedures in place by
posting a notice in City Hall or sending an email to City staff.
Objective B3: Educate emergency management officials of the importance of spills/cleanup within
the DWSMA.
Action B3: Send a summary memo to the Fire Department, County Emergency Manager, County
Engineer, and MnDOT regarding the DWSMA location, sensitivity, and importance of spill cleanup
within the management area.
Who: City Staff
Cooperators: MDH, MRWA, Fire Department, MnDOT, County
Time Frame: Year 2
Priority: High
Estimated Cost: $500
How: Develop of summary memo to provide to local emergency management officials
on the DWSMA location and importance of spill cleanup within the management
areas.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page29
C. STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT
Objective C1: Notify owners of storage tanks located within the DWSMA that the tank is in a
source water protection area, and educate the owners of properties containing the storage tanks of
the importance of spill prevention.
Action C1: Update list of storage tank owners and contact each property owner and make them aware of
their placement within the City’s DWSMA.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff or consultant
Cooperators: City of Lino Lakes administration,MDH
Time Frame: 3 years
Estimated Cost: $3,000
How: Send mailings out topropertyownersnotifyingthemabout the DWSMA
delineation and the importance of spill prevention. Provide contact numbers for
appropriate government agencies to each property owner.
D. SEPTIC SYSTEMS (ISTS)
Objective D1: Coordinate with Anoka County to educate property owners about the need for
having onsite sewage treatment systems that comply with environmental standards and other
regulations.
Action D1: Support County’s efforts to educate property owners about ISTS systems and proper
maintenance of them.
Who: Anoka County
Cooperators: City of Lino Lakes PublicWorksandBuildingdepartments
Time Frame: Ongoing
Estimated Cost: Staff time
How: Provide assistance toAnokaCountyasrequested.Continue to discuss
requirements in building department.
Objective D2: Maintain an up-to-date septic system inventory.
Action D2: Build off the inventory in this report to maintain an accurate inventory of septic system
locations, especially in the high vulnerability portions of the DWSMA.
Who: City of Lino Lakes BuildingandPlanningdepartment
Cooperators: Other City of Lino LakesStaff
Time Frame: Ongoing
Estimated Cost: $1,500
How: At the time of building or demolition permit, keep a tracking record of new or
removed ISTS. Periodically review and revise database.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page30
E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Objective E1: Educate the public on proper stormwater management, turf management, proper
lawn care practices and water conservation
Action E1: Conduct a public education campaign using existing communication devices on the
importance of turf management and proper lawn care
Who: City of Lino Lakes Administration
Cooperators: MDH, RCWD
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: $500
How: In conjunction with theSWPPPandMS4reportingrequirements, include
articles on the website, in city newsletters on the importance of lawn care and
water conservation.
Objective E2: Cooperate with other agencies and programs to manage stormwater quality.
Action E2: Set up an annual interagency meeting to discuss stormwater management issues and
implementation of the Surface Water Management Plan
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Rice Creek WatershedDistrict,MinnesotaPollutionControl Agency
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: unknown
How: When applicable and economical, the City work to assist government agencies to
promote proper management of stormwater quality within the City.
F. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Objective F1: Educate the public on the proper disposal of hazardous waste items.
Action F1: Provide event information on the household hazardous waste collection day with Anoka County
near Lino Lakes.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Other City of Lino LakesStaff andAnokaCounty
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: $500
How: Include informationon theCity’swebsite,in theCity’snewsletter, distribute
direct mailers, or include water billing inserts to encourage residents within the
DWSMA, and throughout the City, to participate in the County’s household
hazardous waste collection day.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page31
Objective F2: Educate hazardous waste generators about hazardous waste management.
Action F2: Offer information on “Hazard Waste Training Seminar” for all hazardous waste generators
covering all the information that the average generator needs to stay in compliance with the rules.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MDH, Anoka County,Hugo,Centerville,CirclePines,Blaine
Time Frame: 2 years
Estimated Cost: $1,500
How: Include information on theCity’s websiteorintheCity’snewsletter to
encourage residents and business owners within the DWSMA, and throughout
the City, to participate in Hazardous Waste Training Seminars sponsored by the
County or other agencies.
