Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-07-2017 Council Packet
WORK SESSION AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES Monday, August 7, 2017 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Community Room (not televised) 6:00 P.M. 1. Arlo Lane and Bald Eagle Boulevard Traffic Review, Diane Hankee 2. Comprehensive Plan Update, Michael Grochala 3. Water Tower No. 3 Siting Report, Diane Hankee 4. Watermark-Lennar Revised Land Use Plan, Katie Larsen 5. City Paths and Planning for Them, Rob Rafferty 6. Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan, Michael Grochala 7. 2018 Street Reconstruction Project Update, Michael Grochala 8. Centennial Fire District Unemployment Case Update 9. Peddler/Solicitor/Transient Merchant Ordinance, Julie Bartell 10. Public Works Facility, Jeff Karlson 11. Council Updates on Boards/Commissions, City Council 12. Monthly Progress Report, Jeff Karlson 13. Review Regular Agenda 14. Adjourn Please note that the regular work session in September will be held on Tuesday, September 4 (Monday is Labor Day) WS – Item 1 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 1 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer Re: Traffic Safety Evaluations Arlo Lane and Bald Eagle Boulevard Background The Traffic Safety Committee has been reviewing two ongoing traffic evaluations in the following neighborhoods: 1. Bluebill Ponds along Arlo Lane – traffic speed concern 2. West Oaks along Bald Eagle Boulevard – traffic speed and sight distance at pedestrian cross walk concern Arlo Lane In April, the City received a speed complaint and request to provide an all way stop condition on Arlo Lane at the intersections of either Joseph Street or Highland Drive. An initial investigation was completed and reviewed by the City Council at the June 5, 2017 work session. Based on the data collected and engineering review it was determined that an all way stop in either of these locations was not warranted. Following additional discussion with neighborhood residents additional analysis was requested which modified the location and time frame in which the traffic data was collected. The additional data was collected at two locations on Arlo Lane from Friday, June 9th through Tuesday June 13th. An updated traffic evaluation memorandum was prepared by WSB and is included with this report. The review indicated that the 85th percentile speeds are near the posted 30 mph speed limit. The traffic counts are typical for a residential street volumes and far short of volumes required to meet all-way Stop Sign warrants. Based on the results of the additional data collection staff’s recommendation is: 1. No change in existing traffic control. 2. Provide increased enforcement of the area, specifically targeting the time of day most vehicles are traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. 3. Traffic control at the intersection should continue to be monitored and, if at any time there are demonstrated safety concerns, the City may reevaluate the installation of the intersection control. Staff would also recommend that this area be targeted for Education. This would include a letter to the neighborhood educating them on traffic safety, speed concerns, and notifying them that there will be increased police patrol. Since the 85th percentile speeds are within the posted speed limit permanent driver feed-back (dynamic) speed sign was not proposed for the this location. However, given the proximately to Highland West park the council may consider this option. These signs cost approximately $5,000 installed. Funding would be need to be allocated from the City Council contingency. As an alternative staff is working with the Public Safety Department to evaluate use of a mobile driver feed-back (Dynamic) speed sign. This would allow for temporary use within neighborhoods as part of ongoing educational efforts. Bald Eagle Boulevard The West Oaks Homeowners Association contacted staff regarding an ongoing safety concern along Bald Eagle Boulevard. Concerns were expressed regarding both visibility at the existing cross walk at that intersection of Bald Eagle Boulevard and Partridge Court, and the traffic speed along Bald Eagle Boulevard. Traffic data was collected on April 18 and 19 and summarized in the enclosed memo. Bald Eagle Boulevard has a speed limit of 30 mph. The 85th percentile was documented at 36 mph verifying that speeding is an issue through this area. The study also noted that there are site line issues at Partridge Court and Bald eagle Blvd. Based on the information collected the following is recommended: 1. Installation of driver feed-back (Dynamic) speed signs on Bald Eagle Boulevard both north and south of Partridge Court. 2. Clear brush and trees in the Bald Eagle Boulevard right of way north of Partridge Court. 3. Installation of a pedestrian warning sign with down arrow on southbound Bald Eagle Boulevard at the Partridge Court crosswalk. The installation of two driver feedback signs could range from $8,000 to $10,000. Funding would need to be allocated from the City Council contingency. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council consideration of recommendations. Attachments 1. Arlo Lane Supplemental Traffic Evaluation Memo 2. Bald Eagle Boulevard Traffic Evaluation Memo St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com Technical Memorandum To: Diane Hankee, PE Copy: Michael Grochala City Engineer Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes City of Lino Lakes From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE File: WSB No. 2029-240 Principal/Traffic Engineer Date: June 28, 2017 Subject: Arlo Lane Stop Sign Supplemental Review A Stop Sign review of Arlo Lane was presented to City Council at their work session on June 5th, 2017. Based on the review of the intersections including the traffic characteristics and the requirement found in the MnMUTCD it was concluded that; the traffic conditions in this area have typical volumes for residential streets and, the intersections do not meet the warrants for all- way stop sign installation. Based on the conclusions the following was recommended: 1. No change in existing traffic control. 2. Continue to provide police presence in the area. 3. Traffic control at the intersection should continue to be monitored and, if at any time there are demonstrated safety concerns, the City should reevaluate the installation of the intersection control. At the meeting several residents were concerned with the location and time frame in which the traffic data was collected. It was agreed that updated traffic volume and speed counts would be conducted to insure that the traffic conditions were completely documented. Additional data was therefore collected at two locations on Arlo Lane, one west of Joseph Court (approximately 300 feet) and one east of Highland Drive (approximately 200 feet). The data was collected from Friday June 9th through Tuesday June 13th. The attached Figure 1 shows the count locations. The results of the additional data collection are shown below in Table 1 for traffic volumes and Table 2 for speed data. The data is shown for each day the data was collected including the data collected in April from the previous study. Arlo Lane Stop Sign Supplemental Review 2 | Page Table 1 – Traffic Volume Summary Time Period Wednesday 4/19/2017 Friday 6/9/2017 Saturday 6/10/2017 Sunday 6/11/2017 Monday 6/12/2017 Tuesday 6/13/2017 Arlo Lane - West of Joseph Ct ADT 265 313 181 270 311 278 AM Peak Hour 23 15 11 25 22 18 PM Peak Hour 38 41 17 24 29 25 Arlo Lane – East of Highland Drive ADT 475 603 444 521 595 610 AM Peak Hour 50 40 32 62 33 36 PM Peak Hour 68 63 34 49 55 66 As can be seen in Table 1, the new traffic volumes continue to be similar in comparison to other local City streets which typically range from 250 to 750 vehicles per day. These traffic counts are typical for residential street volumes and are far short of the volumes required to meet all- way Stop Sign warrants. Table 3 – Speed Data Summary Wednesday 4/19/2017 Friday 6/9/2017 Saturday 6/10/2017 Sunday 6/11/2017 Monday 6/12/2017 Tuesday 6/13/2017 Arlo Lane - West of Joseph Ct 85% Speed 25 mph 30 mph 31 mph 29 mph 28 mph 29 mph Highest Recorded Speed 36 mph (2) 51 mph (2) 47 mph (1) 45 mph (2) 35 mph (1) 37 mph (1) % Over Speed Limit 9% 12% 20% 12% 8% 10% Arlo Lane – East of Highland Drive 85% Speed 25 mph 30 mph 31 mph 29 mph 29 mph 30 mph Highest Recorded Speed 36 mph (2) 51 mph (7) 53 mph (1) 51 mph (3) 52 mph (1) 43 mph (1) % Over Speed Limit 9% 14% 19% 12% 11% 17% The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which most (85%) of the drivers are traveling. The posted speed limit near the 85th percentile is the maximum safe and reasonable speed. Studies show that traveling faster or slower than this value can increase the chances of being in a crash. As indicated in Table 2, the calculated 85th percentile speed is near the posted 30 mph speed limit. Based on this data, the existing posted 30 mph speed limit would be considered appropriate. Arlo Lane Stop Sign Supplemental Review 3 | Page For low volume roadway such as Arlo Lane, installation of stop signs has been found to not control speed. In fact, it has been found that at intersections where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign and frequently speeds are higher between intersections to make up for lost time. It should be noted that the highest recorded speeds on Arlo Lane are in some cases above 50 mph. These speeds were recorded primarily in the early morning (6:00 am to 8:00 am). Based on the additional data collected it still can be concluded that; the traffic volumes in this area are typical volumes for residential streets and, the intersection does not meet the warrants for all-way stop sign installation or a change in the posted speed limit. Therefore, the recommendations from the initial review should still be considered: 1. No change in existing traffic control. 2. Provide increased enforcement of the area, specifically targeting the time of day most vehicles are traveling in excess of the posted speed limit. 3. Traffic control at the intersections should continue to be monitored and, if at any time there are demonstrated safety concerns, the City may reevaluate the installation of the intersection control. Arlo Lane Stop Sign Supplemental Review 4 | Page St. Cloud Minneapolis St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com Technical Memorandum To: Diane Hankee, PE Copy: Michael Grochala City Engineer Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes City of Lino Lakes From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE File: WSB No. 2029-240 Principal/Traffic Engineer Date: July 20, 2017 Subject: Bald Eagle Boulevard at Partridge Court Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review Introduction/Background Concerns have been raised by residents in the West Oaks Homeowners Association concerning the safety of pedestrians crossing Bald Eagle Boulevard from the residential area to the marina/dock area. Their request is for the installation of flashing speed limit signs as a traffic calming device on Bald Eagle Boulevard north and south of Partridge Court. The installation of neighborhood traffic calming devices should follow the following process: Identified Issue/Concern - The first step in initiating the process is with an issue or concern received by City staff from the public or City Council or identified by City staff. Eligibility - In order for a neighborhood street to be eligible for low cost, low impact improvements, it will be evaluated initially based on the following characteristics. Table 1 provides a quick reference on what streets are eligible. Roadway Functional Classification Daily traffic volumes Posted speed Table 1 – Project Eligibility Criteria Street Functional Classification Daily Traffic Volume Posted Speed Limit Eligibility Arterial Not Eligible Collector Not Eligible Local > 1200 > 35 No Local < 1200 < 30 Yes Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 2 | Page Data Collection - If the street is determined eligible for low cost, low impact traffic improvements, the following basic street data would be collected to be used in the evaluation process. Peak hour and daily traffic volume data by direction Vehicle speed data Crash data Existing roadway characteristics Data Evaluation - A Traffic Analysis will be conducted using data collected. The study will evaluate what potential low cost; low impact improvements could be implemented to address issues and concerns in three primary areas: Safety Speed Cut-through Traffic Criteria have been developed that address each primary area of concern with potential improvements to address specific issues. A Traffic Calming Issues Criteria Flow Chart is attached. Traffic Calming Evaluation In order to evaluate the current safety and operational conditions in the Bald Eagle Boulevard area, the existing traffic characteristics were collected and reviewed. This included: Traffic volumes Vehicle speeds Crash history Current traffic control (signing, pavement markings, crosswalks, etc.). A. Traffic and Pedestrian Volumes - Existing traffic data was collected on April 18 and 19, 2017. The counts were conducted for each approach on Bald Eagle Boulevard using tubes and at the intersection of Partridge Court using video cameras. The results of the traffic vehicle counts are shown below in Table 2 and pedestrian counts in Table 3. Table 2 – Traffic Volume Summary Intersection Approach Average Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic Northbound Bald Eagle Blvd 366 18 46 Southbound Bald Eagle Blvd 378 41 21 Westbound Partridge Ct 38 1 3 Eastbound Partridge Ct 41 4 1 These traffic volumes are similar in comparison to other local City streets which typically range from 250 to 750 vehicles per day. These traffic counts are typical residential volumes and are far short of the volumes required to meet all-way Stop Sign warrants. Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 3 | Page Table 3 – Traffic Pedestrian Volume Summary Roadway Crossing Average Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Bald Eagle Blvd north of Partridge Ct 10 1 2 Bald Eagle Blvd south of Partridge Ct 4 1 0 It should be noted that while the vehicle counts represent typical average conditions, the pedestrian counts would be considered low. Pedestrian levels during the summer would be higher and accommodations should be provided for the safe crossing. B. Vehicle Speeds - In conjunction with the daily traffic counts, vehicle speeds were also collected. Vehicle speed data is typically given as the 85% speed. The 85% speed represents the speed at which 85% percent of the counted vehicles are traveling at or below. Research indicates that this value is where most drivers will operate their vehicle in a reasonable manor. Below in Table 4 is a summary of speed data collected. Table 4 – Speed Data Summary Intersection Approach 85% Speed (mph) Highest Recorded Speed (mph) % Over Speed Limit Bald Eagle Blvd North of Partridge Ct 36 48 (2 occurrences) 63% As indicated in the table, the 85% recorded speed is above the posted 30 mph speed limit. Based on this data, speeding appears to be an issue through this area. C. Crash History - Using the State of Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (CMAT), crash data from the past 5 years was documented. It was determined that there have been no reported crashes in the area including at the intersection of Bald Eagle Boulevard and Partridge Court. D. Roadway Characteristics - The existing roadway characteristics was documented within the study area. This included roadway geometrics and location of: warning signs, stop signs, speed limit signs, other warning signs, pedestrian crossing signs and crosswalks. A summary of the roadway characteristics is discussed below: Lanes: Two, 12 foot lanes (one in each direction) Pavement Markings: Yellow center line and white edge lines Intersection Control (Bald Eagle Blvd at Partridge Ct): Side Street Stop Speed Limit Sign: Posted 30 mph Curve Warning Signs: For curves north of Partridge Ct Pedestrian Crosswalk Warning Signs: Northbound advanced sign and at crosswalk, and; and southbound advance sign approaching the crosswalk. No southbound warning sign at the crosswalk is present. Pedestrian Crosswalk: Stripped zebra crosswalk north side of Partridge Ct Roadway Alignment: Both horizontal and vertical curves restricting sight lines entering and exiting Partridge Ct and view of the pedestrian crosswalk. A private parking area is provide on Partridge Ct just west of Bald Eagle Blvd for local residents using the marina on the east side of the roadway. Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 4 | Page Traffic Calming Alternatives Several traffic calming alternatives could be provided that would “enhance” the safety of both vehicles accessing and pedestrians crossing of Bald Eagle Boulevard. It is assumed that the existing standard “Zebra” crosswalk markings and signing would remain with any of the alternatives. Each alternative is discussed below with an estimated cost: 1. Pushbutton with Advanced Flasher – In addition to the standard pedestrian crossing signs this alternative provides for an advanced warning yellow flasher in each direction on Bald Eagle Boulevard. The system can be either pushbutton activated or timer activated. The primary advantage to this alternative is that flasher system provides warning of the crosswalk in advance of the intersection giving vehicles additional time to slow down or stop. The primary disadvantage is the cost ranging from $20,000 to $30,000 for the system. 2. Pushbutton Flasher at Crosswalk (Solar) – In addition to the standard pedestrian crossing signs this alternative provides a yellow warning flasher at the crosswalk. The system can be either pushbutton activated or timer activated. Each flasher could be direct wired or solar powered. The primary disadvantage is that vehicles on Bald Eagle Boulevard do not have the advance warning to slow down or stop, however, it will provide for warning of a pedestrian in the crosswalk and the cost is less than the advanced flasher system. The estimated cost ranges from $15,000 to $20,000 for the system. 3. Pushbutton “Blinking” LED Signs (Solar) – This option provides for either pushbutton or timer activated LED “Blinking” yellow lights around the crosswalk signs at the crosswalk. Similar to the crosswalk flasher system, the primary disadvantage is that approaching vehicles on Bald Eagle Boulevard do not have advance warning of a pedestrian crossing. The estimated cost ranges from $4,000 to $6,000 for the system. 4. Driver Feed-Back (Dynamic) Speed Signs – Driver feed- back signs are signs that display the actual speed of a vehicle as it drives by the location. On neighborhood streets where the 85% speed is determined to be greater than 33 mph, a driver feed-back sign could be used to warn the driver that they are speeding. These signs could be located on Bald Eagle Blvd north and south of Partridge Court. The cost for installation of two driver feed-back signs would range from $8,000 to $10,000. Bald Eagle Blvd Pedestrian Crossing Safety Review 5 | Page Recommendation In conclusion, based on the analysis and review of the data above: A vehicle speeding issue currently exists on Bald Eagle Boulevard with the 85% speed above the posted 30 mph at 36 mph. There is a sight line issue for both vehicles exiting Partridge Ct and pedestrians crossing Bald Eagle Blvd. There is a lack of a warning sign southbound at the pedestrian crossing at Partridge Court. Therefore, the following is recommended: 1. Installation of driver feed-back (Dynamic) speed signs on Bald Eagle Boulevard, both north and south of Partridge Court. 2. Clear the brush and trees in the Bald Eagle Blvd right of way north of Partridge Ct. 3. Installation of a pedestrian warning sign with down arrow on southbound Bald Eagle Boulevard at the Partridge Ct crosswalk. Bald Eagle Blvd Legend Right of Way August 2, 2017 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 752 ft ± WS – Item # 2 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 2 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Comprehensive Plan Update Background The 2040 Comprehensive Plan process kicked off with the joint City Council and advisory board meeting in May. Since that time staff has been working with the consultant team to collect data and additional public input. Representatives from Landform will be present at the meeting to review the process and information collected to date. Requested Council Direction None Required. Discussion Only Attachments 1. Landform Memo, dated July 31, 2017 Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update City Council August 7, 2017 Date: July 31, 2017 for August 7, 2017 Meeting To: Lino Lakes City Council From: Kendra Lindahl, AICP Landform Professional Services Subject: Comprehensive Plan Update On August 7th, consultants and staff will brief the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Results of June 22, 2017 Open House—Approximately 40 citizens attended the Open House. A summary report is attached. Results of Community Survey—The online survey was closed on June 23, 2017 and had 476 respondents. A report summarizing the results is attached. Also attached is a memo summarizing the results of a “Meeting in a Box” recently completed by the Chain of Lakes Rotary Club. They completed a “SWOT” analysis similar to the exercise the City Council and Advisory Boards did at the May 15th kick-off meeting. Potential Land Use Study Areas and Land Use Issues—Staff identified a preliminary list of land use study areas, specific locations that should be reviewed as part of the Land Use Plan update. Several landowners also have requested that the City consider specific changes to the status of their property. Possible changes might include the future land use designations or utility staging. Several general issues for the Land Use Plan have also been identified. The materials prepared for the Board’s discussion are attached for the Council’s information. The study areas and issues were discussed by the Planning & Zoning Board at their July 12th meeting and by the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) at their July 26th meeting. The Planning & Zoning Board will be discussing the Land Use Plan again at their August 9th meeting and giving their direction for drafting the Land Use Plan maps and text. Upcoming Meetings—On August 19th, staff and consultants will be available at the Blue Heron Days booth to provide information and answer questions from the public about the Comprehensive Plan. The Park Board will be discussing the plan update at their September 11th meeting. The Planning & Zoning Board will begin discussion of the Transportation Plan at their September 13th meeting. Attachments: • Open House Feedback, June 22, 2017 • Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey, Summary Results • Summary, Chain of Lakes Rotary Club Meeting in a Box • Potential Land Use Study Areas and Land Use Issues, August 2017 • Excerpt, Master Planning Study, Hodgson Road & CRJ, February 12, 2007 • Comprehensive Plan Meeting Schedule, Updated July 2017 Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Open House Feedback Results 1 June 22, 2017 Open House Feedback June 22, 2017 Comments, Questions and Suggestions: • 14 comment forms submitted Land Use: • Keep agriculture on corner of Birch & Centerville • Making sure All Good Organics can always afford taxes & continue to serve produce • The east side is developing “better” than the west side and I don’t care for that. Less visually appealing business should be kept away from main roads. White collar business development should be encouraged. • I would like to see medium density scattered throughout the city instead of clumps. Low density multi-family would be another option for getting diversity into our subdivisions. • A vibrant & healthy community facilitates opportunities to live , work, worship, recreate, shop & celebrate. People than can do it all in the community are healthier & happier. • Look for large tax revenue development on 35E corridor. • Jeff Joyer/ Waldoch/ waste, sewer, water sooner. Utilities (Sewer, Water, Storm Drainage): • We want city sewer and water sooner than later at 614 Pine St. • All of the above through Sunset Ave. • I’d rather not have my neighborhood flooded . Beyond that, I’m good. • No watermain on Arrowhead Dr. • City culvert, more water to north (near Rondeau Lake) • Ditch cleaning between rich and County Rd J/ Cedar Ditch • Water went down Sunrise (near Rice Lake) • Show trunk through site (near Hodgson Rd and Ash St.) • When muni utilities (near 80th St. and 35E) • When muni utilities, prefer earlier (near Lake Drive a nd Columbus) • When sewer on Sunrise? (near Rice Lake) • When sewer along North Road? (near Baldwin Lake) • Nadeau Property, when utilities? • Want utilities for development—East Holly and County Road J Transportation: • County Rd J upgrades to bridge/freeway • Lower speed limit of Birch Street • Increase capacity of Birch • Lower speed limit on Birch St. • I would like to see Lino Lakes take advantage of 35E & W. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Open House Feedback Results 2 June 22, 2017 • We can slow down our main roads to 40 which would make the city streets more user friendly for residents. • Complete streets. Make sure Safe Routes to School is full, built out . Expand trail system to create a network connecting neighborhoods with retail & civic entities. The county needs to meet our local needs. Lake Drive between 35W and Main St. needs attention. Slower. Crosswalks. Mixed use paths. • Continue efforts to reduce traffic on Birch St. • Please fix 4th Street. • Intersection improve! CSA 21 Backups (near Ash Street) • Elmcrest/ Speed limit on Bald Eagle. Parks & Natural Resources: • Quail Ridge Park connect trail to Black Duck (Pump House) to Wild Turkey Trail • Birch Park upgrade • Keep Quail Ridge Park undeveloped • Behm’s Park needs water & posted rules needed regarding dogs. Water on Memorial Day, water off Labor Day (nice for picnics) • Bike trail along 20th is important. Improves walkability score, safety and destination to Running Aces (coordinate with Columbus) • Connect walking path from Black Duck & Wild Turkey • Less dedicated (single-use) trails & more multi-use trails. For example, dedicated cross country ski trails are frustrating. • Arena Acres Park. We need further discussion on the tennis courts before they get demoed . They are old but have not been maintained by the city, therefore there should be some money to fix or replace after 30 plus years. They do get used daily by the community. • Arena Acres Park/ municipal tennis court should have further discussion before being removed. There is a lot of traffic & interest in the park that would warrant keeping it in place. Also there are repairs that could be done to improve/maintain the surface at a lower cost. The invest would be worthwhile. I will be starting a petition to keep this live. • A trail on Sunset Ave • Nice bike land on Main over 35W but could we have a bike path lead ing up west under the hi wires • I would like to encourage the restoration of Cedar Lake with good trails and public access • It’s our primary, differentiating resource. Take advantage of it with better/safer connections. • Develop Park on Birch/Centerville Rd using revenue generated from solar garden. • Trail? (From Lake Drive towards Rondeau Lake). • 20th Ave (bike trail) • Extra lane on Birch St. (near North of Cedar Lake.) • Trail through OHP Line route (near 35W and Main St.) • Trail not connected (near Clearwater Cre ek Park.) Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Open House Feedback Results 3 June 22, 2017 Other Topics or Issues? • Integrated business & residential for more small town feel • Want ATV use on public roads legal • Please Please Please fix 4th ST. to the north of Main • All Council and Mayor should be in attendance • Mayor should be present for constituents Are there any changes specific to your property that you would like the City of Lino Lakes to consider as part of the Plan Update? This might include changes such as the future land use designation, timing of sewer and water extensions, etc. If so, please make sure to identify the property and fill out the contact information at the bottom of this form. • Keep Quail Ridge Park undeveloped. Zoned to have chickens (Chelsy Lindman, 6602 Pheasant Run) • To be developed sooner than 2030 (Lance Noren, 6198 Holly Drive N—requests phone contact) • We would like to request a change in the proposed density of our two properties in Lino Lakes. They are now listed as low density and ask they be changed to medium density to conform with the surrounding property. (William & Bonnie Nadeau, 6677 20th Ave. 18 ac, Pete and Norma Nadeau, 6651 20th Ave 13 ac.—requests email contact) • Very concerned about this (sewer and water extensions) cost. (Kevin & Hillary Friend, 1919 Rehbein St.) • Want chickens (Dylan Lindman, 6602 Pheasant Run, wants phone contact) • Sewer and water sooner than is currently planned. I’ve hear d it’s “Post 2030” and that’s too far off. (Jason & Catherine Decker, 614 Pine St., wants phone or email contac t.) See comment below—request medium density residential for development by 2030.) • I like it just the way it is (anonymous) Is there anything specific in the current Lino Lakes 2030 Comprehensive Plan that you would like to see changed or added as part of this update? If so, please describe? • I would like to see a small grocery store near Birch St. & Hodgson —a coop of some kind. • Change land use for 614 Pine St. to medium den sity residential for development by 2030. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 1 Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey The Community Visioning Survey was conducted from May 15th through June 23rd, 2017 using the online survey site “Survey Monkey.” Participants were invited to respond through the City’s website, a postcard and a newsletter mailed to all residents and businesses, and at the June 22nd Open House. Paper survey forms s were made available to residents unable to respond online. Many of the questions were open ended, with up to three responses allowed from each participant. This report summarizes the results and identifies key themes found in a review of hundreds of responses. The “word clouds” help visualize the most common words used in the answers to the questions. Total Survey Respondents: 476 Respondents by Question: Question 1 462 If you could describe the city of Lino Lakes as it exists today in three words (or short phrases), how would you describe it? Question 2 413 Think about Lino Lakes as you would like to be able to describe it to someone 20 years from now. What are three things would you hope to be able to say about the Lino Lakes of the future? Question 3 384 What are the top 3 things you would change about Lino Lakes? Question 4 372 What are the top 3 things you would like to preserve about Lino Lakes? Question 5 375 Over the next 20 years, Lino Lakes should focus on the following (rank in order of importance): Question 6 357 What is your favorite place to visit in Lino Lakes, and how do you get there (walk, bike, drive, etc.)? Question 7 378 Are you a...(choose any that apply) [Resident, Business Owner, etc] Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 2 Question 1 462 If you could describe the city of Lino Lakes as it exists today in three words (or short phrases), how would you describe it? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 1 100.0% 462 2 96.5% 446 3 92.0% 425 answered question 462 skipped question 14 Key Themes: • Safe • Friendly, especially family friendly • Great Schools • Community—small town feel, bedroom community • Growing • Needs more and greater variety of businesses and shops, especially restaurants • Natural beauty, especially lakes • Great parks • Roads need improvement Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 3 Question 2 413 Think about Lino Lakes as you would like to be able to describe it to someone 20 years from now. What are three things would you hope to be able to say about the Lino Lakes of the future? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 1 100.0% 413 2 96.6% 399 3 92.3% 381 answered question 413 skipped question 63 Key Themes: • Safe • Community—strong, vibrant, close sense of community • Friendly, especially family friendly • Natural beauty is preserved • Great parks and trails • Great schools • Clean, especially clean water • More businesses to help tax base • More retail shops and restaurants Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 4 Question 3 384 What are the top 3 things you would change about Lino Lakes? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 1 100.0% 384 2 91.9% 353 3 80.5% 309 answered question 384 skipped question 92 Key Themes: • More businesses to help tax base • More restaurants and stores (except liquor) • Repair/ maintain roads • Slower development • More/ upgraded parks • More sidewalks and trails • More sense of community and events, possibly a community center • Improve/ invest in schools Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 5 Question 4 372 What are the top 3 things you would like to preserve about Lino Lakes? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 1 100.0% 372 2 93.3% 347 3 78.5% 292 answered question 372 skipped question 104 Key Themes: • Safety (especially police) • Natural areas • Lakes • Parks and trails • Sense of community/ community “feel” (small town, rural) • Schools Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 6 Question 5 375 Over the next 20 years, Lino Lakes should focus on the following (rank in order of importance): A rating of “1” indicated the highest priority, “10” the lowest. Respondents placed the highest priority on improving the roadway system, and the lowest priority on improving the supply of entry level housing. Answer Options Rating Average Response Count Improving the roadway system 3.53 340 Developing more parks and trails 3.91 364 Maintenance of infrastructure 3.94 352 Attracting new commercial/industrial tax base 4.61 330 Attracting new jobs 4.92 324 Attracting more commercial development 4.94 340 Improving the supply of move up housing 6.79 331 Improving the supply of empty nester housing 6.88 327 Improving the supply of senior housing 7.30 324 Improving the supply of entry level housing 7.37 327 answered question 375 skipped question 101 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 Improving the roadway system Developing more parks and trails Maintenance of infrastructure Attracting new commercial/industrial tax base Attracting new jobs Attracting more commercial development Improving the supply of move up housing Improving the supply of empty nester housing Improving the supply of senior housing Improving the supply of entry level housing Over the next 20 years, Lino Lakes should focus on the following: (low number equals higher importance) Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 7 Question 6 357 What is your favorite place to visit in Lino Lakes, and how do you get there (walk, bike, drive, etc.)? Answer Options Response Percent Response Count 75.0% 357 answered question 357 skipped question 119 Key Themes: • Walk and bike to and around lakes, especially Chain of Lakes and Centerville Beach • Walk and bike on trails and to parks • Drive to YMCA, golf course • Drive to Target, other shopping destinations, restaurants • Home/ my house Lino Lakes Community Visioning Survey 8 Question 7 378 Are you a…(choose any that apply) [Resident, Business Owner, etc] Note: Percentages add to greater than 100% as multiple responses were allowed. Answer Options Response Percent Response Count Resident of Lino Lakes 94.7% 358 Business owner in Lino Lakes 5.3% 20 Individual who works but does not live in Lino Lakes 2.1% 8 Other (please specify) 6.6% 25 answered question 378 skipped question 98 “Other” Responses: • Live in Centerville • Long Time resident • I work out of my home • Lived here since '95 south of Lake drive and north of Birch. • Retired • I work and live in Lino • Also work in Lino • 45 Year resident • Me • Former resident, whose parents still reside in Lino Lakes. We visit often. • Works and lives in Lino • native of Lino lakes • resident on the boarder of Lino lakes/in school district • Work in Lino Lakes • Grew up there, parents live there • Since 1985 • Resident of Circle Pines but visits Lino Lakes frequently • Used to live in Lino • Owners of Northern Pine Studios. (music school and sales) • Resident of Centerville • Lived in Lino Lakes for eleven years. • Circle Pines Resident • Former resident of Lino Lakes with family still living in Lino • Centerville • Resident and work in Lino Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Chain of Lakes Rotary Club Meeting in a Box, July 26th 2017 Page 1 Summary of Meeting Results Chain of Lakes Rotary Club Meeting in a Box, July 26th 2017 S.W.O.T. Discussion 1.What are Lino Lakes’ greatest strengths? What makes the City a great place to live? Please list at least 5 things you think make Lino Lakes great. (Strengths can refer to the community, the people, public facilities, natural resources, character, governance, etc.) •Parks & trail •City Hall staff •Opportunities to get involved •Natural areas/open space •Retail opportunities •People volunteering to help the community grow—Rotary, etc. •Parks and trails investment •Location •Safety •Security •Community •Park system •Trails •Friendly people •It’s a neighborhood community—people get to know their neighbors •It’s save; no crime •Parks & trails •Proximity to Minneapolis, airport & St. Paul •Great neighborhood •Safe community •Better commercial areas from 15 years ago •Expanded trail system 2.What are Lino Lakes’ weaknesses? Where does Lino Lakes fall short from your perspective? What is missing that could better reflect the community vision? •Deteriorating road system •Complacency- Lino is great, continue investing Chain of Lakes Rotary Club Meeting in a Box, July 2017 Page 2 • No civic center • Other than YMCA there isn’t a meeting social area (Community Center) • Pockets of poverty • People don’t know difference between Centerville, Circle Pines, Lexington, etc. • Lack of a commercial center • Staff/council relationship 3. What are the greatest opportunities in the community? What things do we do well already, but could do better? What areas do we fall short in that we could be better at? Where are the greatest opportunities for the community? • Continue focus on growing commercial/retail businesses. This will allow city to maintain services, tax rate • Growth of commercial business in area • Higher taxes • Finish retail area—legacy 4. What are the threats that stand in the way of achieving the opportunities or maintaining our strengths? What threatens the community or city from achieving their goals? • Poor economy • Council/charter arguing—stalemate • Price of gas at $4-$5 per gallon could keep people from work—lack of jobs • Lack of funds to improve • Taxes • Not maintaining high level of public safety Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 9, 2017 Page 1 Potential Land Use Study Areas, August 2017 Updates since July 12, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board Meeting Staff/Consultant Recommendations Area (Acres) Current Land Use Plan Utility Staging Area Location Description Gross Net 2030 Build Out Issue(s) 1-A Hodgson Rd (CSAH 49) & County Rd J (Ash St.) 56.25 51.61 Mixed Use & Medium Density Same 1A • Reaffirm commitment to 2007 Master Plan • Excerpts of Master Plan attached • P&Z consensus: continue referring to 2007 Master Plan Recommendation: Continue references to 2007 Master Plan in 2040 Update. 1-B Hodgson Rd (CSAH 49) & Birch St (CSAH34) 1.84 1.84 Commercial Commercial 1A • Land use designation—possible change due to access, size, surrounding land use. • Potential mixed use classification to allow flexibility for either office use or residential compatible with surrounding townhome development • P& Z consensus: continue commercial classification, examine zoning classification for compatibility with surrounding area • EDAC comment: site seems to be better suited for higher density residential based on access Recommendation: Continue current Commercial classification. Consider changes to plan or zoning designations if suitable development plan submitted to the City. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 2 Area (Acres) Current Land Use Plan Utility Staging Area Location Description Gross Net 2030 Build Out Issue(s) 1-C South of 67th Street between Ware Rd and Holly Dr. 465.05 285.02 Low Density (west) Urban Reserve (east) Low Density 2A & 2B (west) 3 (east) • Review development staging and land use concurrent with review of options for providing sewer and water • EDAC comment: splitting this area in two for staging purposes makes sense in light of large wetland that runs through the area Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations, consider staging with sewer plan review. 2-A Sod Farms Area 415.88 381.87 Mixed Use; Low Density, Medium Density, High Density Residential Same 2A & 2B • Review land use designations to determine if they are still appropriate to meet city and landowner goals • P&Z consensus: illustrates need to be clear how multiple land use designations within a parcel or development will be interpreted Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations. Include guidance for interpreting land use designations in Land Use Plan text. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 3 Area (Acres) Current Land Use Plan Utility Staging Area Location Description Gross Net 2030 Build Out Issue(s) 2-B Lake Drive (CSAH 23) Corridor (300 ft. corridor on both sides if road from Main Street north to border with City of Columbus) 76.39 75.29 Commercial & Mixed Use at Lake Drive/Main Street intersection; small area designated Commercial on west side of Lake Drive near Columbus border; mostly Urban Reserve Commercial, Mixed Use, Medium Density, and some Low Density 1A & 1B; mostly 3 • Corridor of mixed land uses, residential structures transitioning to commercial uses • Inconsistencies between planning and zoning— should non-conformities be eliminated? • Small parcels with individual access to an arterial street • Community gateway Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations for 2030 and full build out; except, consider change to commercial for existing non- conforming business uses on west side of CSAH 23 across from Area 2-C. Implementation will review zoning classifications for consistency with plan. Enforce access guidelines to prohibit new driveways. Consider development staging with sewer plan review. 2-C Waldoch Farms parcels 158.58 113.61 Urban Reserve Mixed Use, Low Density 3 • Landowner may wish to develop sooner than currently planned • Sewer capacity will need to be carefully considered • EDAC comment: utility extensions should be considered to allow Waldoch farms to expand commercial use Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations, consider staging with sewer plan review. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 4 Area (Acres) Current Land Use Plan Utility Staging Area Location Description Gross Net 2030 Build Out Issue(s) 2-D Decker property, 614 Pine Street PID 05-31-22-12-0002 9.26 7.41 Urban Reserve Low Density 3 • Landowner requests sewer and water extension and Medium Density use before 2030 • P&Z consensus: single parcel may not be large enough for higher density designation Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations, consider staging with sewer plan review. 3-A North of Main Street, West of 20th Ave. 180.23 140.93 Low, Medium and High Density Various Same 2A,2B • Reaffirm land use designations • Within AUAR area Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations; consider staging with sewer plan review. 3-B Nadeau Properties 6651 & 6677 20th Ave 31.81 31.68 Low Density Low Density 2A • Landowners request Medium Density designation to be consistent with abutting properties Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations and staging. Low Density is consistent with abutting property to west and south. 20th Ave. is a good divide/transition between Medium and Low Density areas. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 5 Area (Acres) Current Land Use Plan Utility Staging Area Location Description Gross Net 2030 Build Out Issue(s) 4-A Wilkinson Lake/ Cedar Lake Area 603.86 395.00 Mixed Use, Medium & High Density south of Ash St; Low Density north and west of Ash St,; Urban Reserve south, west and northeast of Cedar Lake Same, except land in Staging Area 3 designated low density with approx.. 40 acres Medium Density at Holly Dr. & CR J 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3 • Examine development staging and utility plans for this area; sewer to be extended through White Bear Township • Landowner of 6198 Holly Drive, (Noren property, approx. 66 acres) requests staging for development prior to 2030 • EDAC comments: Ash Street and Centerville Road intersection need improvement; current state hinders development. Access to 35E needs to be upgraded to full interchange. Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations. Work with White Bear Township to determine sewer capacity and consider staging with sewer plan review. Examine intersection and access issues as part of Transportation Plan review. 5-A East of I-35E 557.09 498.55 Urban Reserve Commercial, Industrial, Medium Density 3 • Stage for development before 2040? • Reexamine residential use on Build Out Land Use Plan • Within AUAR area • EDAC comments: support staging utilities for development; support removal of medium density designation north of 80th Street and east of I-35E Recommendation: Continue existing land use designations, except delete Medium Density north of 80th St & east of I-35E. Consider staging with sewer plan review. . Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 6 Land Use Policy Discussion Items, August 2017 # Description 2030 Plan Notes LP-1 Mixed Use Development “The purpose of this category is to accommodate a mix of residential, retail and office uses Residential development may include higher density housing options.” (Table 3-2, page 3-11) • Category needs clarification. How must “mixing” occur? Within each site or development project? This may be difficult for small parcels. • Can this category be used to allow flexibility for commercial OR residential uses? • Should there be different approaches for different areas of the community? Recommendation: Land use Plan should give guidance on Mixed Use category and include goals for each Mixed Use area including residential/commercial split, similar to current plan (see pages 3-16 through 3-18 and Table 3-4.) LP-2 Industrial Land Use “The purpose of this category is to accommodate manufacturing, processing, warehousing, and research and development uses.” (Table 3-2, page 3- 11) • Can a single industrial classification respond to city’s desire for business park/corporate campus areas versus more traditional industrial areas with outside storage and/or distribution uses? • Should there be different classification(s) for high visibility areas or to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses? Recommendation: consider splitting industrial use into two classifications, one for existing areas allowing a full range of industrial uses and a new “Business Campus” classification for large, high-visibility sites. Emphasize employment over warehousing; higher standards for design. Planned uses may include some commercial to support the business and employment base. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 7 # Description 2030 Plan Notes LP-3 City Role in Development • What is the city’s role in development? Should it be more active in promoting or facilitating development consistent with planning goals? Or should the city be a more passive participant in the development process? Recommendation: Implementation Section of Economic Development Plan (Chapter 5) provides some guidance; revisit this question when updating that Chapter. LP-4 Unsewered residential neighborhoods (P&Z Comments) Existing residential neighborhoods designated “Urban Reserve” in several locations are surrounded by urban land use designations and/ or areas staged for development before 2030. (Example: Maple Lane neighborhood.) • Need to be clear about whether these areas are eligible for extension of public sewer and/or water service and under what circumstances. • Plan should allow for extension of public sewer to individual lots when feasible and/or necessary to solve public health problems, without the need for complicated amendments to the Plan. Recommendation: Include criteria in appropriate plan text (Land Use and/or Sewer Chapters) to allow some flexibility for sewer extensions without the need for Plan amendments. Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Planning & Zoning Board Meeting August 7, 2017 Page 8 # Description 2030 Plan Notes LP-5 Residential Densities • Residential densities must average at least 3 units/acre to meet regional policies (same as 2030 plan.) • Plan must guide sufficient land to accommodate city’s share of regional affordable housing need from 2021-2030 (515 units.) Recommendation: Ensure that land use plan continues to meet the 3 units/acre goal. If necessary, adjust the Mixed Use category to accommodate the minimum number of affordable units by: • Increasing the proportion of land designated for residential compared to commercial uses; • Increasing the density of residential uses within Mixed Use areas; • Designating additional Mixed Use sites; or • Some combination of the above. Legend Planning District 1 Planning District 2 Planning District 3 Right-of-Way Planning District 5 Planning District 6 Planning District 4 Open Water Municipal Boundary ASH ST BIRCH ST MAIN ST INTERSTATE 35EIN T E R S T A T E 3 5 W 20TH AVE NPINE ST 4TH AVE20TH AVE SLAKE DRSUNSET AVELAKE DR NEELMCREST AVE NOTTER LAKE RDF ST G ST A P O LL O D R LIL AC ST CENTERVILLE RDELM ST HODGSON RDWARE RDOAK LN AQ UA L N 2ND AVESHADOW LAKE DR W80TH ST E FOX RD HOLLY DR NLOIS LN SUNRISE DR77TH ST W LAKEVIEW DRPARKWAY RD E RONDEAU LAKE RD EHOLLY DR E B L A C K D U C K D RPATTI DRRONDEAU LAKE RD W77TH ST E 62ND ST NHOKAH DRSERVICE RD12TH AVE SLEONARD AVEJEANNE DRARLO L N CENTURY TRLFAWN LNCEDAR ST EWOOD DUCK TRLTART LAKE RD WOODRIDGE LN ARROWHEAD DR L A N G E R L NPELTIER LAKE DRDIANE STKARTH RD LACA S SE D R KELLY STREET EGRET LNCOUNTY ROAD 53COUNTY ROAD JRICE LAKE LNPALOMINO LNSIOUX LNHOLLY CT EAQUA CIRFOXTAIL DRPINTO LNN O R T H R D A S P E N L N 82ND ST E APPLE LN W O O D L A N D D R LANTERN LNOAK CTNOTTINGHAM LNDEERWOOD LNIN T E R S T A T E 3 5 W MAI N STLAKE DRINTERSTATE 35EPELTIER LAKE RICE LAKE CENTERVILLE LAKE GEORGE WATCH LAKE RESHANAU LAKE RONDEAU LAKE CEDAR LAKE MARSHAN LAKE BALDWIN LAKE AMELIA LAKE OTTER LAKE WILKINSON LAKE WARDS LAKE SHERMAN LAKE UNNAMED UNNAMED BALD EAGLE LAKE UNNAMED UNNAMED WILKINSON LAKE GOLDEN LAKE 0 2,800 5,600 8,400 11,2001,400 Feet 1-A 1-C 4-A 5-A 2-A 2-C 3-A 2-B 3-B 2-D 1-B 1 4 3 5 2 6 POTENTIAL LAND USE STUDY AREA LOCATIONS Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN ASH ST WARE RDHODGSON RDWOODRI DGE L NROHAVIC LN 0 230 460 690 920115Feet ASH ST WARE RDHODGSON RDWOODRI DGE L NROHAVIC LN Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 1-A Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN BIRCH ST HODGSON RDLAKOTA TRLOJIBWAY PATH0 90 180 270 36045Feet BIRCH ST HODGSON RDLAKOTA TRLOJIBWAY PATH Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 90 180 270 36045Feet Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 1-B Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN ASH STWARE RDHOLLY DR NHODGSON RD62ND ST N F O X R D 62ND ST LINDA LN HOLLY CT E LINDEN LN HOLLOW LNRE D MAPL E L N 0 760 1,520 2,280 3,040380Feet ASH STWARE RDHOLLY DR NHODGSON RD62ND ST N F O X R D 62ND ST LINDA LN HOLLY CT ECOYOTE TRLHOLLOW LNRED MAP L E LN Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 1-C Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN M AI N S T 4TH AVELOIS LN CA R L S TSUNSET AVEWOOD DUCK TRLARLO LN ANDALL ST CENTURY TRLR O B I N S O N D R HENRY LN0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375Feet M AI N S T 4TH AVELOIS LN CA R L S TSUNSET AVEWOOD DUCK TRLARLO LN ANDALL ST CENTURY TRLR O B I N S O N D R HENRY LN Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 2-A Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN MAIN ST PINE ST LAKE DR NERONDEAU LAKE RD WJAMES STWOOD DUCK TRLDIANE STORANGE ST OLIVE ST VICKY LNAENON PL81ST ST W MAPLE ST KELLY STREET AN D ALL S T EVERGREEN TRL HIGHLAND TRL RONDEAU LAKE RONDEAU LAKE 0 750 1,500 2,250 3,000375Feet MAIN ST PINE ST LAKE DR NERONDEAU LAKE RD WJAMES STWOOD DUCK TRLDIANE STORANGE ST OLIVE ST VICKY LNAENON PL81ST ST W MAPLE ST KELLY STREET AN D ALL S T EVERGREEN TRL HIGHLAND TRL RONDEAU LAKE RONDEAU LAKE Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T Corridor 300 feet on both side of Lake Drive AREA 2-B Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN MAIN STLAKE DR NEJAMES STDIANE STRONDEAU LAKE RD W81ST ST W ELBE ST NEEVERGREEN TRL KELLY STREETDANUBE STKELLY STREET 0 475 950 1,425 1,900237.5 Feet MAIN STLAKE DR NEJAMES STDIANE STRONDEAU LAKE RD W81ST ST W ELBE ST NEEVERGREEN TRL KELLY STREETDANUBE STKELLY STREET Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 2-C Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN PINE ST 0 180 360 540 72090Feet PINE ST Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 2-D Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN 20TH AVE NPELTIER LAKE DRREHBEINS ST 0 430 860 1,290 1,720215Feet 20TH AVE NPELTIER LAKE DRREHBEINS ST Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 3-A Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN BIRCH ST 20TH AVE S0 300 600 900 1,200150Feet BIRCH ST 20TH AVE S Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 3-B Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN ASH STHOLLY DR NCENTERVI LLE RDHOLLY DR E HOLLY CT E MOLITOR DR C H E R O K E E T R L HOLLY DR E 0 760 1,520 2,280 3,040380Feet ASH STHOLLY DR NCENTERVI LLE RDHOLLY DR E HOLLY CT E MOLITOR DR C H E R O K E E T R L HOLLY DR E Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 4-A Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN 20TH AVE NIN T E R S T A T E 3 5 W INTERSTATE 35EELMCREST AVE NG ST MAIN ST80TH ST ERONDEAU LAKE RD E82ND ST E INTERSTATE 35W0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Feet 20TH AVE NIN T E R S T A T E 3 5 W INTERSTATE 35EELMCREST AVE NG ST MAIN ST80TH ST ERONDEAU LAKE RD E82ND ST E INTERSTATE 35W Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000750Feet Current 2030 Land Use Plan Aerial View Legend Legend Commercial Wetlands Mixed Use High Density Residential Industrial Park/Open Space Permanent Rural Right-of-Way Civic/Institutional Open Water Urban Reserve Low Density ResidentialMedium Density Residential Private Airfield Municipal Boundary Municipal BoundaryWOODRIDGE L NW O O D R ID G E C T AREA 5A Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.Landform® and Site to Finish® are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC. Land Use Study Areas • 07.07.2017Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update • Lino Lakes, MN Master Planning Study Hodgson Road &CR J 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 (651)982-2400 Approved By Lino Lakes City Council February 12, 2007 EXCERPT EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 31 MASTER PLAN The Master Plan is the culmination of the study process. The Master Plan is intended to establish a general land use design with some specifics, such as road alignments, access points, and specified important design elements.It is not intended to drive out existing businesses.The Master Plan does not mandate the exact site layout or specific uses of individual parcels. However, because infrastructure design is the driving force of the study, individual parcel design must take into account the infrastructure needs for the larger study area. In addition, the plan specifies some fundamental design elements in specified locations to provide a common framework for all development in the area.Both the Master Plan drawing and the accompanying Planning and Development Requirements should be considered together to guide decisions on development. While recognizing the importance of the Land Use Map, it’s important to acknowledge the realities of land development. Future development may involve assembling several land parcels. Site layouts may need some flexibility to ensure efficient design and safety, especially internal circulation. In addition, natural features don’t follow linear property boundaries. Because of these and other factors, the actual boundaries on the Proposed Land Use Map should be considered somewhat flexible in order to accommodate development or redevelopment proposals within the study area. The Master Plan includes important amendments to the Proposed Land Use Map in the 2002 Comprehensive Plan.The Land Use Map is the guide for development in the city and the study area should develop with the land uses as shown on the map.Mixed use development is becoming more and more common, and the Hodgson/CR J area is a good location for it. The west side of Hodgson already is guided Mixed Use. The Master Plan recommends that the east side area currently guided Commercial be amended to Mixed Use. This would allow for, though not mandate, the inclusion of residential units, possibly in multi-story buildings. This would provide customers for the commercial development, and the commercial services would be convenient to the residents. There are a few specific locations that deserve attention from the perspective of the Proposed Land Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning map.These minor inconsistencies should be addressed with the amendment of the Land Use Map. In the extreme southwest corner of the study area is a parcel forming a narrow strip that runs northwest/southeast. This parcel is guided for residential land use but zoned General Business. The narrow strip is not useable by itself and must be incorporated into the redevelopment of the abutting property. The land use map should be amended to include this piece in the Mixed Use land use category. The General Business zoning is appropriate. On the north edge of the study area, a parcel between Hodgson and Ware Roads is guided Commercial on the Hodgson side but the area east of the wetland is guided for Medium Density Residential.As noted above, the western portion should be guided Mixed Use. The specifics of the site—especially a wetland delineation—likely will determine how far EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 32 commercial development will extend east.Allowing for a flexible edge of the land uses, as recommended above, will allow a design that is sensitive to the natural resources.The zoning should remain General Business. Any future development review will examine rezoning needs. On the Ware Road side of the study area, a parcel is guided both Medium Density Residential and Low Density Sewered Residential.How or even if development will occur there is unknown. For consistency, the entire parcel should be guided Medium Density.The Rural zoning is appropriate. Any future development review will examine rezoning needs. Planning and Development Requirements General This Master Plan is to be incorporated into the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan with an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan.This includes amendments to the Proposed Land Use Map: the area east of Hodgson Road should be designated Mixed Use instead of Commercial. Minor inconsistencies in the Proposed Land Use Map should be corrected as well, and zoning amendments should follow if and when appropriate . The land use boundaries on the Proposed Land Use Map should be considered somewhat flexible in order to accommodate natural features, land assembly and other physical issues. Rezoning as part of new development applications will be examined for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and this 49/J Master Plan. The Master Plan is the guiding plan for development in the area.The Master Plan is intended to show a general land use arrangement with some specific design elements. The individual site layouts and uses are to be determined as part of the development review process, but should be based on the Master Plan,including specific elements noted below. Tax increment financing and tax abatement on qualifying properties should be considered potential tools for implementing the Master Plan. Transportation and Access Accesses to Hodgson Road and Co. Rd. J are to be located at the points indicated on the Master Plan. EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 33 o There is to be one full access on Hodgson Road, located 990± feet north of the CR J intersection (approx. 330 feet south of the northern edge of the study area).This access is to be centered on the property line east of Hodgson at this location.No other new permanent accesses are to be allowed. As development occurs, the City will work toward eliminating all other accesses along Hodgson. o Temporary accesses onto Hodgson Road may be considered if one property develops prior to the creation of access to CR J. Such temporary accesses must be removed when the CR J access is created. The removal must be included in conditions of approval for the project. o Between Hodgson and Ware Roads, there is to be only one new access onto CR J, located as close as possible to midway between Hodgson and Ware. This access should be centered on the mid-way property line.This new access is to be constructed as right in/right out only. No other new accesses are to be allowed. The City will work toward eliminating all other accesses along CR J. o From the full access on Hodgson, a circulation route is to be created leading east of Hodgson to the access point on CR J,providing access to all properties in the area. This should be a public road. However, an access drive with mutual easements across properties is a possible solution if it provides adequate access and circulation. o West of Hodgson Rd., there is to be one access onto CR J, located as far west as possible from the Hodgson/CR J intersection.This new access is to be constructed as right in/right out only.This will be a driveway into the development site , and there will be access easements on that site to provide access to,from, and through property to the north, leading to the full access on Hodgson. No other new accesses are to be allowed. The City will work toward eliminating all other accesses along CR J. The access points, right of way,and internal circulation routes noted above are to create a circulation network serving all properties in the study area rather than individual driveways onto arterial and collector roads that serve only individual properties. For properties on the eastern edge of the study area, access to Ware Road is a possibility if the City judges the design to be safe. This does not preclude the need for public right of way or easements elsewhere. The Hodgson/CR J intersection is to be signalized prior to or as part of any significant development in the study area.This is to be a cooperative effort of Anoka and Ramsey Counties,the Cities of Lino Lakes and Shoreview, and developers.Specific design requirements are to be determined. Other road improvement needs such as additional lanes, median, and the like will be designed in cooperation with Anoka and Ramsey Counties, the Cities of Lino Lakes and Shoreview, and developers,as appropriate.Specific design requirements are to be determined. EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 34 The quantity of development of the area will be limited to ensure that traffic generation does not exceed the capacities of Hodgson Road, the intersection with Co Rd J, or the new access. Development shall not create the need for a traffic signal at the new full access on Hodgson Road. o Planning for the area must look forward to full development of the study area so as not to allow one project to “use up capacity” so that other sites cannot develop without creating the need for a signal at the new access. Right of way will be dedicated with development to ensure adequate right of way for Hodgson and CR J as well as for the internal circulation system, as necessary. The offset of Ware Road and Mackubin Street should be addressed by realignment of Ware Road to form a four-way intersection. Trails, Open Space A trail connection, included as an ‘enhancement corridor’ in the Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways and Trail System Plan, will be established across the study area. This will link to the existing trail connection to Woodridge Lane on the west, cross through the study area, and link to a future trail in Ware Road. The specific alignment of this trail corridor across the Master Plan area will be determined as development occurs. An, open, focal point green space is to be created where the Woodridge Lane trail connection enters the study area. The specific design of this focal point will be reviewed with any development application for the site. A trail should be constructed along Hodgson Road in accordance with the City’s parks and trails plan. This could be accomplished with sidewalks in the study area. The wetland complex in the northeast part of the study area, shown as ‘natural resource protected area’ and ‘natural resource conservation area’ in the Parks Plan, should be protected as open space to the degree possible. Detailed information submitted with development proposals will be examined to determine the possibilities for these areas. Greenspace buffering is an important design element for new development along the border with existing neighborhoods such as Woodridge Estates and Rohavic Oaks. Municipal Utilities All new development must have sanitary sewer and water service. Possible exceptions prior to the availability of utilities include renovation of existing structures if the building EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 35 code allows it without utilities. However, the preference is for all uses in the study area to have municipal utilities. Several options exist for utility service, as described in this study document. West of Hodgson, the preference is for connection to the Woodridge Lane sanitary sewer. Water trunk lines must be looped, and development must provide the looping. Site Design, Urban Form The intent is to create an urban form for the area. Development layouts are to include buildings at intersection corners to establish the “cornerstones” of the area’s urban form. As another means of pursuing an urban form, development is to avoid lining Hodgson with large parking lots.This could include the following elements. o Buildings fronting along Hodgson in addition to the cornerstone buildings o Extensive landscaping and screening of parking lots will be required along Hodgson and CR J, including boulevard trees and decorative fencing or walls.Landscaping must be included on the street side of fences or walls along parking lots. Larger parking areas should be planned with internal landscaping, pedestrian sidewalks or walkways and be divided into smaller areas where possible: o Pedestrian walkways provided in larger parking lots should be landscaped, include path lighting, and provide direct access for pedestrians to an entrance of a commercial building; o Walkways should be raised, paved areas or defined paths distinguished by striping or a change in paving provided that pedestrians are kept safe from vehicular travel on the route to an entrance of a commercial building. Sidewalks are to be constructed on both sides of Hodgson Road and on the north side of Co. Rd. J to form connections to the trails to the development areas and contribute to the urban form of the area. Pedestrian circulation should be an important design factor within the development areas to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle circulation among businesses and residential sites. Such circulation routes must be safe and aesthetically pleasing. Design guidelines must be prepared for any new development project in the area. Developers should submit draft guidelines with development applications.Design EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 36 guidelines for each project must include attention to previous projects in order to coordinate design throughout the study area.After being refined in collaboration with City staff,design requirements shall be incorporated into the approval of the development. Buildings must be designed with “four -sided architecture”, using the same quality materials on all sides. o All facades shall be articulated with a variety of materials, glazing, awnings, or other details to add visual interest. o Building design elements should include an expression of a building base (of brick or stone), a middle, and a top with cornice elements at the top of the first floor and the top of the building. o Roof lines and cornice details shall be completed in a three-dimensional manner so that the features on the back of the roof or similar unfinished areas are not visible o The front façade may have a unique design or more significant glazing. Commercial buildings must incorporate trash and service areas within the buildings rather than utilizing outdoor enclosures. This will