G. DATA COLLECTION
Objective G1: Continue to collect and maintain local geologic and hydrogeologic data in order to
improve and augment current information and to provide additional data for future revisions to
this Plan.
Action G1.1: Monitor static and pumping levels in municipal wells.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Consultant
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: Staff time
How: Conduct routine collectionof groundwaterlevelsinthemunicipal wells,which
will provide data for the evaluation of groundwater elevation trends over time.
A decreasing trend in static water levels in the municipal wells may be cause for
the City to pursue more restricted water use measures and /or more effective
methods to control public water supply use.
Action G1.2: Cooperate and support future data collection efforts by other agencies.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MPCA, DNR, MDH,USGS,RCWD
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: 1,500 staff time
How: Provide assistance toagenciesasrequested when reasonable and economical.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page32
Objective G2: Evaluate the water quality monitoring strategy and results to ensure that they are
consistent with federal and state requirements yet also take into account local conditions.
Action G2: Maintain water quality sampling requirements mandated by MDH and analyze trends in water
chemistry, looking for any possible degradation of quality or changes in aquifer hydraulics.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Staff
Cooperators: Consultant
Time Frame: Ongoing
Estimated Cost: No additional cost
How: Identify changes totrendsinwaterchemistrybyevaluating records of analysis
results. This includes sharing data with the MDH and the option to sample for
radiological testing.
Objective G3: Maintain up to date information about wells and potential contaminant sources
within the DWSMA.
Action G3: In cooperation with existing state or local agencies and programs, create and maintain a
database of wells, ISTS, storage tanks, and shallow disposal wells within the DWSMA.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Property owners, MDH
Time Frame: On going
Estimated Cost: $1,500
How: An inventory of wells and potential contaminant sources was performed as part
of the development of this Plan. Database will be reviewed periodically and
updated as information becomes available.
Objective G4: If new high capacity wells are completed and begin to pump into the water supply
system, conduct a study to determine impact that the newly implemented high capacity wells have
on DWSMA boundary.
Action G4: In cooperation with existing state or local agencies and programs, maintain database of newly
implemented wells within DWSMA that was developed as a part of this WHP Plan and assess their impact
on the DWSMA location and vulnerability.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MDH
Time Frame: TBD
Estimated Cost: Varies
How: If the City receives a notice, or when the quality and quantity of water to be
pumped from proposed Well No. 6 is known, the City will work with MnDNR and
MDH to determined implications for the DWSMA or the vulnerability of the
aquifer. If the changes result in a required amendment to this Plan, the City will
seek grant funding for assistance.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page33
H. WATER CONSERVATION
Objective H1: Implement a community-wide water conservation program.
Action H1.1: Implement conservation measures included in the Water Supply Plan as part of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MDH
Time Frame: 3 years
Estimated Cost: $2,500
How: Educate the publictoencourageuserstovoluntarilyincorporate water saving
habits and tools into their lifestyles, improve the exiting water system’s
operation and maintenance procedure s and incorporate costs associated with
water conservation programs, adjusting water rate structure, and ensure that
all customers are paying for the water they use through audits and meter
replacement of calibration.
Action H1.2: Implement a water pricing model that encourages water conservation.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: MDH
Time Frame: 3 years
Estimated Cost: $2,500
How: Work with the CityCounciltostructurewaterpricingtoencourage limited
watering, especially during peak times.
I. LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING
Objective I1: Eliminate or reduce the potential pollution risks to the source water aquifer and
minimize the risk of altering the WHPA and DWSMA.
Action I1.1: Include a review of this Plan as part of the normal zoning and planning review process.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Planning Staff
Cooperators: City of Lino Lakes Building Staf f
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: Staff time
How: Copies of this Plan willbedistributed to Citystaff and they will review thisPlan
and incorporate it as part of their project planning review process.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page34
Action I1.2: Participate with other jurisdictions within the DWSMA to identify land use changes outside
the City limits.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Planning Staff
Cooperators: City of Lino Lakes Building Staf f
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: $500 staff time
How: Copies of this Planwillbedistributedtootherjurisdictions within the DWSMA.