conserve land and maximize the potential for outdoor seating and pedestrian friendly amenities. It is not the intent of this plan to specify housing unit styles. However, garage units must not access directly onto the main access drive or the main public streets through the development . The Hodgson/Co Rd J intersection is a gateway and appropriate elements are to be included in the development of the corners of this intersection. The interface between new residential and commercial uses should be flexible. For example, new development in central areas can be multi-family, commercial, or mixed use. This would be consistent with the flexible land use lines noted above.Maintaining safety and quality of life are important considerations. Lighting is to be appropriately scaled to a pedestrian friendly development. Lighting should be directed downward and screened to reduce light pollution, glare, and impacts on adjacent residential areas. Security or service lighting should be limited in coverage area and designed to reduce glare. EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 37 Stormwater Management Stormwater management design must incorporate filtration and infiltration elements. This could include such features as rain gardens, swales, dry creeks, infiltration chambers, and other ecologically based methods along with more traditional ponds and pipes. Stormwater management ponds, if used, should be designed to be a site amenity, including appropriate landscape elements. EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Hodgson/CR J Master Plan page 38 Proposed Amended Land Use Plan, Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan (Detail ) City of Shoreview Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map (Detail) (Lino Lakes and Shoreview maps are shown at approximate scale.) Legend MUSA line Stage 2 Stage 1 RL -Residential C -Commercial O -Office P -Park Lino Lakes Shoreview Co.Rd. J ShoreviewLino Lakes EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Master Planning Study Hodgson Road & CR J City of Lino Lakes MASTER PLAN EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Master Planning Study Hodgson Road & CR J City of Lino Lakes HODGSON/CR J NORTHWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Master Planning Study Hodgson Road & CR J City of Lino Lakes HODGSON/CR J NORTHEAST CORNER PERSPECTIVE EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Master Planning Study Hodgson Road & CR J City of Lino Lakes NORTHERN HODGSON INTERSECTION PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTHWEST EXCERPT, Hodgson Road & CRJ Master Plan Approved February, 2007 Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Meeting Schedule, Updated August 1 2017 Get Involved! Let’s talk about the future of Lino Lakes. There are many opportunities to participate in the 2040 Update. All meetings are open to the public. Mark your calendar and join us! Date Meeting Topic July 10, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) Park Board Parks & Trails July 12, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Land Use July 13, 2017 (8:00 a.m.) Economic Development Advisory Committee Economic Development July 26, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) Environmental Board Surface Water/ Natural Resources August 7, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) City Council Land Use August 9, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Land Use/ Housing August 19, 2017 Blue Heron Days Key Issues TBD September, 2017 Focus Group TBD September 11, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) Park Board Parks & Trails September 13, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Transportation September 27, 2017 (6:30 p.m.) Environmental Board Surface Water/ Natural Resources October 2, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) City Council Transportation & Water October 11, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Water (supply, sewer, surface) October 25, 2017 (6-8 p.m.) Open House / Workshop #2 Key Issues November 8, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Parks, Trails & Natural Resources December 4, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) City Council Parks & Housing Lino Lakes 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Meeting Schedule, Updated August 1 2017 Date Meeting Topic December 13, 2017 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Economic Development, Community Facilities & Resilience January 10, 2018 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Draft Plan February 5, 2018 (6:00 pm.) City Council Draft Plan February 21, 2018 (6-8 p.m.) Open House / Workshop Draft Plan March 14, 2018 (6:00 p.m.) Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing March 26, 2018 (6:30 p.m.) City Council Approve Draft TBD (October or November, 2018) City Council Adopt Final Plan All meetings are held at Lino Lakes City Hall, unless otherwise noted. Starting times and topics of meetings are subject to change. Meetings may be added or cancelled, please check the website for the latest information. Questions? Contact Community Development Director Michael Grochala at 651-982-2427 or E-mail compplan@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us For more information and additional opportunities to engage in the Comprehensive Plan Process visit us online at www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us WS – Item #3 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 3 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Diane Hankee, City Engineer Re: Water Storage Siting Study Background The City’s water system is designed to meet The American Water Works Association standards for system pressure and supply. The water system consists of water storage, water supply and a network of pipes. The City is responsible to continually review the system and complete improvements as outlined in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has two existing water storage tanks 1 million gallons each. The Comprehensive Plan outlines the need for additional water storage. Thus the water system was further evaluated using hydrant flow tests and water system modeling. The evaluation confirmed the need for additional water storage within the next two years. The City Council authorized WSB & Associates to preparation a water storage feasibility study in December of 2016. The Water Storage Siting Study evaluated the size and type of storage, potential sites, impact to City water distribution system, and cost. Multiple sites throughout the City were considered based on elevation, ownership, and site access. The recommendations from the study are attached, and summarized as follows: • Construct a 1.5 MG Storage Facility • Construct a Composite Elevated Water Storage Tank • Obtain Geotechnical Data to further evaluate a site Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council direction to: 1. Discuss site options 2. Place acceptance of the study on the regular council agenda for consideration and authorization to obtain geotechnical data for recommended sites. Attachments 1. Water Storage Siting Study SITING STUDY WATER STORAGE SITING STUDY ANOKA COUNTY | LINO LAKES | MINNESOTA August 7, 2017 Prepared for: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-44 Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 WATER STORAGE SITING STUDY FOR THE CITY OF LINO LAKES, MN August 7, 2017 Prepared By: 477 Temperance Street | St. Paul, MN 55101 | (651) 286-8450 Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com August 7, 2017 Michael Grochala Community Development Director City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Dear Mr. Grochala: The City of Lino Lakes is evaluating the construction of additional water storage to meet its current and future water demands. WSB prepared this study report to compare storage options and potential locations for a new water storage facility and provide recommendations. We are available at your convenience to discuss this report. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Greg F. Johnson, PE Project Manager Attachment Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this 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. Greg F. Johnson, PE Date: August 7, 2017 Lic. No. 26430 Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE SHEET LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL CERTIFICATION SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 2 2.PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 3.EXISTING AND FUTURE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 4 3.1 Determining Needed Storage ............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Lino Lakes Existing Storage ............................................................................................... 4 4.STORAGE TYPE ............................................................................................................................. 8 4.1 Elevated Tank (Water Tower) .................................................................................................... 8 4.2 Ground Storage Reservoir ......................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Life Cycle Cost Comparison ...................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Comparison of Life Costs ......................................................................................................... 11 5.IDENTIFICATION AND ANAL YSIS OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS ............................................ 12 5.1 Site Identification ...................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Site Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 12 5.3 Analysis Results ....................................................................................................................... 12 6.RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................... 13 FIGURES Figure 1 – Existing Water System Figure 2 – Tower 3 Study Locations APPENDIX A: WATER SYSTEM MODELING RESULTS Existing System Figure A-1 – Site 1 Modeling Results Figure A-2 – Site 2 Modeling Results Figure A-3 – Site 3 Modeling Results Figure A-4 – Site 4 Modeling Results APPENDIX B: 2007 WATER STORAGE STUDY Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Lino Lakes requested that WSB perform a water storage siting study based on recommendations that the City construct additional water storage capacity to meet water demands and fire fighting requirements. For the study, tank size, type, location, and the hydraulic impact on the distribution system were evaluated. To determine tank size, the following parameters were considered: • Population projections • Water use data • Existing storage and production capacity • Fire fighting needs Based on the analysis, WSB recommends the City construct a 1.5 million gallon reservoir to serve the existing and future development. After determining the recommended volume, three types of storage tanks were evaluated: 1) fluted column elevated tower; 2) composite elevated tower; and 3) ground storage reservoir. The capital costs, operations and maintenance costs, and 50-year life-cycle costs were calculated and the results are shown below. The cost analysis shows that over time, a composite style water tower will be the most cost effective option. Option Estimated Capital Cost Including Engineering, Bidding, and Construction Services Estimated 50 Year Operation and Maintenance Cost Total Capital and O&M Cost Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir and Booster Station $6,059,248 $902,000 $6,961,248 Fluted Column Style Water Tower $4,301,250 $3,600,000 $7,901,250 Composite Style Water Tower $4,069,350 $2,112,000 $6,181,350 Five potential water tower sites were discussed with City staff and selected for further consideration. Each site was modeled using Bentley WaterCAD software to analyze how multiple elevated tanks in various locations of the City would balance with each other and impact the water distribution system. Because the five locations were all centrally located within the water distribution system and were located near the well field, modeling results did not vary significantly between the various locations. The phasing of future development, as well as property ownership, will have a greater impact on location feasibility. It is recommended that the sites deemed most feasible undergo a geotechnical evaluation with soil borings prior to site acquisition and preliminary design to determine if any above-and-beyond structural requirements (ex. structural pilings) would be necessary and would therefore impact the overall cost of the project. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 3 2. PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.1 Introduction Water storage is provided in municipal water systems to create and maintain water pressure and to provide reserve capacity in case of emergency events such as power outages or mechanical failure. It is important for daily water system operations as well as emergency responses and source backup. It is recommended that a city’s water storage be equal to its maximum day demand plus additional volume for fire fighting capabilities and water pressure equalization. A 2007 TKDA report identified a need in the City of Lino Lakes (City) for additional water storage based on consumption trends and population projections. The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, approved in 2011, estimated that additional storage would be required by the year 2015. Because growth slowed during the economic recession, development had not occurred at the rate initially projected in the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the construction of additional storage was delayed as a result. Based on current development and water usage data, it is recommended that additional storage be constructed as soon as possible. W ater storage projects usually require about two years to site, design, bid, and construct. As a result, the City requested this siting study be conducted to make specific recommendations for future water storage improvements. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 4 3. EXISTING AND FUTURE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Determining Needed Storage It is recommended that water systems that require fire protection provide enough storage to meet the maximum day demand as well as additional volume for fire protection and pressure equalization. This storage requirement is reduced when the system has excess production capacity in its water wells. The overall equation to determine recommended storage capacity is as follows: Equation 1. Determining Recommended Water Storage 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑵𝑵𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵 = 𝑨𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 + 𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑭𝑭𝑬𝑬𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑬𝑬 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 Where 𝑨𝑨𝑵𝑵𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑨𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑵𝑵 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 = (𝑴𝑴𝑻𝑻𝑴𝑴𝑭𝑭𝑴𝑴𝑨𝑨𝑴𝑴 𝑫𝑫𝑻𝑻𝑫𝑫 𝑼𝑼𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺+𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑹𝑹𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑨𝑨𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑴𝑴𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬𝑻𝑻−𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑴𝑴 𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝑪𝑪𝑻𝑻𝒄𝒄𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑫𝑫) X 𝑫𝑫𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑬𝑬 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑫𝑫𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑭𝑭𝑻𝑻𝑬𝑬 (𝑯𝑯𝑻𝑻𝑨𝑨𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨) Maximum day demands are evaluated by comparing the City’s average day demands to its peak demands over the past several years. From these values, a peaking factor can be developed that represents the multiplier to compare average and peak day demands. Based on this peaking factor as well as per capita water use and population projections, estimates for the future maximum day demand can be obtained. Fire fighting volume requirements vary based on land uses and specific commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Fire requirements are based on guiding documents, including Ten States Standards and the Insurance Services Office (ISO), but the overall fire flow requirements are usually at the discretion of each community. Equalization storage is the volume required to satisfy water demands that exceed the well pumping capacity throughout the day. During the maximum day water demand, hourly demands vary as a diurnal demand pattern with the maximum hour demand designated as the peak hour demand. Equalization storage is determined by calculating the volume necessary to meet the peak hour demands beyond what the well firm capacity can provide. In the absence of a city-specific diurnal curve, AWWA recommends the required equalization volume to equal 70 to 100% of the average day water demand, or 20 to 25% of the maximum day water demand. Firm pumping capacity is the total capacity of the wells with the largest well out of service. Using these factors, the storage capacity needed for Lino Lakes through year 2040 was calculated. 3.2 Lino Lakes Existing Storage Existing System Demands and Peaking Factor The City’s existing water system supplies approximately 16,110 individuals. From 2010 to 2015, the average daily water demand was 1.38 million gallons per day, with an average per capita demand of 90 gallons per day over the same time. The maximum day demand from 2010 to 2015 was, on average, 4.92 million gallons. The peaking factor (the ratio between maximum day and average day demands) is 3.57 Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 5 for Lino Lakes. This factor can be used in conjunction with population projections and per capita usage to estimate future water demands. Table 1 below summarizes the City’s water usage data. Table 1. Lino Lakes Water Usage Year Average Daily Demand (MGD) Max Day Demand (MGD) Peaking Factor Per Capita Demand (gpd) 2010 1.36 5.56 4.09 91 2011 1.35 5.37 3.98 90 2012 1.67 6.73 4.03 110 2013 1.47 4.35 2.96 97 2014 1.22 3.89 3.19 79 2015 1.23 3.55 2.89 80 Average 1.38 4.92 3.57 90 Available Storage The City currently has two (2) one-million gallon elevated storage tanks, Tower One and Tower Two. Tower One is located in the northwest area of the City near 4th Avenue and Apollo Drive. Tower Two is located on the east side of the City on Otter Lake Road south of Main Street. Figure 1 shows the location of the existing water towers. Due to its proximity to the City’s production well field, Tower Two fills more quickly than Tower One and operates with an altitude valve that forces water to fill Tower One once the level in Tower Two reaches its overflow elevation. Fire Protection The Insurance Service Office (ISO) publishes fire storage guidelines, in which they recommend that a fire system capacities based on the type of city being served. Because the exact requirements of Lino Lakes’ system are not known, the standard ISO required available fire flow was used: 3,500 gpm for three hours. Therefore, the total required fire fighting storage volume is 630,000 gallons. Production Wells Lino Lakes has six production wells, four of which are centrally located on or near Birch Street, as shown on Figure 1. The highest capacity well is Well No. 3, which is capable of producing 1,200 gpm. One to three additional wells are expected to be needed prior to 2040. The number of wells required depends on the City’s ability to meet its peak factor reduction goals. For planning purposes, it is assumed that Well Nos. 7 (and 8 and 9, if necessary) will have a capacity of 1,000 gpm. Table 2 summarizes the City’s production capabilities with all wells in service and at firm capacity (with the largest well, Well No. 3, out of service). Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 6 Table 2. Lino Lakes Well Production Well No. Capacity (gpm) Aquifer Year Installed 1 675 Jordan 1971 2 675 Jordan 1986 3 1,200 Jordan 1995 4 750 Jordan 1996 5 1,100 Jordan 2005 6 1,200 Jordan 2015 Total 5,550 N/A N/A Firm Capacity 4,350 N/A N/A The City’s firm capacity should be equal to or greater than the maximum day demand. At this time, the maximum day demand is 4.92 MGD and the firm capacity is 6.26 MGD; therefore, the production capacity is sufficient for the City’s current population. Future Storage Needs The Metropolitan Council designates Lino Lakes as an “Emerging Suburban Edge” community, which are defined as follows: Emerging Suburban Edge communities… are in the early stages of transitioning into urbanized levels of development. Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 3-5 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Emerging Suburban Edge communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments. Due to its location and designation, it is anticipated that Lino Lakes’ population will grow by fifty percent over the next 25 years. Any new developments will be required to connect to the municipal water distribution system and demand an estimated 100 gallons per capita per day. The projected population served, average day demand, and maximum day demand are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Lino Lakes Population and Water Demand Projections Year Total Population Population Served Average Day Demand (MGD) Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2016* 21,687 15,800 1.2 3.4 2020 22,800 18,250 1.8 6.5 2030 26,900 24,900 2.5 8.9 2040 31,100 29,900 3.0 10.7 *Actual data Using Equation 1, Table 4 outlines the needed water storage from 2020 to 2040. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 7 Table 4. Recommended Water Storage Volume 2020 2030 2040 Maximum Day Demand 5,430 gpm 7,410 gpm 8,900 gpm + + + + Fire Requirements 3,500 gpm 3,500 gpm 3,500 gpm - - - - Firm Capacity 4,345 gpm 6,345 gpm 8,345 gpm = Required Draft from Storage During Fire 4,585 gpm 4,565 gpm 4,055 Adjusted Fire Storage (3 Hour Fire) 0.82 MG 0.82 MG 0.73 MG + + + + Equalization Storage 1.63 MG 2.22 MG 2.67 MG Recommended Total Storage 2.45 MG 3.0 MG 3.4 MG Recommended Additional Storage 454,000 gal 1,044,000 gal 1,399,000 gal Based on the results of this analysis, it is recommended that Lino Lakes constructs 1.5 million additional gallons of water storage. Providing this volume of storage will allow the City to meet its needs through 2040. While further storage may be needed prior to full build-out, using estimates to 2040 allows the City to have adequate storage for nearly two decades, at which time population growth and projections can be re-evaluated. In addition, constructing storage tanks at incremental times prevents water stagnation and freezing that can be problematic with oversized tanks. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 8 4. STORAGE TYPE There are two primary types of storage: elevated tanks and ground storage reservoirs. Elevated tanks (water towers) are bowls supported by a column. The elevation of the tower provides water pressure, and no pumping systems are required. Ground storage reservoirs are placed directly on the ground and are either at grade, partially buried, or fully buried. A pumping system is used to deliver water and pressure to the distribution system. The characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and operations of each type of tank are described below. 4.1 Elevated Tank (Water Tower) Overview Elevated tanks, or water towers, consist of a tank or bowl and supporting structure. The elevation of the water tower determines the static water pressure in the distribution system. Ten-States Standards recommends that working distribution pressures be 60 to 80 psi, and not lower than 35 psi. Therefore, elevated tanks are a good option when constructing storage in relatively flat areas, so pressures are consistent throughout the system. Within the water distribution system, locations with high ground elevations are preferred to minimize tank height and, therefore, construction costs. Types and Materials Either a fluted or composite water tower is recommended with this option whenever the recommended storage capacity exceeds 0.5 MG. Below this capacity, others types of water storage tanks become more feasible. The life span of a fluted column or composite water tower is estimated to be 100 years with proper operations and maintenance. A fluted column tank is constructed entirely of steel above the concrete foundation. The entire steel structure of a fluted column tank requires painting. For a composite style water tower, the pedestal is constructed of concrete and the tank bowl is constructed of steel. The concrete pedestal is usually left unpainted, which can reduce the long-term maintenance costs when compared to a fluted column tank that is entirely painted. More than 75 percent of all elevated water storage tanks throughout North America are now composite tanks. Photographs of both types of tanks are shown below. Composite type (left) and fluted column type (right) water towers. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 9 Advantages and Disadvantages Because water towers use elevation to create pressure, no pumping systems are required other than the wells that pump water into the distribution system. Therefore, a water tower can be less expense to construct and operate compared to a combined ground storage reservoir and booster station. However, water towers can be more expensive to maintain because the coating systems for the steel surfaces need to be replaced approximately every 15 to 20 years. Composite towers alleviate refurbishment costs somewhat because the concrete stems, where the majority of the surface area exists, do not require initial painting and repainting over time. 4.2 Ground Storage Reservoir Overview Ground storage reservoirs are built at or below grade and use pumps to create pressure in the distribution system. The pumps can be set to maintain a designated pressure or can operate based on water tower levels elsewhere in the City. A ground storage reservoir requires a booster pump station be constructed adjacent to the ground storage reservoir. In the 2007 study, ground storage was initially recommended because the reservoir was planned to be constructed in conjunction with a water treatment plant. Types and Materials Ground storage reservoirs are usually constructed out of concrete and are sealed using concrete surface sealants and curing compounds or plasticizers. Advantages and Disadvantages Ground storage reservoirs usually do not require repainting like water towers. However, because their operations rely on high service pumps to deliver the water to the distribution system, there are significant power, operation, and replacement costs associated with ground storage reservoirs. Lino Lakes is planning to add a water treatment plant to its distribution system. If a ground storage reservoir and a gravity filtration water treatment plant are selected, additional pumps may be required within the water treatment plant to deliver water to the ground storage reservoir. It is therefore possible that the City staff would need to operate one set of pumps to pump water into the ground storage reservoir and a second set of pumps to pump water from the ground storage reservoir to the distribution system if a buried reservoir is not feasible. Ground storage reservoirs are also limited by pump capacity and their ability to supply the distribution system. Towers, on the other hand, can empty as rapidly as the water distribution system will allow for meeting maximum day demands and fire demands. The maximum flow rate of water supplied from ground storage reservoirs is dependent on the capacity of the high service pumps that pump water from the reservoir to the distribution system. 4.3 Life Cycle Cost Comparison The 50-year life cycle costs for estimated and compared for the following water storage options: 1) Concrete ground storage reservoir (AWWA Type 3) with a booster station 2) Fluted column water tower 3) Composite water tower Life cycle costs included the capital cost to design, bid, and construct the reservoir and the estimated maintenance costs over a 50-year period to determine which tank design would provide the greatest long term financial benefit to the City. 4.3.1 Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir (AWWA Type 3) with Water Booster Station The estimated 50-year operation and maintenance cost for a 1.5 MG ground storage reservoir is presented in Table 5. This estimate assumes that the booster pumps and major electrical components would be replaced once every 25 years and the emergency generator would be replaced once over the 50-year period. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 10 Table 5 – Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir and Booster Station Estimated 50-Year Life Cycle Cost Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1.5 MG Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir and Booster Station 1 EA $5,393,600 $5,393,600 Land Purchase Cost for Ground Storage Reservoir and Booster Station 1.5 Acre $100,000 $150,000 Replace Booster Station Pumps Every 25 Years 2 EA $211,000 $422,000 Replace Booster Pump Station VFDs and Switchgear Every 25 Years 2 EA $80,000 $160,000 Heating and Cooling of Booster Station 50 EA $2,400 $120,000 General Booster Station Building Maintenance 40 EA $5,000 $200,000 Subtotal $6,445,600 Engineering, Bidding, and Construction Services (8%) $515,648 Total Estimated 50-Year Cost $6,961,248 4.3.2 1.5 MG Fluted Column Water Tower The estimated 50-year life cycle cost for a 1.5 MG Fluted Column Water Tower is presented in Table 6. It was assumed that the steel surfaces on the fluted column style water tower and the composite water tower would be blasted and recoated once every 15 years. Table 6 – 1.5 MG Fluted Column Water Tower Estimated 50-Year Life Cycle Cost Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower 1 EA $3,475,000 $3,475,000 Associated Site Work 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 Land Purchase for Water Tower Site 1.5 ACRE $100,000 $150,000 Sandblast and recoat interior and exterior of steel bowl every 15 years 3 EA $1,200,000 $3,600,000 Subtotal $7,525,000 Engineering, Bidding, and Construction Services (5%) $376,250 Total Estimated 50-Year Cost $7,901,250 4.3.3 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower The estimated 50-year life cycle cost for a 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower is presented in Table 7. It was assumed that the steel surfaces on the composite style water tower and the composite water tower would be blasted and recoated once every 15 years. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 11 Table 7 – 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower Estimated 50-Year Life Cycle Cost Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost 1.5 MG Composite Water Tower 1 EA $3,325,000 $3,325,000 Associated Site Work 1 LS $300,000 $300,000 Land Purchase for Water Tower Site 1.5 ACRE $100,000 $150,000 Sandblast and recoat interior and exterior of steel bowl every 15 years 3 EA $704,000 $2,112,000 Subtotal $5,887,000 Engineering, Bidding, and Construction Services (5%) $294,350 Total Estimated 50-Year Cost $6,181,350 4.4 Comparison of Life Costs The opinion of probable capital and operation and maintenance costs are summarized in Table 8. The estimated costs are present day costs. A composite water tower has the lowest estimated capital cost and the lowest estimated total cost although the 50-year operation and maintenance costs are higher than the costs for a concrete ground storage reservoir and booster station. The elevated tower costs assume that suitable soils are available on-site. The estimated electricity costs for the booster station pumps for the ground storage reservoir option are not included since there would be an equal reduction in electricity costs for the well pumps (the well pumps would be pumping to a lower elevation at the ground storage reservoir). Based on this evaluation and the fact that the City is not considering a water treatment plant at this time, we recommend the City construct a 1.5 MG composite water tower. Table 8: Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs for All Options Option Estimated Capital Cost Including Engineering, Bidding, and Construction Services Estimated 50 Year Operation and Maintenance Cost Total Capital and O&M Cost Concrete Ground Storage Reservoir and Booster Station $6,059,248 $902,000 $6,961,248 Fluted Column Style Water Tower $4,301,250 $3,600,000 $7,901,250 Composite Style Water Tower $4,069,350 $2,112,000 $6,181,350 Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 12 5. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL LOCATIONS 5.1 Site Identification Potential sites for constructing a 1.5 MG composite water tower were identified for further analysis based on location in the distribution system, ground elevations, and potential for ownership. A range of geographical locations were selected and modeled to gain a more complete understanding of the implications on the distribution system. Five initial sites were considered and discussed with City staff. Three of the sites on the west side of the City were eliminated due to hydraulic balancing concerns and their proximity to Tower One. Two additional sites, both located centrally in the water distribution system, were selected for further analysis as properties that the City could potentially acquire. The final sites that were analyzed are shown in Figure 2 and summarized below in Table 9. Table 9. Water Storage Sites Analyzed Site Location Approximate Ground Elevation Nearest Watermain Diameter Ownership Site 1 Birch St. and Timberwolf Tr. 905 ft. 16 in. School District Site 2 Birch St. and 20th Ave. South 910 ft. 16 in. City Site 3 Birch St. and 12th Ave. South 900 ft. 16 in. Private – Agnes Lamotte Site 4 Birch St. and West Shadow Lake Dr. 900 ft. 16 in. School District 5.2 Site Analysis Each of the four identified sites was modeled with the City’s water distribution system using WaterCAD V8i. Extended period simulation scenarios were run in which the water demands were changed continuously over a duration of 24 hours as they would on a maximum demand day. The model attempts to provide a snapshot into how the water distribution system would respond on a high-demand day; it includes water tower levels, pump controls, and demand fluctuations. By adding a water tower to different locations, the model will provide critical information on how the towers will balance with each other when filling and draining. The model also assists in determining if an altitude valve will be required to allow each of the water towers to be filled to its maximum capacity. Model scenarios were run both with and without altitude valves at each tower. 5.3 Analysis Results Because of their relative proximity to each other and the well field, the modeling results did not show significant differences between the sites that were analyzed. The model showed larger fluctuations in water elevations for Tower One, and minimal fluctuations for Tower Two and future Tower Three. These results were anticipated as Tower One is located furthest from the well field, and Tower Two currently requires an altitude valve to allow Tower One to be filled to its maximum capacity. Fluctuations were minimized somewhat for Tower Three at Site 4, the site furthest to the west. It is anticipated that Tower Three, regardless of the site selected, will require an altitude valve to balance the system . The expected tower levels that would occur over the maximum day with Tower Three located at each of the four analyzed sites are included in Appendix A. Water Storage Siting Study City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 Page 13 6. RECOMMENDATION A composite water tower has the lowest estimated capital and 50-year life cycle cost, and modeling results have indicated that more than one potential site exists to construct a new water tower. Therefore, we recommend designing, bidding, and constructing a 1.5 MG composite water tower on one of the sites analyzed and recommended in this report. Prior to negotiating or acquiring one of the potential sites for proposed Water Tower Three, we recommend completing a geotechnical analysis and obtaining soil borings from at least two of the sites to verify that the existing soils are suitable to construct a water tower. Water Storage Siting Study APPENDIX City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 FIGURES RICE CREEKCHAIN OF LAKESREGIONAL TRAIL County Hwy 10 County Hwy 14County Hwy 21County Hwy 23County Hwy 14 Hodgson RdCounty Hwy 23Frenchman Rd County Hwy 21%&d(%&c( )s !® !® !< !<!< !< !< !< Document Path: K:\02988-440\GIS\Maps\Figure1_DistributionSystem.mxd Date Saved: 7/18/2017 4:40:08 PM !<Municipal Well !®Existing Water Tower All Other Watermain Sizes 6" Diameter 8" Diameter 10" Diameter 12" Diameter 14" Diameter 16" Diameter Figure 1 - Existing Water SystemWater Storage Siting StudyCity of Lino Lakes 0 2,0 00Feet¯ RICE CREEKCHAIN OF LAKESREGIONAL TRAIL County Hwy 10 County Hwy 14County Hwy 21County Hwy 23County Hwy 14 Hodgson RdCounty Hwy 23Frenchman Rd County Hwy 21%&d(%&c( )s !® !® !®!® !®!®!< !<!< !< !< !<BlaineLinoLakesCirclePinesLexingtonCirclePinesLinoLakesCircle PinesShoreview ColumbusLinoLakes HugoLinoLakesHugoWhiteBearTwp. Lino LakesNorthOaksLinoLakesShoreview Lino LakesWhiteBearTwp. Lino LakesCenterville Site 1 - SchoolDistrict 905ft Site 2 -City Owned910ftSite 4 - SchoolDistrict 900ft Site 3 -PrivatelyOwned 900ft Document Path: K:\02988-440\GIS\Maps\Figure2_PotentialTowerLocations.m xd Date Saved: 4/4/2017 3:15:58 PM !<Municipal Well !®To wer 3 Study Lo ca tion !®Existing Water Tower All Other Watermain Sizes 12" Diameter 16" Diameter City Boundary Figure 2 - Tower 3 Study LocationsWater Storage Siting StudyCity of Lino Lakes 0 2,0 00Feet¯ Water Storage Siting Study APPENDIX City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 APPENDIX A Water Distribution Modeling Results Existing System - Tower Levels on Max Demand DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Firm Capacity - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Firm Capacity - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,060.001,055.001,050.001,045.001,040.001,035.001,030.001,025.001,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00 Property 1 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayProp1-T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site1 - Hydraulic GradeT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site1 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site1 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,060.001,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00 Property 2 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 2 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 2 - Hydraulic GradeProp2 - T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 2 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00 Property 3 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 3 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 3 - Hydraulic GradeProp3-T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 3 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00 Property 4 - Tower Levels on Maximum DayT-1 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 4 - Hydraulic GradeT-2 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 4 - Hydraulic GradeProp4-T3 - Max Day EPS - Tower 3 Site 4 - Hydraulic GradeElevation (ft)1,057.501,055.001,052.501,050.001,047.501,045.001,042.501,040.001,037.501,035.001,032.501,030.001,027.501,025.001,022.501,020.00Time (hours)22.0020.0018.0016.0014.0012.0010.008.006.004.002.000.00 Water Storage Siting Study APPENDIX City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-44 APPENDIX B 2007 Water Storage Study 1 WS – Item #4 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 4 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Katie Larsen, City Planner Re: Watermark Development Update Background Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC, received PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat approval in June of 2016 (Resolution No.16-51) for the proposed Watermark residential development. The proposed development is a master planned residential community located in the northwest quadrant of I-35E and CSAH 14/Main Street. It contains 12 parcels totaling approximately 372 gross acres and consisted of a residential mix of 706 single family lots and 165 townhome units totaling 871 housing units. In February of 2017 the City was informed that Mattamy Homes was moving out of the Minnesota housing market and selling off its existing land holdings, including the Lino Lakes site. In April of 2017, following a request from Mattamy, the City Council approved a six (6) month extension for the submittal of the PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for the development. Mattamy has since been working on a potential sale of the development to Lennar. Lennar is a leading home builder in the Twin Cities and nationally. On June 26, 2017, staff presented to Council a revised land use plan submitted by Lennar. As part of its consideration Lennar is proposing an amendment to the PUD to modify lot sizes to adjust to their available product types. Those proposed changes include: • Elimination of the 44’ wide lots and addition of 60’ wide lots product. The 55, 65’ and 75’ lots previously approved would remain throughout the development. • Slight reconfiguration of the townhome area and addition of a 2nd TH product type. • Introduction of a “Villa” product geared toward the empty nester with single level living. • Increase in total number of units from 871 to 896. Council expressed concern regarding the increase in number of units and elimination of several of the larger 75’ wide lots. Lennar has submitted a second revised land use plan. The proposed changes include: 2 • Elimination of the 44’ wide lots and addition of 60’ wide lots product. The 55, 65’ and 75’ lots previously approved would remain throughout the development. • Slight reconfiguration of the townhome area and addition of a 2nd TH product type. • Introduction of a “Villa” product geared toward the empty nester with single level living. • The total number of housing units is 871 as was originally approved for Mattamy. Lennar is proposing to begin construction of Phase 1 at the south end of the site, along the 21st Avenue extension, in the fall of 2017. Phase 1 would consist of approximately 20 Townhomes and 10 single family detached homes. Development of the park area would be moved to a future phase. The PUD amendment requires a resubmittal, public hearing, and review by the Planning & Zoning Board prior to City Council consideration. Staff has not undertaken any review of the proposed changes. Mattamy Homes and Lennar requested an opportunity to discuss the proposed ownership transition and proposed changes with the City Council. Requested Council Direction None required. Discussion Only. Attachments 1. Resolution No. 16-51 2. Approved Mattamy Land Use Plan dated May 28, 2016 3. Lennar Proposed Land Use Plan v1 dated June 26, 2017 4. Lennar Proposed Land Use Plan v2 dated July 12, 2017 5. Comparison of Mattamy vs. Lennar Lot Widths 6. Lennar Marketing Brochure CITY OF LINO LAKES RESOLUTION NO. 16-51 APPROVING PUD DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERMARK WHEREAS, the City has received an application for PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for Watermark hereafter referred to as "Development"; and WHEREAS, City staff has completed a review of the "Development" based on the following: Civil plans prepared by Carlson McCain revision date March 4, 2016 and received by the City on March 7, 2016 Tree Preservation Plan prepared by Carlson McCain revision dated March 4, 2016 and received by the City on March 7, 2016 Preliminary PUD Planting Plan prepared by Stantec dated January 25, 2016 Grading and Utility Phasing Plan prepared by Carlson McCain dated March 4, 2016 Cultural Resources Assessment prepared by The 106 Group dated February 2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey Report prepared by Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC dated July 20, 2015 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation dated November 4, 2013 Phase I Environmental Site Assessed prepared by Carlson McCain dated September 12, 2014 Geotechnical Evaluation Report -North and South Parcel prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation dated September 24, 2013 Traffic Impact Study prepared by Spack Consulting dated February 13, 2015 Technical Memorandum prepared by Spack Consulting dated March 27, 2015 Technical Memorandum prepared by Spack Consulting dated March 25, 2016 Wetland Delineation Report prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. dated February 10, 2014 Wetland Permit Application including Replacement Plan prepared by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. dated February 22, 2016 Traffic Noise Assessment prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc. dated March 28, 2016 Land Use Plan prepared by Carlson McCain revision date May 28, 2016 Preliminary Plat Image Booklet dated March 18, 2016 Draft Feasibility Report for Northeast Lino Lakes Drainage Improvement Project Study prepared by WSB & Associates, Inc. dated January 18, 2016 Revised Cover Sheet 1, Site Plan Sheet 22 and Preliminary Plat Sheets 3 and 15-17, prepared by Carlson McCain revision date April 27, 2016; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning & Zoning Board on April 13, 2016 and continued to May 11, 2016 and the Board recommended approval of the "Development"; and i NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Per Section 1007.024(1) Purpose and Intent, the PUD, by allowing deviation from the strict provisions of this Ordinance related to setbacks, heights, lot area, width and depths, yards, etc., by conditional use permit or a mixture of uses by rezoning to a PUD District, is intended to encourage: a. A development pattern in harmony with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Watermark PUD master planned residential development is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in regards to resource management, land use, housing, transportation and utilities. The development upholds the City's public values by creating a multi functional open space greenway corridor integrated with the stormwater conveyance system, wetland management and trails. Watermark is consistent with mixed-use land and density requirements and provides a variety of market driven housing products that support life -cycle housing. Safe transportation corridors and public utilities also serve the development. b. Innovations in development that address growing demands for all styles of economic expansion, greater variety in type, design, architectural standards, and siting of structures through the conservation and more efficient use of land in such developments. By allowing a variety of lot sizes and residential neighborhoods, Watermark is able to provide a mix of market driven housing products and single level living that appeals to entry-level home buyers as well as aging populations. The flexible site design also allows for the construction of an extensive greenway corridor and storm water management system. c. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as existing vegetation, natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion. The site has limited natural desirable site characteristics. Topography is flat agricultural land with poorly drained soils, drain tile and limited minimal significant tree stands. Existing low functioning wetlands will be enhanced and restored into an extensive greenway corridor and storm water management system. d. A creative use of land and related physical development which allows a phased and orderly transition of varying land uses in close proximity to each other. Development will start from the south where public utilities exist and extend north. The development transitions from the existing commercial property on the south boundary north to compact townhome and 44' single family neighborhood to larger lot neighborhoods. e. An efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering development costs and public investments. 2 Allowing lot widths to be based on the specific housing product versus a one size fits all lot width provides an efficient use of land and lowers development and public costs. f. Promotion of a desirable and creative environment that might be prevented through the strict application of City zoning and subdivision regulations. Watermark will create a natural greenway corridor and regional stormwater conveyance system through the construction 40+ acres of lakes and storm ponds and 20+ acres of restored and created wetlands; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby establishes that Watermark shall be developed in accordance with the following: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS 1. The following are acceptable exterior materials and styles for both the single family homes and the townhomes: a. Exterior Materials i. Vinyl, aluminum or steel siding (acceptable only on single family homes, not townhomes) ii. Brick iii. Stone iv. Stucco v. Wood vi. Engineered siding products such as LP board, Hardie board or similar b. Styles i. Lap siding ii. Board and batten iii. Shakes 2. One of the following three architectural features shall be incorporated into the single family home side and rear elevations that are visible from 20th Avenue (CSAH 54), Street A, Street E and the public park: a. A minimum of 4 inch window trim on side and/or rear elevations to match the dimensions of the front elevation. b. Incorporate trim and banding in complementary colors to add interest and variety to the side and/or rear elevations. c. Incorporate more than one exterior material and/or style on the side and/or rear elevations. 3. The following minimum architectural standards shall be incorporated into the townhome neighborhood: 3 a. A minimum of three (3) unique building facades (A, B and C) for each elevation of the townhomes shall be provided. b. A table of architectural facade data shall be included for each elevation. c. A unique building color package shall be included for each phase of development. d. At no point will the same facade and same color package be specified on buildings that are immediately adjacent to or directly across the road from each other. e. A minimum of 4 inch window trim on side and/or rear elevations to match the dimensions of the front elevation. f. In no case shall any exterior material be less than 10%. g. Front elevations shall have a combination of 3 exterior materials and/or styles as defined above. h. At least 60% (e.g. two of the three buildings) of the facades in each phase shall include brick, stone or stucco on the front elevation. i. Rear elevations shall have a combination of 2 exterior materials and/or styles. j. Rear elevations shall include some vertical trim or element to break up the longer horizontal planes. k. Side elevations that are exposed to roadways or open space and are highly visible will incorporate architectural details to match the front facade (e.g. the Tanager and the Maxwell Side (exposed)). 1. Side elevations that are not exposed to roadways or open space shall require only one exterior material (e.g. Maxwell (unexposed)). m. Decorative garage doors are required on all units. n. At least 60% of the buildings shall have decorative garage doors with windows for any given development phase. LOT SIZE 1. Lot sizes for single family lots shall be continuous buildable land and at a minimum size of the Lot Width Product x 130 feet. a. Example: i. 44 feet x 130 feet = 5,720 s.f. ii. 55 feet x 130 feet = 7,150 s.f. iii. 65 feet x 130 feet =8,450 s.f. iv. 75 feet x 130 feet = 9,750 s.f. 2. Flexibility may be allowed during PUD Final Plan/Final Plat phases to allow for a lot depth of 120 feet only if a public value of creating open space or protecting a natural resource is achieved. 3. The 100 year High Water Level shall not encroach into any yard. 4. Wetlands and buffers shall not encroach into any yards. 5. The required 10 feet drainage and utility easement above the HWL may be included in the lot as part of the standard D&U easement. PUBLIC LAND DEDICATION The City will require a combination of land dedication and cash is lieu of land dedications. 1. Land dedication for the public and private parks will be credited from the total payment in lieu. 2. Costs for public park improvements and trail construction will be credited from the total payment in lieu. 3. Improvements to the private parks and recreational center will not be credited from the total payment in lieu. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Lino Lakes in order to provide maximum PUD flexibility and adapt to changing market demands, detailed civil, grading and landscaping plans and architectural design standards, floor plans, elevations, exterior materials, styles, color packages and HOA documents will be reviewed and approved with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The City Council of The City of Lino Lakes hereby approves the PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for Watermark subject to the following conditions: 1. The Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan for the Proposed Peltier Lake Outlet shall be approved by Rice Creek Watershed District prior to issuance of building permits. 2. The developer shall provide a PUD Master Plan & Standards and Preliminary Plat Booklet that establishes discernable public values and baseline development standards for both the single family and townhome neighborhoods for the entire development. 3. The developer shall enter into a Master PUD Development Agreement for the entire development and individual Development Agreements with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat phase of development 4. The developer shall submit one Master HOA document and sub-HOA's with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat phase of development. 5. Tree Preservation and Landscape, Buffer and Screen Standards a. Detailed landscape berm plans and sections are required along CSAH 54. b. Landscape screening and buffers shall be installed along CSAH 54, I -35E and in between the townhomes and commercial. 5 c. A landscape screen (planting, berm or fence) is not required between the townhomes and Street A. i. The end units of the townhomes facing Street A will be the "Tanager" elevation that provides a main entrance and higher aesthetic value. d. Attention shall be made to the location of landscape plantings, buffer and berms in regards to grading, storm sewer and utility location, catch basins, etc. e. Water re -use pump stations shall be viewed to determine if screening is required. 6. Single Family Neighborhoods a. Detailed house architectural plans, color renderings and material palette shall be submitted with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat for all single family lots b. The developer shall provide a map highlighting the applicable single family lots abutting CSAH54, Street A and the public park. c. Homeowner Association documents shall be required with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. 7. Townhome Neighborhood a. A separate plan set detailing the townhome neighborhood shall be required. i. Details on Sheet 43 are not for 32 foot wide townhome product. b. Detailed architectural plans and color renderings shall be submitted for all townhome building elevations with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. c. Homeowner Association documents shall be required with each PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. d. Rear elevations shall include some vertical trim or element to break up the longer horizontal planes. 8. Parks and Trails a. Details on water fountains shall be required with PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. b. A Trail Phasing Plan shall be required with PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. c. A "trail corridor" shall be installed along one side of Street B in lieu of sidewalk to make a connection to the park. The trail could be bituminous or concrete. 9. Wetlands and Buffers a. The lots surrounding Outlot A shall be evaluated to verify proper wetland buffers 10-25 feet) can be established outside of lots. b. Wetland area calculations differ from Sheet 23 and Wetland Permit Application and shall be adjusted accordingly. c. Conservation easements for wetland buffers shall be recorded with the final plat. 10. Water Re -use a. Irrigation system for public park, berm area and townhome open space shall utilize stormwater re -use as recommended in the Watermark Water Re -Use Feasibility Study. 11. Floodplain a. The base flood elevation shall be determined by the applicant. b. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letter of Map Revision LOMR) will need to be obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to verify the floodplain is not impacted by development. 12. The developer shall submit a revised PUD Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat based on the following staff comments: a. Comments from WSB Plan Review Letter dated April 6, 2016 and May 4, 2016 shall be addressed. b. Comments from the Environment Board Staff Report dated April 27, 2016 shall be addressed. 6 c. Streets and Trails i. Cul de sacs on Street F, K, L, P and Q exceed 500 feet in length. 1. Fire hydrants shall be located every 300 feet. 2. Roadway width shall be 32 feet back to back. ii. Temporary cul de sacs shall be required at the north end of Street D and at the end of any street that terminates between development stages. iii. Trail corridors shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 1. Revise corridor between Lots 436 & 437. iv. Sidewalk shall be extended along the north side of Street D to CSAH 54/20th Avenue N. v. Evaluate Lot 246 for possible driveway access onto Street W. vi. Street V shall include sidewalk. d. Utilities i. Storm sewer pipes shall run along the side or rear property lines to the greatest extent possible to avoid drainage & utility easements encumbering large portions of side or rear yards. 1. For example: Lots 561, 505, 506, 255-258, etc. ii. Drainage and utility easements along side lot lines over utility pipes shall be wide enough to allow for maintenance equipment and access. 1. No encroachments (house, bay windows, A/C units, landscaping etc.) shall be allowed in or above the drainage and utility easements. e. Setbacks i. Twenty (20) foot side yard setbacks will only be allowed on back to back lots. ii. Twenty (20) foot side yard setbacks shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 1. For example, Lots 704, 761, 412, 128, 129, 115 and 116 etc. shall be revised. iii. Front setbacks on Lots 237-239 shall be shown as 25 feet. f. Sheet 3: Preliminary Plat Index Sheet i. Under Site Data, the number of Single Family Lot shall be 706 and add 1 line for Clubhouse lot to be consistent the Land Use Plan map. g. Sheets 19-22: Site Plan i. The scale bar is incorrect and shall be revised. h. The Tree Preservation Plan shall be revised to address Lots 132-135. Adopted by the Council of the City of Lino Lakes this 1 3 day of June, 2016. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member Kusterman and was duly seconded by Council Member Rafferty and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Kusterman, Rafferty, Maher, Manthey, Reinert The following voted against same: none ATTEST: rine Bartell, City Cler 8 Jeff Reinert, ayo LEGEND 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54) INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35E 73RD ST.ST.REHBEINWATERMARK LAND USE PLAN f:\jobs\4721 - 4740\4724 - lino lakes property\cad\survey\layouts\4724_watermark colored exhibit-rev.dwgSave Date:05/31/16 MATTAMY HOMES 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 Edina, MN 55439 Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.1 of 1 WATERMARK Lino Lakes, Minnesota 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 Print Name: Signature: Date:License #:01/07/16 25063 Drawn: Designed: Date:01/07/16 BJK C#Revisions: 1. Rev. Layout. 03/04/16 2.Rev. layout. 05/28/16environmental engineering surveying · · · SITE DATA Cente r vil l e Lake Peltie r LakeRice C r e e k Chain o f l a k e s Reser v e LakeResha n a u City o f Cente r vi ll e Ronde a u Lake LOCATION MAP SOIL BORINGS WETLANDS OWNER CONTACT 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100 Blaine, MN 55449 Phone: (763) 489-7900 Fax: (763) 489-7959 www.carlsonmccain.com 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35E73RD ST. ST.REHBEIN WATERMARKLAND USE PLANf:\jobs\6721 - 6740\6731 - watermark\cad c3d\survey\6731_sba land use plan.dwgSave Date:06/22/17Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.1of1WATERMARKLino Lakes, MinnesotaI hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #:25063Drawn:Designed:Date:06/19/17BJKC#Revisions:1. 06/22/17 Revise Legend.environmentalengineeringsurveying···Cente rv i l leLake Pel t ie rLakeRice C reekChain o f lakesReserveLakeReshanau Ci ty o f Cente rv i l le RondeauLake LOCATION MAP 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE,Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comLENNAR16305 - 35TH Avenue N. Suite 600Plymouth, Minnesota 55446 LEGEND 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)73RD ST. ST.REHBEIN SITE DATA SOIL BORINGS WETLANDS OWNER CONTACT 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 35E73RD ST. ST.REHBEIN WATERMARKLAND USE PLANf:\jobs\6721 - 6740\6731 - watermark\cad c3d\survey\6731_sba land use plan revd.dwgSave Date:07/10/17Brian J. Krystofiak, P.E.1of1WATERMARKLino Lakes, MinnesotaI hereby certify that this plan, specificationor report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a dulyLicensed Professional Engineer underthe laws of the State of MinnesotaPrint Name:Signature:Date:License #:25063Drawn:Designed:Date:06/19/17BJKC#Revisions:1. 06/22/17 Revise Legend.2. 07/10/17 Revise layout.environmentalengineeringsurveying···Cente rv i l leLake Pel t ie rLakeRice C reekChain o f lakesReserveLakeReshanau Ci ty o f Cente rv i l le RondeauLake LOCATION MAP 3890 Pheasant Ridge Drive NE,Suite 100Blaine, MN 55449Phone: (763) 489-7900Fax: (763) 489-7959www.carlsonmccain.comLENNAR16305 - 36TH Avenue N. Suite 600Plymouth, Minnesota 55446 LEGEND 20TH AVENUE NORTH (CSAH 54)73RD ST. ST.REHBEIN SITE DATA SOIL BORINGS WETLANDS OWNER CONTACT LANDMARK(75')LANDMARK(75')LANDMARK(65')DISCOVERY(65')DISCOVERY(65')LIFESTYLEVILLA (55')LIFESTYLEVILLA (65')COLONIAL MANOR/PATRIOTLIFESTYLEVILLA (65')DISCOVERY/DISCOVERY 2+ GARDISCOVERY/DISCOVERY 2+ GARLIFESTYLEVILLA (60') Watermark Mattamy vs Lennar Comparison July 12, 2017 v2 Mattamy Lennar Lot Width # Lots # Lots Difference 75 174 126 (48) 65 303 315 12 60 0 143 143 55 145 115 (30) 44 84 0 (84) 30 165 172 7 TOTAL 871 871 0 WS – Item 5 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 5 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Rick DeGardner, Public Services Director Re: City Paths and Planning for Them Background Councilmember Rafferty raised some questions regarding city trails and issues or problems that may arise as it relates to the adjoining property owners. Topics include: City expectations Property owner expectations Easements Path buffer area Property owner planting information (tree related issues, bush related issues) The attached letter is what is typically sent to adjacent property owners when encroachments have been identified and need to be remedied. Staff will be present at the August 7 work session to answer any questions. Requested Council Direction Discussion only Attachments Notification letter to residents City of Lino Lakes Public Services Department 600 Town Center Parkway – Lino Lakes, MN 55014-1189 651-982-2440 – www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us xxxx Resident xxxx Lino Lakes, MN 55xxx Dear Resident, The Parks Department has recently inspected the trail system in your neighborhood. We have identified some areas that have vegetation (trees, shrubs, grasses, flowers, etc.) encroaching into or over the city trail adjacent to your property. The Public Services Department has an obligation to provide a safe environment for all trail users. The typical standard is to provide a minimum of 24 inches of clearance along each side of the trail, and an 8 foot minimum overhead clearance. If applicable, we are requesting that you please trim and remove any of the vegetation that is encroaching near the paved trail by Sunday, xxxx 2017. If the trimming is not completed by this date, the Parks Department will begin necessary trimming and removal the week of xxxx, 2017. Please note that it is the responsibility of property owners to periodically trim adjacent plantings to ensure that the trail remains clear of obstructions. This letter has been sent to all property owners adjacent to the trail where encroachments have been identified. No action is required on your part if there is not any vegetation encroaching from your property into or over the trail. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Parks Supervisor Mike Hoffman at (651) 982- 2453. Sincerely, Rick DeGardner Public Services Director WS – Item 6 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 6 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: Wetland/Natural Resource Restoration Revolving Fund Plan Background In 2009, as an outcome of the Environmental Board goals setting process, staff began evaluating the possible restoration of an existing wetland complex in Wollan Park, located on the City’s north side. During the initial investigation it was determined that the restoration efforts would be eligible for wetland banking credits. The process of wetland banking allows the city to restore and/or create wetland and sell credits through the state wetland bank. The recently completed Wollan Park wetland bank will provide approximately 5.96 acres of Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE certified bank credits. While bank credits are subject to market fluctuations recent sales in Lino Lakes have been above $2.00 a square foot. In addition to Wollan Park the City previously established a wetland bank along Otter Lake Road that was completed in 2013. One of the overall goals for the establishment of the bank was to create a funding source that would allow the city to acquire properties with potential high ecological value and restore them as part of the City’s greenway system. With the Wollan Bank coming online by summer of 2017 staff is proposing development of an overall policy document that establishes the goals, priorities, and mechanics of the wetland banking program. The City C ouncil authorized preparation of the plan in January of 2017. WSB has completed the plan with identifies six (6) potential bank sites and evaluates options for wetland credit compensation. The Environmental Board reviewed the plan at its July meeting and recommended acceptance and implementation. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting Council direction to place acceptance of the study on the August 14, 2017 meeting for consideration. Attachments 1. Natural Resource Revolving Fund Plan NATURAL RESOURCES REVOLVING FUND PLAN July 17, 2017 Prepared for: City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 WSB PROJECT NO. 2988-470 Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 NATURAL RESOURCES REVOLVING FUND PLAN For: City of Lino Lakes July 17, 2017 Prepared By: WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue S., Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763) 541-4800 (763) 541-1700 (Fax) TABLE OF CONTENTS Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Title Page Table of Contents I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Background ......................................................................................................................... 1 B. Project Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2 C. Existing Banks ..................................................................................................................... 2 II. Site Identification .............................................................................................................................. 3 A. Site-Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................... 3 B. Mapping .............................................................................................................................. 4 III. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 5 A. Potential Bank Sites ............................................................................................................ 5 B. Wetland Credit Compensation Evaluation ........................................................................ 10 IV. Discussion & Recommendations ................................................................................................... 12 A. Future Studies ................................................................................................................... 12 B. Coordination with Regulatory Agencies ............................................................................ 12 C. Wetland Bank Pricing ........................................................................................................ 12 D. Revolving Fund ................................................................................................................. 12 V. References ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix A: Figure 1 – Project Location Figure 2 – Future Land Use Figure 3 – Greenway System Figure 4 – Natural Resource Planning Systems Figure 5 – Existing Wetland Bank Locations Figure 6 – Site 1 (Winters Property) Figure 7 – Site 2 (NE Drainage Area) Figure 8 – Site 3 (Otter Lake) Figure 9 – Site 4 (12th Avenue) Figure 10 – Site 5 (Pine Glen Outlot E) Figure 11 – Site 6 (Woolans II) Appendix B: 2017 Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy SECTION I Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 1 I. Introduction A. Background The City of Lino Lakes (the City) is located north of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metro area, in Anoka County (Figure 1). The Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve bisects the city from southwest to northeast, along Interstate 35W. Approximately 21,267 acres of land exist within the City, and 3,450 acres have been set aside for parks and open space in the City’s Land Use Plan. The remaining developable land has been guided for several uses including commercial, industrial, mixed use, rural, residential, urban development, institutional, and airfields (Figure 2). Over the past several years, the City has embraced the concepts of sustainability and conservation development. Through their Comprehensive Plan, the City has established several goals related to the management and development of their natural resource areas. Specifically, the Resource Management Plan identifies the following goals: • Continue the development and maintenance of recreational activities that serve the identified needs of the community and people of all ages including, where possible, neighborhood parks, larger multi-use area parks, and the regional park. • Develop, maintain, and connect the current and proposed trails in the City of Lino Lakes and Rice Creek Regional Park in a manner that preserves and sustains the natural environment (greenway system, Figure 3). • Identify, protect, and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic • Initiate and continue vigorous collaborations and programs to address, restore, and preserve the water quality of the region’s lakes, wetlands, and other aquatic assets. • Ensure that well-planned, quality residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development to accommodate the City’s projected growth needs occurs in a manner that also conserves and enhances the City’s natural resources and amenities. • Identify and work cooperatively with the state and other local government entities to develop approaches for addressing potential ecological challenges and threats that could adversely affect the City. The Resource Management Plan also developed the Wetland Preservation Corridor (Figure 4), which includes high priority wetlands, buffer areas, selected marginally suitable development areas, and the 100-year floodplain. This plan was adopted in 2008, in partnership with Rice Creek Watershed District. In 2011, the City adopted a Comprehensive Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways, and Trail System plan that incorporated important natural resources into a contiguous network of recreational and habitat corridors throughout the city as part of a Greenway system. The plan also defined various categories of natural resource areas, as summarized below. • Natural Resource Protected Areas consist of water bodies and land areas that have some level of protection under current regulatory ordinances and controls. Development is already largely controlled in these areas; additional protections are likely not warranted. • Natural Resource Conservation Areas generally consist of areas defined under various natural vegetative cover or soil types. These are areas where preservation opportunities are very high and where protection of the resources is a foremost consideration as the land is developed. Beyond development and zoning ordinances, these areas are not inherently protected. Establishment of a wetland bank in these areas would further the goal of preserving and protecting the resources. These areas are shown on Figure 4. • Natural Resource Enhancement Corridors consist of generally agricultural areas that will convey runoff, fill gaps in the greenway system, and/or provide a corridor for the greenway- SECTION I Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 2 based trail system. B. Project Purpose The purpose of the Lino Lakes Natural Resources Revolving Fund Pla n (NRRFP) is to further the City’s goals of Greenway System development, stormwater management and water quality improvements, public open space development, and economic development by establishing a self-funding mechanism to acquire, protect, and enhance high value ecological areas. The goals of the NRRFP are defined as: 1. Create a high-value greenway system 2. Promote economic enhancement and development 3. Establish a wetland bank 4. Ensure opportunities for replacement of wetland impacts from both private development and public projects within Lino Lakes C. Existing Banks The City of Lino Lakes currently owns two wetland banks, Bank No. 1122 and the Bank No. 1601 (Figure 5). Bank No. 1122 is not ACOE-approved, so cannot be used or sold for mitigation of wetland impacts involving Waters of the US. Bank No. 1601 is ACOE-approved, so can be used or sold for mitigation of any wetland impacts. Bank No. 1122 is located east of I-35E and south of CSAH 14. To date, this bank has only been used for city-sponsored projects and credits have not been sold on the public market. Bank No. 1601 is located west of CSAH 23 and north of CSAH 14. The cost to establish this bank totaled $75,000. Credit prices for the bank will be evaluated annually and adjusted to market rates. Profits produced by the sale of credits from these two banks are expected to be used toward the establishment and maintenance of additional wetland banks as identified in this plan. SECTION II Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 3 II. Site Identification A. Site-Specific Objectives Several site-specific objectives were identified which each of the identified sites were weighed against. These objectives were used to assist in finding priority bank sites throughout the city. These site-specific objectives are discussed below. Part of the Greenway System As discussed in Section I, the City has identified the development of a system that connects current and proposed trails in the City and Rice Creek Regional Park in a manner that preserves and sustains the natural environment. The City has developed a Greenway System that consists of lands set aside for preservation of natural resources, remnant landscapes, open space, and visual aesthetics/buffering (Figure 3). The Greenway System also includes areas within the City’s Wetland Preservation Corridor (Figure 4), which includes high priority wetlands with variable width buffer areas, selected marginally-suitable development areas, and the 100-year floodplain. Locating potential wetland bank sites within the Greenway System furthers the City’s goals in this area. Be Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)-Approved Eligible Wetlands in the City are regulated by a variety of agencies: local governments (Rice Creek Watershed District [RCWD] and Vadnais Lake Area WMO), State (Department of Natural Resources [DNR]), and the Federal Government (US Army Corps of Engineers [ACOE]). When wetland impacts occur, they must be mitigated either onsite, or by purchasing credits through a wetland bank. Due to size restrictions, not all wetland banks are certified by the ACOE. Wetland banks must contain a minimum of five credits to be certified by the ACOE. Credits are determined by the type of activity that is proposed to be completed within the wetland bank area, but a wetland bank that is ACOE-approved will be a minimum of five acres in size and likely larger. Projects that require permits through the ACOE also require mitigation through ACOE-approved banks. Establishing a wetland bank that is ACOE-eligible typically results in a larger, higher quality wetland and is more desirable from an economic development standpoint because it can be used by more projects. High & Medium Quality Restoration Potential The City completed a city-wide Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) wetland assessment. The MnRAM data were used to identify the functional value of the wetlands in the City, create development management strategies for the wetlands based on their functional value, and identify wetlands that could be potentially restored. Data that went into determining the restoration potential included hydraulic restoration potential (without flooding), number of landowners involved/affected, potential size and type of wetland to be restored, size of potential upland buffer area, relative ease of restoration, type of hydrologic alteration present, and the susceptibility of the wetland area to stormwater and/or nutrient loading. The resulting potential for restoration was categorized as High, Medium, or Low. Potential wetland bank sites located in areas rated as High or Medium for restoration potential would indicate a higher probability of the restoration being successful. Land Ownership/Willingness of Landowners Land already owned by the City is ideal for locating potential wetland bank sites. However, the potential to purchase private lands or create partnerships with private landowners is also an option. SECTION II Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 4 TMDL Opportunities Several aquatic resources within the City have been identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as being impaired and have been assigned Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restrictions. Siting wetland restorations upstream of these resources provides an opportunity to remove nutrients and sediment loading, helping to meet TMDL goals. Floodplain Volume Opportunities One of the many functions that wetlands perform is flood control. Many areas within the City are in designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Rice Creek Watershed District also regulates floodplain as defined by their model. Restoring or creating wetland banks in and adjacent to these floodplains may provide for an opportunity to address existing flood storage issues or better define the extents of the floodplain area (elevations). Location of Drainage & Utility Easements Once a wetland bank has been established, a conservation easement must be placed over that bank area in perpetuity. Any other easements located in the wetland bank site could be non- compliant with the conservation easement. One common type of easement in wetland areas is a Drainage and Utility easement. Identification of these easements early on will allow for the City review and, if appropriate, abandon the easement prior to finalization of the bank site. Upland Buffers Upland buffers are required to be established by WCA and the ACOE as part of wetland bank construction. Upland buffers provide protection to wetlands by filtering pollutants out of stormwater before it enters the wetland and provides habitat to wildlife. The WCA requires a minimum average buffer width of 25 feet for wetlands that are less than 2 acres. For wetlands that are greater than 2 acres in size the buffer must be a minimum of 25 feet and average 50 feet. The ACOE also requires upland buffers. In municipal areas, ACOE require a minimum of 25-foot buffers. Wetlands in non-municipal areas require a minimum 50-foot buffer. For the purpose of this study, wetland buffer widths of 50-feet were used, except for at sites where the wetland encompassed nearly all of the site. In those situations, any remaining parcel area that was not wetland was included as buffer. These buffers may be expanded or reduced as needed during planning to achieve other goals for the site. B. Mapping Base mapping using ArcGIS was completed to identify the locations of potential wetland bank sites, and how the site related to the site-specific objectives listed above. Data used included FEMA floodplain maps, parcels, Anoka County parks, MPCA impaired waters, Lino Lak es Greenway System mapping, Lino Lakes Wetland Management Corridor mapping, MnRAM restoration potential results, contours, Soil Survey of Anoka County, National Wetland Inventory, and DNR Public Waters Inventory. SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 5 III. Results A. Potential Bank Sites Six sites were identified as having wetland banking potential. Each of these sites is summarized below. Table 1 includes the site-specific criteria that were used during the evaluation of the sites. Site 1: Site 1 (Winters Property) is in the northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 31N, Range 22W; approximately 0.75 miles north of County Road 14 (Otter Lake Road), east of Interstate 35E (Figure 6). The potential wetland bank site encompasses approximately 135 acres of a mixture of wetland, woodland, and agricultural land. Wetlands are located throughout the site, some of which are still intact and some that have been altered by over 60 years of farming or grazing practices. Four parcels make up Site 1, and all are owned by the same landowner. Discussions with City staff have indicated a potential willingness by the landowner to sell or partner on a wetland banking opportunity. Portions of the site have been identified as areas of high or medium wetland restoration potential. The site is located within the Greenway System and the Wetland Preservation Corridor, and has been identified as a Natural Resources Conservation Area. Based on a review of available historic aerial photographs (199 1 – 2016), soil data, National Wetland Inventory, and contours it is anticipated that approximately 54 acres of wetland exist within the site. Approximately 12 acres have been farmed since at least the 1960s, and would have the potential to be restored either hydrologically, vegetatively, or both. Based on a 50-foot buffer, approximately 19 acres of upland could be converted into a buffer consisting of native upland vegetation. Remaining upland areas east and north of the wetland bank could be utilized for development. Table 1 below summarizes the anticipated credit potential of a wetland bank at Site 1. Table 1: Summary of Wetland Bank Credit Potential (Site 1) Area (acres) WCA/RCWD Category Percent Eligible WCA Credit (acres) ACOE Category Percent Eligible ACOE Credit (acres) 12 1 50 6.0 1 50 6.0 19 6 25 4.75 6 25 1.5 Total Credits 10.75 7.5 Estimated Sale Potential* $141,570 (for non-ACOE credits) $653,400 Category Definitions 1 – Vegetative Restoration/Enhancement 2 – Wetland Creation 3 – Restoration of Drained or Filled Wetlands/Re-Establishment 4 – Restoration of Partially Drained or Filled Wetlands/Rehabilitation 5 – Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources Value 6 – Upland Buffer * Estimated Sale Potential based on an average $2/sf selling price for ACOE-banks in Anoka County and $1/sf for non-ACOE banks Site 2: Site 2 (NE Drainage Area) is in the NE ¼ of Section 14, Township 31N, Range 22W; approximately 0.75 miles north of County Road 14 (Otter Lake Road), west of County Road 54 (20th Avenue) (Figure 7). The potential wetland bank site encompasses approximately 94 acres of mixture of wetland, woodland, and agricultural land. Wetlands are located throughout the site, though many have been altered by either agricultural practices or ditches. Four parcels make up Site 2, with two separate landowners. City staff has engaged with discussions with one of the landowners. Portions of the site have been identified as areas of high or medium restoration potential. The site is within the Greenway System, within the Wetland Preservation Corridor , and some small areas have been identified as a Natural Resources Conservation Areas. The City has completed a feasibility study for this area that would enhance a nearly 1,300-acre area by providing improved drainage, water quality improvements, flood control, and habitat improvements. The proposed design incorporates a channel between 20th Avenue and Peltier SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 6 Lake. The channel would consist of an approximately 30-foot flow area and adjacent floodplain. Based on a review of available historic aerial photographs (1991 – 2016), soil data, National Wetland Inventory, contours, and a field review it is anticipated that approximately 31 acres of wetland exist within the site. Some of these wetlands (approximately 1.15 acres) have been farmed since at least the 1960s, and would have potential to be restored vegetatively. It is also anticipated that approximately 11 acres of wetland could be created as part of the drainage improvements. These areas would be located along the channel, in created floodplain. Based on a 50-foot buffer, approximately 14.5 acres of upland buffer would be converted into a buffer consisting of native upland vegetation. Additional buffer credit could be available up to 25% of the total wetland acreage (8.83 acres total). In addition to wetland banking, Peltier Lake has been listed by the MPCA as impaired for nutrient/eutrophication and biological indicators and has an approved TMDL plan for mercury in fish tissue. Conversion of Site 2 from agricultural to wetland/upland and improvement to the drainage channel would help to improve water quality within Peltier Lake. Also, portions of the site are within 100-year floodplain, and volume banking of the additional flood storage created by the channel may be possible. Table 2 below summarizes the anticipated credit potential of a wetland bank at Site 2. Table 2: Summary of Wetland Bank Credit Potential (Site 2) Area (acres) WCA/RCWD Category Percent Eligible WCA Credit (acres) ACOE Category Percent Eligible ACOE Credit (acres) 1.15 1 50 0.58 1 50 0.58 11 2 75 8.25 2 50 5.50 14.5 6 25 3.6 6 25 1.52 Total Credits 12.43 7.60 Estimated Sale Potential* $210,394 (for non-ACOE credits) $662,112 Category Definitions 1 – Vegetative Restoration/Enhancement 2 – Wetland Creation 3 – Restoration of Drained or Filled Wetlands/Re-Establishment 4 – Restoration of Partially Drained or Filled Wetlands/Rehabilitation 5 – Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources Value 6 – Upland Buffer (not to exceed wetland credits) * Estimated Sale Potential based on an average $2/sf selling price for ACOE-banks in Anoka County and $1/sf for non-ACOE banks Proposed drainage improvements are expected to result in approximately 7 acres of wetland impact. These impacts will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio, for a total replacement of 14 acres. If onsite replacement is proposed, excess credits for banking may not be available. Site 3: Site 3 (Otter Lake) is in the southeast quarter of Section 36, Township 31N, Range 22W, at the northeast end of Otter Lake (Figure 8). Site 3 is 56 acres in size and is a mixture of wetland and woodland. The site consists of two parcels that are currently owned by the City. The site was identified as having medium to low restoration potential and is located within the Greenway System and Wetland Preservation Corridor. The area was also identified as a High Priority Wetland Area in the City’s Resource Management Plan. Site 3 currently consists of 46 acres of wetland that is categorized as alder swamp, shrub-scrub wetland, and shallow marsh. The surrounding upland areas consist of oak woodlands. The site had been identified by the Minnesota County Biological Survey as a Native Plant Community and a Site of Moderate Biodiversity Significance and was mapped as a Regionally Significant Ecological Area by the DNR. In addition, a tamarack swamp has been identified approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the site. It is anticipated that Site 3 has qualities that would make restoration and preservation of the area eligible for credit as an “Exceptional Natural Resource SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 7 Value” wetland. An “Exceptional Natural Resource Value” wetland is defined by WCA as an area that has: 1) habitat for state-listed endangered or threatened species; 2) rare native plant communities; 3) special fish and wildlife resources, such as fish passage and spawning areas, colonial waterbird nesting areas, migratory waterfowl concentration areas, deer wintering areas, or wildlife travel corridors; 4) sensitive surface waters; or 5) other resources determ ined to be exceptional by the technical evaluation panel, which is made up of wetland, plant, and wildlife habitat experts from various local and state agencies. It is anticipated that because of the tamarack swamp, Site 3 would qualify for credit under this category. Table 3 below summarizes the anticipated credit potential of a wetland bank at Site 3. Table 3: Summary of Wetland Bank Credit Potential (Site 3) Area (acres) WCA/RCWD Category Percent Eligible WCA Credit (acres) ACOE Category Percent Eligible ACOE Credit (acres) 46 5 50** 23 1 50 23 10 6 25 2.5 6 25 2.5 Total Credits 25.5 25.5 Estimated Sale Potential* $2,221,560 Category Definitions 1 – Vegetative Restoration/Enhancement 2 – Wetland Creation 3 – Restoration of Drained or Filled Wetlands/Re-Establishment 4 – Restoration of Partially Drained or Filled Wetlands/Rehabilitation 5 – Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources Value 6 – Upland Buffer (not to exceed wetland credits) * Estimated Sale Potential based on an average $2/sf selling price for ACOE-banks in Anoka County ** Estimated credit valuation, final valuation determined by TEP Site 4: Site 4 (12th Avenue) is in the southeast quarter of Section 28, Township 31N, Range 22W, in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Birch Street and 12th Avenue South (Figure 9). The potential wetland bank site encompasses approximately 36 acres of a mixture of wetland and agricultural land. Wetlands are located primarily on the west side of the site. The wetlands have been impacted by a ditch network as well as farming or grazing practices over the last 60 years. Two parcels make up Site 4. One parcel is in private ownership and the other is owned by the State of Minnesota. Portions of the site have been identified as areas of medium wetland restoration potential. The site is located within the Greenway System, is within the Wetland Preservation Corridor, and has been identified as a Natural Resources Conservation Area. Based on a review of available historic aerial photographs (1991 – 2016), soil data, National Wetland Inventory, and contours, it is anticipated that approximately 18.5 acres of wetlands exist within the site. Approximately 2.22 acres have been farmed periodically since at least the 1950s, and would have the potential to be restored either hydrologically, vegetatively, or both. Drainage ditches are located throughout the west half of the site, and it is anticipated that these ditches