Action I1.3: Consider establishment of a WHP overlay district to ensure the development of
compatible land uses within the high and very high vulnerable areas of the DWSMA.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Planning Staff
Cooperators: City of Lino Lakes Building Staff
Time Frame: On‐going
Estimated Cost: $10,000 if fully implemented; $2,000 to consider implementation
How: Copies of this Plan willbedistributed to citystaff and they will review this Plan
and incorporate it as part of their project planning review process.
J. IMPLEMENTATION
Objective J1: Track and report WHP activities to aid in implementing WHP objectives.
Action J1: Complete and submit an annual report on completed WHP activities.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Consultant
Time Frame: Annually
Estimated Cost: $500
How: Update WHP recordsof completedimplementationactivities.
L. EVALUATION
Objective K1: Evaluate Plan
Action K1: Complete an evaluation report every 2.5 years.
Who: City of Lino Lakes Sta ff
Cooperators: Consultant
Time Frame: Every two and one‐half years
Estimated Cost: $2,000
How: Prepare a written report usingthe MDHWHPProgram Evaluation form ora
format selected by the City. Provide report to the Utility Commission, City
Council and MDH Source Water Protection Unit.
Wellhead Protection Plan ‐ Part 2 June 2015
City of Lino Lakes, MN
WSB Project No. 2029‐43 Page35
CHAPTER SIX – EVALUATION PROGRAM (4720.5270)
The success of the WHP Plan must be evaluated in order to determine whether or not the Plan is
accomplishing what the City of Lino Lakes intended to do. Monitoring and evaluation of the WHP
Plan and associated activities will be conducted every two and one‐half years that the Plan is in
effect. The evaluation activities will include the following items:
Track the implementation of the goals, objectives, activities, and tasks discussed in Chapter
Five of this Plan;
Determine the effectiveness of specific management strategies regarding the protection of
Lino Lakes’ municipal water supply;
Identify possible changes to these strategies which may improve their effectiveness; and
Determine the adequacy of financial resources and staff availability to carry out the
management strategies planned for the each year.
The City will continue to coordinate with the MDH in the annual monitoring of the City’s municipal
water supply to determine if the management strategies presented in this Plan are having a positive
impact on water quality and to identify what water quality problems may still be occurring and how
they need to be addressed.
At the end of each evaluation period (every two and one‐half years) the City will make a written
report regarding progress in implementing the WHP Plan, as well as an evaluation of the costs and
benefits of the Plan activities. This report may be completed using the MDH WHP Program
Evaluation form. A copy of the report will also be sent to the MDH Source Water Protection Unit in
St. Paul. The City will keep a copy of the report in its record s. The intent of the annual reports is to
compile a complete and comprehensive study of the implementation of the source management
strategies for use when the City updates or revises this Plan. As required by the WHP Rules, this
Plan will be updated every 10 years at a minimum.
WS – Item 5
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item 5
Date: April 4, 2016
To: City Council
From: John Swenson, Public Safety Director
Re: Achieving Compliance through Education (ACE) Program Staffing
Background
Staff has provided Council information during the work session on March 8th and March 28th,
and staff met with Mayor Reinert on March 16th to further discuss ACE program staffing.
During the Council Work Session On March 28th member of Council asked the following
questions:
1. What is the revised forecast with no speeding violation participating in ACE?
Speeding violation account for approximately 80% of all the ACE participants. The
remaining 20% of the ACE participants stem from violations that have lower ACE fees (i.e.
parking violations); therefore, the financial impact for the reduction in ACE participants will
exceed 80%. Below is a table broken down by month and quarterly:
Month Estimated ACE
Completion
2/2016
Adjusted ACE
Completions
4/2016 *
January 76 107
February 76 87
March 54 105
April 96 19
May 79 16
June 138 28
July 144 29
August 84 17
September 89 18
October 77 15
November 71 14
December 100 20
Total 1,084 475
*The numbers for January, February, & March are Actuals; the remaining months are
estimates based on an 80% reduction in ACE participants.
2. How many people who receive a citation utilize the ACE program?
Of the ACE eligible citations issued from January 1, 2015 to November 1, 2015, 30% of the
those cited participated in the ACE program.
3. Do participants actually learn anything?
Overall the feedback has been positive from ACE participants. Attached to this Staff report
is presentation that was delivered to Council on April 2, 2012. This presentation contains
information regarding participant satisfaction with the program.
Attachments
Council Work Session 3/8/2016 & 3/28/2016 – Staff Report
Council Work Session 4/2/2012 – ACE Presentation
WS – Item 3
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item
Date: March 8, 2016
To: City Council
From: Sarah Cotton, Finance Director & John Swenson, Public Safety Director
Re: Achieving Compliance through Education (ACE) Program Staffing
Background
The ACE Program was started in June of 2010, with the goal of making roadways in Lino
Lakes safer. ACE provides individuals who receive a citation for a driving violation, or other
minor law or ordinance violation, the opportunity to take part in an educational program.
This program is administered through the Public Safety Department and is focused on the
violation which the citation was issued for. ACE is a voluntary alternative to going through
the court process or simply paying a fine. ACE is based on the premise that providing
violators with education on the importance of following the laws and ordinances will make
our community roadways safer.
Since July of 2015, there has been a marked increase in the number of ACE participants.
This increase coincides with the deployment of a grant funded traffic safety officer whose
time is dedicated to enhancing traffic safety through community education and enforcement.
Below is a table with a conservative forecast for ACE activity in 2016.
Month ACE Inquires
ACE
Completions
January 102 76
February 104 76
March 42 54
April 82 96
May 93 79
June 169 138
July 189 144
August 106 84
September 78 89
October 101 77
November 107 71
December 122 100
Total 1,295 1084
The increase in the ACE program activity has exceeded the current staffing levels within the
Public Safety Department. As you can see from the table above, the number of ACE
inquiries exceeds the number of individuals that complete the ACE Program. On average, it
takes 24 minutes of staff time to determine if an individual qualifies for the program. It takes
a total of approximately 53 minutes of staff time to get one participant through the entire
ACE process. This equates to 1,041.45 staff hours to administer the ACE program in 2016.
This increased ACE activity has also increased revenues to the City’s General Fund. The
adopted 2016 budget estimated ACE revenues of $65,000. The above forecast for 2016 is
projecting ACE revenues of $108,317, which represents an increase of $43,317 over the 2016
adopted budget.
Given the current staffing levels, the increased demands of the ACE program cannot be
absorbed.
Staff is seeking Council direction on three options for addressing the staffing shortage
created by the increase in ACE activity.
1. Limit participation in ACE to a level which can be accommodated by current staffing
levels.
2. Add one part-time (.5) CSO to administer the ACE program at the forecasted 2016
numbers. This would increase the Public Safety Department staffing by one part-time
CSO at a cost (salary & benefits) of $24,884.
3. Move the ACE Program to City Hall and hire one part-time (.5) Office Tech to
administer the program. This would increase the Administration Department staffing
by one part-time Office Tech at a cost (salary & benefits) of $31,096.
Attached to this staff report is a PowerPoint presentation that was provided to Council on
April 2, 2012. This will provide Council with information regarding a survey of ACE
participants that was conducted. Staff believes the ACE program is a valuable asset in our
efforts to make our community roadways safer, but the increase in service demand for ACE
cannot be absorbed at the current staffing level.
Attachments
Council Work Session 4/2/2012 – ACE Presentation
Lino Lakes City Council
Work Session
April 2, 2012
The ACE program was created to serve as an
educational alternative to the standard traffic
violation citation.
The primary goal of ACE is to make our
roadways SAFER!
Process – Moving Violation
Traffic stop
Officer issues a citation and provides the cited driver with
citation instruction pamphlet.
Cited Driver completes online form or calls the police
department to determine ACE eligibility (participants
under 18 must be accompanied by parent).
Those eligible come to the PD and take part in
educational component and quiz.
Upon successful completion the Anoka County citation is
dismissed.
A record of the individual’s participation in the ACE
Program is maintained in Anoka County Law
Enforcement Records System coded as a warning.
The ACE program began in June of 2010.
The PD conducted a survey in July 2011.
All 470 ACE participants were asked to
complete the survey.
The survey consisted of 15 questions.
113 participants completed the survey, which
was a response rate of 24%.
The overall survey response was very positive.
The ACE program was adequately explained
to me by the officer.
Strongly Agree 46
Agree 49
Neutral 13
Disagree 3
Strongly Disagree 2
The officer was courteous and helpful.
Strongly Agree 52
Agree 42
Neutral 14
Disagree 3
Strongly Disagree 2
The informational pamphlet was able to
answer my questions.
Strongly Agree 45
Agree 58
Neutral 9
Disagree 1
Strongly Disagree 0
Scheduling the class was convenient.
Strongly Agree 68
Agree 37
Neutral 4
Disagree 4
Strongly Disagree 0
The front office staff was courteous and
helpful.
Strongly Agree 83
Agree 27
Neutral 3
Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 0
The ACE program changed my opinion of
police and traffic enforcement in a positive
way.
Strongly Agree 40
Agree 46
Neutral 22
Disagree 3
Strongly Disagree 2
The videos covered the specific violation I
was cited for.
Strongly Agree 29
Agree 54
Neutral 19
Disagree 9
Strongly Disagree 2
The videos were of proper length.
Strongly Agree 46
Agree 56
Neutral 10
Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 1
I was made aware of additional violations I
wasn’t aware of before taking the course.
Strongly Agree 21
Agree 47
Neutral 27
Disagree 12
Strongly Disagree 4
The decreased fee (from a standard citation)
made me think more about the violation and
less about the monetary penalty..
Strongly Agree 35
Agree 44
Neutral 22
Disagree 7
Strongly Disagree 3
If the State of Minnesota required a $75
increase in the ACE fee for a court surcharge,
I would still utilize the ACE program.
Strongly Agree 16
Agree 26
Neutral 36
Disagree 16
Strongly Disagree 17
ACE changed the way I drive.
Strongly Agree 27
Agree 57
Neutral 16
Disagree 8
Strongly Disagree 3
The ACE program was an educational
alternative compared to the penalties of a
standard citation.
Strongly Agree 64
Agree 40
Neutral 3
Disagree 3
Strongly Disagree 1
I believe the ACE program is a positive
addition to the police department.
Strongly Agree 75
Agree 33
Neutral 2
Disagree 0
Strongly Disagree 1
ACE Participants
2010 – 224 Participants (program start in June 2010)
2011 – 560 Participants
2012 – 146 Participants (thru March 30, 2012)
Questions
WS – Item 6
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 6
Date: April 4, 2016
To: City Council
From: Lisa Hogstad-Osterhues
Re: Advisory Board Appointment
Background
Jim Schueller has applied for the Economic Development Advisory Committee.
- EDAC – 1 seat, 1 applicant
Requested Council Direction
1. When would council like to schedule an interview with the new applicant? The
application was sent to council for review on February 23, 2016.
Item #8
Monthly Progress Report
April 4, 2016
Item Last Action Taken Staff Status
Digital Scanning Project 3/14/16 – Council approved transfer of
$15,000 from Contingency Fund for
scanning and indexing building plans
Julie In the process of executing a
work order for large format
scanning. Working with
Roseville consultant (OPG3)
to review our process.
White Bear Lake Restoration
Assn. v. Dept. of Natural
Resources (DNR)
The WBL Restoration Assn. & WBL
Homeowners’ Assn. reached a settlement
agreement with the DNR that imposes a
three-year stay on the lawsuit so funds
can be appropriated for a Northeast Metro
Project. This involves a construction
project to connect Northeast cities to the
St. Paul Regional Water Service. Lino
Lakes is one of seven cities included in
the second phase of the project.
Jeff The DNR developed cost
estimates for augmenting
White Bear Lake with surface
water. Legislators and
augmentation proponents
questioned the construction
cost estimate, which the DNR
revised to $38.4 million. The
total cost range is $36.5 to
$78.2 million.
Legion Parking Lot 3/7/16 – Staff was directed to obtain
an appraisal for City property
Mike Appraisal was submitted
and Springsted is reviewing
financing options
Landscaping Plan for Civic
Complex Island
3/7/16 – The plan was delayed until
the Council makes a decision on the
location of a Veteran’s Memorial
Rick City is waiting for design
renderings for the Veteran’s
Memorial
Union History Report 5/4/15 – Council requested staff to put
together a union history report to
educate future councils
Jeff Staff is gathering data
Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting
March 30, 2016
Conservation
◦Limit reliance on groundwater for nonpotable uses
◦White Bear Lake Settlement
Stormwater Management
◦Required for development
◦Alternative to infiltration
Infiltration is a limited option for Mattamy
Lake Volume = Initial Volume + Runoff –Evaporation -Overflow
Option Estimated Cost
1 $356,000
2 $463,000
3 $2,580,000
Based on the water balance and cost analysis,
Option 2 is recommended
Other considerations:
◦Ownership
◦Metering, Usage, and Billing
◦Permitting
Funding Source Amount
Surface Water Management $197,000
Trunk Water $266,000
Total $463,000
*Grant funding may be available
Recommend approval of the feasibility report
Questions?
Lino Lakes Environmental Board Meeting
March 30, 2016
Background
Results
Part 2 Plan of Action
Estimated Cost
Next Steps
Questions
MN Rules 4720.51 to 4720.5590
Consists of two parts:
◦Part I -Completed and approved by MDH in August 2012
◦Part 2-Completed and approved by MDH in February 2016
Purpose:
◦Prevent human-caused contaminants from entering the water supply
◦Protect those who use the water supply
Data elements:
1. Physical Environment2. Land Use3. Water Quantity4. Water Quality
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Maintain record of
public/private wells within
DWSMA
Educate private well owners
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Use the City’s newsletter, website, or
water bill inserts to provide information
on wellhead and groundwater protection.
Educate City staff on transportation
corridor and pipeline issues.
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Notify and educate storage tank owners
within the DWSMA on spill prevention
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Maintain an up-to-date septic system
inventory.
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Educate property owners on proper
stormwater management
NPDES program
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Hennepin County Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Facility
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Monitor groundwater levels
Maintain the Potential
Contamination Source Inventory
database
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Evaluate water rate structure to
promote conservation
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Utilize the WHPP in future planning
processes in the City
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Maintain records of all of the
activities undertaken.
Categories
◦A –Well Management
◦B –Public Education
◦C –Storage Tank Management
◦D –Septic Systems (ISTS)
◦E –Stormwater Management
◦F –Hazardous Waste Management
◦G –Data Collection
◦H –Water Conservation
◦I –Land Use Planning and Zoning
◦J –Implementation
◦K -Evaluation
Complete the MDH evaluation report
every 2.5 years.
Approximately $10,000 per year
◦Dependent on specific activities outlined for that
year
Grants available from Minnesota Department
of Health to assist in funding
◦Available twice annually for up to $10,000
◦Does not require cost-share at this time
1.City Council formally adopts Plan
2.Implement the Plan of Action
MDH Evaluation –every 21/2 years
WHPP Amendment –every 10 years
Questions?
Lacasse Court
Cedar St W
LacasseCir
c
le
KilldeerDriveD e linaCirclePony Court
GlenCircleAlbertCourtRedHawkTrailVelvetleaf Lane
L a m o tte D rShadow Court
A qua
CirP in toLa
neElmcrestAveNFox CoveBehmLane
KellySt
Oakvi e w C ourtMustang Court ArabianCircleTeckla Court
Bl a ck Du ck Cou rtEvaSt
T r a p p e rs C o u rtG rayHeronDriveMuskrat RunJosephCourtHighlandCourtWoodDuckTrail
CoyoteCourtM a lla rd L a neS tage c o achTrlT
a
r
tCourtCarpenter Place
Town Cente r P arkwayGladstone Circle
Peregrin
eC irc le
F lo ra C o u r tSiouxLane
Palomi
noLaneSouthGle n Trail CassiopeiaCourtLeaCourt
CaribouCircleTerraCour
t
Appaloosa Court
ParkCt
Oak
CourtTeleLane20thAveSSnow OwlCircle
Ri
c
eCourt
Timberwolf TrailBlackDuckCircle81stStW
Pon d v ie w C i r c leApol
l
oC
t
Tra
p
p
er
s
CrossingS
James Street
Post Road
Sunflower Lane
PartridgeC
ourt
Lois Lane
GordonAvenueNCenturyTrlShetland Ln
PaintedTurtleRoadEgret La n eBloom Court
L
inda C o u r t
DurangoPoint
Northern LightsBlvd
Chokecherry Road
Rohavic LaneHeatherCour
t
NSchlavin Court
4th
Ave
2ndAvenueAntelopeDriveSheliaAveMourningDoveRoadOakH ollow Lane KingfisherCourtSherwood Lane
Glenview Avenue
Buckthorn Lane
Park vi ew Dri ve DanubeStreetElm Street
SunriseRoadFox Road
Diane Street
Chero
k
e
eTr
ai
l OspreyCourtDeer Pass Trail StellaLaneRic
eLakeCourtB eaverC
ircleRavens Court RoyalPinesPlaceTomahawkTrailBeaver Trail
TotemTrailBarbara Lane
4thAveA rth u r Ct
Mergans
erCourtLantern Lane
WhitetailTrailMorgan Ln
Ca n f i e l d Ro ad
OakwoodDriveT amarack Lane
W o o d c huck Court
Lois Lane
Prairi
e
Flower Road
Greenwood Lane
RedBirchCourtWhiteBirch C o u r t
Praire View Place
LanternC irc le
HollyDriveNBlackDuckDriveSMeadowCourtOakwoodLanePine St
Elm Street
ElmcrestAveNRed Clov er Lane
IversonCo u r t
Smok etr ee Lane
Wi ldfl ow er Dri ve
Bradley Street
Centur y Tr l
Fair mont Dr iv e MainSt74th Street
RuffedGro
u
s
eRoadTele Drive
2ndAvenueBlueHeronDriveAsp e n Lan e
Pa l o m in o L a ne
G ladstone Drive
TealCo u r t
Glenview Drive Peltier
L
ake Dr
iv
e
HollowLaneJonAvenueConnie Lane
Highland T r a il NordinStHudson T ra ilLaureneAvenueBirchCourtW a re R o a d
Rondeau Lake Rd W
Forsham Lake Drive
BlackDuckDriveWildTurke y Trail64th StreetPartridgePlace
Stella
Circle
Hol ly Drive E
White O
wlDriveCedar St E
ShermanLakeRoadSiouxLo o k o u tCoyote Trai l77th Street W
Marcia Lane
65th StreetBlackbirdLane
LakotaTrlC h ip pewaT rail
7 9th Street W
Lacasse
D
r
i
veMyr tle Lane
Riv e rBirchPlace
Carl Street
Molitor Dr
R u sticLaneCrip ple Cr e e k PassAndall Street
MustangLa
n
e
TrappersXingNWo
o
d
sEdgeBlvdFa
wnLa
neWareRoadFox ta i l CourtHokahDriveHighlandDriv
e
CountryLaneArlo Lane
Wo
o
dchuck
CircleGlenviewLaneLamotteCirGaageLaneKellyStOakLaneShadowLakeDriveWWhiteOakRoadLonesomePineTrailElbeStreetNESunriseRoadReilingRoadBluebillLaneBaldwinLakeRdS
a
n
dhi
l
lDri
ve
Lilac St
Timberwolf Trail
Green Briar Drive
SargentCourtNTartLake R o a d
Mapl e St
Ulmer Drive
Hokah Driv eLinda Avenue Cl
e
ar
wat
er
Cr
eekDrMarshanLane
FoxtailDrivePheasantRunS62nd St
H u n t e r s R i dge
Deer woodLaneOrange St
KnollDrive81st St E
Linda Lane
A
u
g
u
st
C
ircl
e
Ojibway
PaRed Maple L aneAenonPlaceF o xR o ad TalleLanePh
easa
nt
Hi
l
l
sDriveEvergreen Trail
F
o
x
C
ircle
Arrowhead Dr iv e
BaldEagleBoulevardN
ancy
Driv
eCounty Rd J
V illia g e D rive
12thAveSAppaloosaLaneWhite Pine Road
Karth Road Clearwater Creek
D
r
D e erwood La neJeanneDrive81st St E
77th S t r e e tW
Ol ive St
PattiDriveMarilynDri v eLakeviewDriveJaneAveSunriseDriveLinden Lane
Phelps RoadNottinghamLaneLakeviewDriveWhippoorwillLane
Hic koryP
l
a
c
e
C rystalC ourtVicky Lane RondeauLakeRdWThomas Street
Otter Lake Dri v e
Henry Lane
S t al l i o n Lane
SnowOwlLane4thAveW o o d la n dD riv e
Pelica
n
Plac
e
E lle nC
o
urt
BaldEagleBoulevardCo u n t r y L a k e s D r iv e
Wo o d ridge
L
a
n
e TimothyCt2ndAvenu
e
WareRoadMeadowviewTrailCaroleDriveLindaC ircle
Rond e a u L a k e R d E
Market Pla ce Drive
Re d Fo x R dRobins on Dr
S h e rm anLakeRoadSh
a
d
o
w
L
a
k
e
Dri
v
eWStoneybrookDrivePine St
Black
D
uck
Drive
RollingHills D r iv eRondeauLakeRdELangerLaneLeonardAvenueRiceLakeLaneRiceLakeDriveDianeCourt
Holly Court E
Apollo Dr
ServiceRoadMarvy Street
JoyerLaneHawthorn Road
Rehbein Street
77th Street E
ShadowLakeDriveEOak Lane
Old Birch Street
62nd St N ElmcrestAveNCountyRd534thAveVaughanCourtWo
o
d
D
u
c
k
T
r
ail
S h a d o w LakeDriveWHollyDriveN4thAveHolly Drive E
Aqua Ln
MeadowviewCourtMeadowlarkCourtGoldenrod Circle
Wood rid g e C o u rtSunfishCourtQuarterHorseCourtBr ok e n O a k C o u r tClydesdaleCircleWolfCircleGreySquirrelRoadSandpiperDrive
CrippleCreekCourtSe d g e Court
R u ffe d G ro u s e C o u rtT o m a h a w k C o u rtT i m b e r w o l f C i r c l e
ShadowLakeCourtEWhitetailRidgeMineralPo i n t
County Rd J
DeerwoodCircleHighland
Circle
Killdeer Court
H
artford
Circle
LangerCircleClearwater Creek Circl
Arro
w
h
e
a
d
C
o
urt
IronwoodCircle 20thAveNAsh St W
80th St E
SunsetAveMa i n S t
20thAveSGoiffonRd
SunsetAveM ain St LakeDrNECentervilleRdLilac St
Main St
Li la c St
Birch St
No rth Rd 20thAveSAsh St Ash StHo
d
gsonRdBirch S t
HodgsonRdA po llo Dr LakeDrNELakeDrCentervilleRd20thAveNA p ollo Dr
LakeDrCounty Rd JSunsetAveBirchSt OtterLakeDriveO tterLakeD riveMain St
Ash St
Main St
Birch StSnow Goose TrailMarshan Ct
S a v . C t§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
Centerville
Hugo
Blaine
Columbus Twp.
Circle Pines
Shoreview North Oaks White Bear Twp.White Bear Twp.
Ham Lake Forest Lake
35E
35E
35E
35W
35W
35W
LEGEND
City Boundaries
Parcels with Structures
Parcels with Increase of Floodplain Extents [536]
Parcels with Decrease of Floodplain Extents [563]
Increase and Decrease on Same Property [404]
Parcels with No Change in Floodplain Boundary [57]
N
0 2,000
Feet
LINO LAKES PARCELS WITH STRUCTURES - 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY
1 inch = 1,000 feet