are removing hydrology from portions of the wetland. As a result, it is anticipated that approximately 16 acres of wetland area could be hydrologically restored. Based on 50-foot buffer widths, approximately 10 acres of native upland buffer would be constructed with the project. This area also includes the approximately 2-acre upland area in the northeast portion of the parcel. The remaining upland areas in the southeast portion of the site could be developed . Table 4 below summarizes the anticipated credit potential of a wetland bank at Site 4. Table 4: Summary of Wetland Bank Credit Potential (Site 4) Area WCA/RCWD Percent WCA Credit ACOE Percent ACOE Credit SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 8 (acres) Category Eligible (acres) Category Eligible (acres) 16.2 4 50 8.1 4 50 8.1 2.22 1 50 1.1 1 50 1.1 10 6 25 2.5 6 25 2.3 Total Credits 11.7 11.5 Estimated Sale Potential* $8,712 (for non-ACOE credits) $1,001,880 Category Definitions 1 – Vegetative Restoration/Enhancement 2 – Wetland Creation 3 – Restoration of Drained or Filled Wetlands/Re-Establishment 4 – Restoration of Partially Drained or Filled Wetlands/Rehabilitation 5 – Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources Value 6 – Upland Buffer (not to exceed wetland credits) * Estimated Sale Potential based on an average $2/sf selling price for ACOE-banks in Anoka County and $1/sf for non-ACOE banks Site 5: Site 5 (Pine Glen Outlot E) is in the northeast quarter of Section 9, Township 31N, Range 22W; approximately one mile west of the intersection of Interstate 35W and County Road 14 (Main Street) (Figure 10). The potential wetland bank site encompasses approximately 20 acres of wetland with a ditch bisecting the site. One parcel makes up Site 5, and is owned by the City. Portions of the site have been identified as areas of medium wetland restoration potential . The site is located within the Greenway System, is within the Wetland Preservation Corridor, and parts have been identified as a Natural Resources Conservation Area. Based on a review of available historic aerial photographs (1991 – 2016), soil data, National Wetland Inventory, and contours it is anticipated that approximately 20 acres of wetland exist within the site. It is anticipated that the drainage ditch that bisects the site has removed hydrology from portions of the wetland. Therefore, the wetland may have the potential to be restored hydrologically and vegetatively. The remaining 0.31 acres would be converted into a buffer consisting of native upland vegetation. Table 5 below summarizes the anticipated credit potential of a wetland bank at Site 5. Table 5: Summary of Wetland Bank Credit Potential (Site 5) Area (acres) WCA/RCWD Category Percent Eligible WCA Credit (acres) ACOE Category Percent Eligible ACOE Credit (acres) 19.9 4 50 9.95 4 50 9.95 0.31 6 25 0.08 6 25 0.08 Total Credits 10.03 10.03 Estimated Sale Potential* $873,813 Category Definitions 1 – Vegetative Restoration/Enhancement 2 – Wetland Creation 3 – Restoration of Drained or Filled Wetlands/Re-Establishment 4 – Restoration of Partially Drained or Filled Wetlands/Rehabilitation 5 – Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources Value 6 – Upland Buffer (not to exceed wetland credits) * Estimated Sale Potential based on an average $2/sf selling price for ACOE-banks in Anoka County Site 6: Site 6 (Woolans II) is in the northeast quarter of Section 5, Township 31N, Range 22W and is southwest of an existing wetland bank (Bank No. 1601) (Figure 11). The potential wetland bank site is made up of approximately five acres of wetland. The site is owned by a private landowner. Portions of the site have been identified as areas of medium or low wetland restoration potential. The site is located within the Greenway System, is within the Wetland Preservation Corridor, and parts have been identified as a Natural Resources Preservation Area. The MLCCS identifies several plant community types within the site: rich fen, wet meadow, aspen forest, and oak forest. Based on a review of available historic aerial photographs (1991 – 2016), soil data, National Wetland Inventory, and contours it is anticipated that approximately 5.33 acres of wetland exist within the site and have the potential to be restored vegetatively. SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 9 Site 6 is home to various rare features, including the autumn fimbry (Fimbristylis autumnalis), the threatened lance-leaf violet (Viola lanceolata var. lanceolata), and the endangered twisted yellow- eyed grass (Xyris torta). As a result, it is anticipated that Site 6 has qualities that would make restoration and preservation of the area eligible for credit as an “Exceptional Natural Resource Value” wetland. Table 6 below summarizes the anticipated credit potential of a wetland bank at Site 6. Table 6: Summary of Wetland Bank Credit Potential (Site 6) Area (acres) WCA/RCWD Category Percent Eligible WCA Credit (acres) ACOE Category Percent Eligible ACOE Credit (acres) 5.34 5 50** 2.67 1 50 2.67 Total Credits 2.67 2.67 Estimated Sale Potential* $116,305 (for non-ACOE credits) NA Category Definitions 1 – Vegetative Restoration/Enhancement 2 – Wetland Creation 3 – Restoration of Drained or Filled Wetlands/Re-Establishment 4 – Restoration of Partially Drained or Filled Wetlands/Rehabilitation 5 – Restoration and Protection of Exceptional Natural Resources Value 6 – Upland Buffer (not to exceed wetland credits) * Estimated Sale Potential based on an average $1/sf selling price for non-ACOE banks in Anoka County * Estimated credit valuation, final valuation determined by TEP Due to its relatively small size, it’s unknown if the site, on its own, would meet the minimum credit threshold required for the ACOE to approve the bank. One potential option would be to see if Site 6 could be added on to the acreage currently within the adjacent Bank No. 1601. Table 7 below summarizes each of the sites based on how they score against the site-specific criteria. Table 7: Summary of Potential Wetland Bank Site Evaluation Location ID Site-Specific Criteria Greenway System ACOE- Eligible Restoration Potential Ownership TMDL Flood Storage Easements Site 1 (Winters Property) Y Y High – Medium - Low Private Y Y Site 2 (NE Drainage Area) Y Y High – Medium - Low Private Y – Peltier Lake Y Site 3 (Otter Lake) Y Y Medium - Low Public Y – Bald Eagle Lake Y Site 4 (12th Avenue) Y Y Medium Private/ Public Y Y Site 5 (Pine Glen Outlot E) Y Y Medium Public Y Y D&E Site 6 (Woolans II) Y M Medium - Low Private N Y SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 10 B. Wetland Credit Compensation Evaluation Upon establishment of wetland banks, the City of Lino Lakes would be responsible for the sale of the bank credits. Selling wetland credits is typically the last step in the wetland permit application process. The first step includes the buyer (applicant) preparing a wetland impact application. During preparation of the application, the applicant will contact bank owners regarding wetland credits for sale in an area defined by the siting requirements that the WCA and/or ACOE determine. Once a bank owner and buyer agree over the purchase price of wetland credits, a Purchase Agreement will be completed and signed by both parties. An earnest money payment may be required. The buyer will then submit the completed applications to the regulatory agencies for review and comment. Following the application review, the agencies will either approve or deny the application. Following approval of an application, the parties will close on the purchase of the credits. During closing, the owner (City of Lino Lakes), buyer, and the Local Government Unit contact will each sign a Withdrawal of Wetland Credits form. These signatures can be electronic. The buyer or their representative will be responsible for obtaining the signatures from all parties and filing the form with BWSR. A transaction fee, in an amount determined by BWSR, will also be required to complete the transaction. The buyer will be responsible for the payment of this fee. Upon receipt of the withdrawal form and transaction fee, BWSR will review and certify the withdrawal and debit the owner’s account. If, following execution of a Purchase Agreement, the buyer does not follow through with the purchase of wetland credits, any required earnest money payment will be handled as follows: • If the permit is denied by the regulatory authorities, the earnest money will be returned to the buyer. • If the permit is approved by the regulatory authorities but the buyer chooses not to purchase credits for another reason, the bank owner (City of Lino Lakes) will keep the earnest money. The management of the wetland bank could be administered either internally or through a contract with a wetland bank broker. A wetland bank broker would work with sellers and manage the preparation of the purchase agreement and closing documents. A wetland bank broker would be paid a fee for their services. The cost of wetland bank credits varies throughout the state and within a county. There are a variety of pricing methods that could be used to determine the price of a bank credit once the bank is established. The price could also fluctuate from year to year based on supply and demand, and could also fluctuate based on volume of credits being sold to a purchaser. The city will adopt a fee for each wetland bank annually. Some methods that could be used to determine the selling price of credits include: • Cost plus– wetland credit price would be based upon the total cost of development, construction, and ongoing maintenance of the bank site plus a fixed fee that would be used toward the restoration of future natural resource areas. • Average bank price – wetland credit price would be based upon the current average bank price for Anoka county banks. Note that estimated sale potential is based on this method ($2/sf in 2016). • Land value – wetland credit price would be based upon the wetland bank fee schedule set by BWSR (Anoka County fee cost per credit/0.065). With regard to determining the cost of the establishment and maintenance of a wetland bank , the city will need to consider each of the following: 1. Acquisition expenses – sites that are not currently owned by the City of Lino Lakes will SECTION III Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 11 need to be purchased from the current landowners. 2. Application expenses – Wetland bank applications need to be completed through both the WCA and ACOE. These applications can take several months to complete and costs are typically associated with agency meetings, wetland delineations, plant surveys, engineering design plans, and restoration plans. Though the cost to complete the application depends on the scope and size of the bank site, it can be expected to range between $75,000 - $125,000. 3. Construction/Restoration expenses – Expenses related to the construction and ultimate restoration of the bank site include: construction administration, survey, grading, erosion control, tile locating (if applicable), seedbed preparation, seeding, and site inspections. The overall cost of these expenses would vary depending on the scope of the bank site construction, and would typically be estimated during the bank application phase. 4. Monitoring expenses – Following the construction of a bank site, the WCA and ACOE require 3-5 years of monitoring to document the success to of the site. Monitoring of the site includes assessing the establishment of vegetation each growing season, documenting the hydrology (particularly if ditches or tiles were blocked/broken during restoration), and completing wetland delineations to verify the establishment of wetland. Monitoring reports must be submitted to the regulatory agencies annually. The typical cost of this phase ranges from $9,000 - $15,000, depending on the length and types of monitoring required. 5. Maintenance expenses – Wetland bank sites need to be maintained in perpetuity. The maintenance of a bank site typically is related to vegetation management and may include spot herbicide treatment, manual removal of invasive species, mowing, and prescribed burning. It is expected that successful bank sites will need less management as time passes; however, the ACOE recommends obtaining financial assurances for 5 – 10 years beyond construction. 6. BWSR fees – BWSR has been granted statutory authority to assess fees to administer and oversee the state wetland bank and to acquire, monitor, and enforce conservation easements for mitigation sites. There are two types of fees: bank account fees and easement fees. Bank account fees are associated with the establishment, maintenance, deposit, transfer, and withdrawal actions associated with each bank. Easement fees are associated with the acquisition, modification, or release of a conservation easement and the monitoring and enforcement of the easement. The current fees are included in the June 1, 2017 Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy document (Appendix B). It is anticipated that if the City partners with a private landowner, that bank site would be given priority. The percentage of the selling price given to the landowner would be negotiated during the planning phase of the bank. SECTION IV Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 12 IV. Discussion & Recommendations The City is committed to reaching the goals set forth in their Comprehensive Plan and Resource Management Plan. Identification of the six sites gives the City a framework through which they can prioritize restoration or acquisition plans based on an ability to fund future natural resource restoration projects. A. Future Studies The potential wetland bank sites summarized in this plan were evaluated using primarily off -site resources. Potential future studies that may be necessary to determine the actual amount of wetland banking credit possible include: • Level 2 wetland delineation to determine the actual extents of existing wetland • Botanical survey to assess the vegetative diversity of each site • MnRAM assessment to evaluate the existing and potential functional value of each site • Hydrology study to evaluate the extent of drainage in areas where ditches are present B. Coordination with Regulatory Agencies As each potential bank site is evaluated, coordination with the regulatory agencies will be necessary early on to identify potential issues or opportunities, and to ultimately approve the wetland bank plan. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) currently serves as the WCA Local Government Unit for all the identified sites and would be responsible for approving the bank through the WCA process, though the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) is anticipated to take over review and approval of banking applications in 2017. The Technical Evaluation Panel (RCWD, BWSR, Anoka Conservation District, and DNR) would also review and provide comments on any submitted banking plan. The US Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for review and approval of a wetland bank plan through their program. In addition to providing comment and ultimate approval, local agencies may also be available as project partners. Partnership opportunities could include BWSR Road Replacement or funding partnerships with RCWD or the Anoka Conservation District. C. Wetland Bank Pricing The City will set a fee annually for each wetland bank. The fee will be evaluated based on current market conditions and is expected to be an average of the prices of other local banks in the area and will be adjusted as needed to cover expenses related to the operation and maintenance of individual bank sites. D. Revolving Fund Proceeds from the sale of credits from established wetland bank s are expected to be utilized in the following sequence: 1. Fund the future maintenance of the established wetland bank (recommended 10% of the sale, to a maximum of $10,000/transaction) 2. Fund land acquisition for future bank sites 3. Fund construction/restoration of future bank sites SECTION V Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 Page 13 V. References The following sources of information were reviewed to assist in performing the wetland delineation. Literature Sources Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2009. Wetland Conservation Act Rules, Chapter 8420. Print Communication Division, St. Paul. City of Lino Lakes. 2011. “2030 Comprehensive Plan”. City of Lino Lakes. September 12, 2011. City of Lino Lakes. 2004. “Parks, Natural Open Space/Greenways, and Trail System Plan”. http://www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us/index.asp?SEC=8F6D51B8-D88A-40BA-98DA- B5805AE7C568&DE=A2373B63-7508-48A1-A507-F42A0255D30B&Type=B_BASIC (accessed February 2, 2017) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015. National Wetlands Inventory Update. https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-nat-wetlands-inv-2009-2014 (accessed February 10, 2017). RCWD and City of Lino Lakes. “Lino Lakes Resource Management Plan.” June 2008. http://www.ricecreek.org/vertical/Sites/%7BF68A5205-A996-4208-96B5- 2C7263C03AA9%7D/uploads/%7BFF3A9FA1-37C4-4CD6-B713-98FAF0BFC3D0%7D.PDF (accessed February 10, 2017). RCWD. “Rice Creek Watershed District Rules.” Rice Creek Watershed District. December 1, 2017. http://www.ricecreek.org/index.asp?SEC=3EB4B15D-CEF8-4DD4-B72E- 74F8B2D8E274&Type=B_BASIC (accessed February 10, 2017). United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Final St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota. St. Paul District Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Webs Soil Survey, Minnesota. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 APPENDIX A Figure 1 – Project Location Figure 2 – Future Land Use Figure 3 – Greenway System Figure 4 – Natural Resource Planning Systems Figure 5 – Existing Wetland Bank Locations Figure 6 – Site 1 (Winters Property) Figure 7 – Site 2 (NE Drainage Area) Figure 8 – Site 3 (Otter Lake) Figure 9 – Site 4 (12th Avenue) Figure 10 – Site 5 (Pine Glen Outlot E) Figure 11 – Site 6 (Woolans II) %&d( %&c( City of Lino Lakes City of Centerville Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 5 Site 4 Site 6 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Lino Lakes City Boundary 0 7,500Feet¯Figure 1: Project LocationNatural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig1_ProjectLocation.mxd Date Saved: 2/28/2017 1:42:04 PM1 inch = 7,500 feet General Project Location Figure 2: Future Land Use MapNatural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig2_FutureLandUse.mxd Date Saved: 2/28/2017 1:41:31 PM Figure 3: Greenway SystemNatural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig3_GreenwaySystem.mxd Date Saved: 6/1/2017 6:03:45 AM %&d( %&c( City of Lino Lakes City of Centerville Site 1Site 2 Site 3 Site 5 Site 4 Site 6 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp.,NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand),MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Potential Wetland Bank Site Lino Lakes City Boundary Natural Resource Conservation Area Wetland Preservation Corridor 0 5,000Feet¯ Figure 4: Natural Resource Planning SystemsNatural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig3_NRPlanningSystems.mxd Date Saved: 6/1/2017 5:59:59 AM1 inch = 5,000 feet Acct. No. 1122 Acct. No. 1601 %&d( %&c( City of Lino Lakes City of Centerville EnGH E¦GH EwGH Lino Lakes Existing Wetland Bank 0 1Miles¯Figure 5: Existing Wetland Bank LocationsNatural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig5_ExistingBankSites.mxd Date Saved: 7/18/2017 12:37:15 PM1 inch = 1 miles Site 1 ELMCRESTINTERSTATE 35EINTERSTATE 35EPotential Wetland Bank Site Existing Wetlands Farmed Wetlands (Potential Credit Area) 0 500Feet¯Figure 6: Site 1 (Winters Property)Natural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig6_Site1.mxd Date Saved: 6/7/2017 1:32:51 PM1 inch = 500 feet %&c( Site 2 20THGORDONOLD MILLBRIANDEERPASSPELTIER LAKEREVOIRPEL T I ERREHBEIN 77TH Potential Wetland Bank Site Created Wetland Area Existing Wetlands Farmed Wetlands (Potential Credit Area) 0 500Feet¯Figure 7: Site 2 (NE Drainage Area)Natural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig7_Site2.mxd Date Saved: 6/7/2017 1:35:00 PM1 inch = 500 feet Site 3 D EE R PA SS BALD EAGLEWHITETAILWOODCHUCKFOXTAIL WO O D C H U C K COUNTY ROAD J R E IL IN G SARGENTR OL L I N G H I L L S FOXTAILOTTER LAKE Potential Wetland Bank Site Existing Wetlands Farmed Wetlands MCBS Native Plant Community MCBS Site of Biodiversity Significance Restoration Potential High Medium Low 0 500Feet¯Figure 8: Site 3 (Otter Lake)Natural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig8_Site3.mxd Date Saved: 6/1/2017 8:16:57 AM1 inch = 500 feet Site 4 TRAPPERS BIRCH TRAPPERS A S P E N KILLDEER A S P E N CHEROKEE LANTERN TRAPPERSWHITE OAKRUFFED GROUSEVELV ET LEAF R U F F E D G R O U S E B L A C KDUCK CAPTAINS T R A P P E R SKILLDEER WHITETAIL12THPEREGRINE CASSIOPEIAPHEASANTBLACK DUCKMINERALCHOKECHERRY TRAPPERSDURANGO BUCKTHORN ROYALPINESTAMARACKRED BIRCHLANTERNWILD TURKEYHOLLYPHEASANTPotential Wetland Bank Site Restoration Potential High Medium Low Existing Wetlands Farmed Wetlands 0 500Feet¯Figure 9: Site 4 (12th Avenue)Natural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig9_Site4.mxd Date Saved: 6/1/2017 8:36:45 AM1 inch = 500 feet Site 5 RONDEAU LAKEJANELOISJAMES 81ST MAIN IN T E R S T A T E 35W IN T E R S T A T E 35WKNOLLKELLY OAK Potential Wetland Bank Site Existing Wetlands Farmed Wetlands Restoration Potential High Medium Low 0 500Feet¯Figure 10: Site 5 (Pine Glen Outlot E)Natural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig10_Site5.mxd Date Saved: 6/1/2017 8:41:58 AM1 inch = 500 feet %&d( Site 6 81STNORDINDIANELAKE ELBEDANUBEEVAAENONDIANEMAPLE PINE OAKSOLIVE ORANGE OAKLANDPotential Wetland Bank Site Acct No. 1601 Restoration Potential High Medium Low Existing Wetlands Farmed Wetlands 0 500Feet¯Figure 11: Site 6 (Woolans II)Natural Resources Revolving Fund PlanCity of Lino Lakes Document Path: K:\02988-470\GIS\Maps\Fig11_Site6.mxd Date Saved: 7/18/2017 12:56:55 PM1 inch = 500 feet %&d( Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan City of Lino Lakes WSB Project No. 2988-470 APPENDIX B 2017 Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us Policy Approved May 24, 2017 I. Background. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has been granted statutory authority to assess fees to administer and oversee the state wetland bank and to acquire, monitor, and enforce conservation easements for wetland mitigation sites. The fees consist of two types: bank account fees and easement fees. Account fees are associated with establishment, maintenance, deposit, transfer, and withdrawals actions. Easement fees are associated with the acquisition, modification, or release of a conservation easement for a mitigation site and the monitoring and enforcement of the easement once it is acquired. The statutory authority for mitigation fees is provided in Attachment A. II. Definitions. A. Account or wetland bank account. “Account or “wetland bank account” means a record of wetland banking debits and credits established by an account holder within the state wetland banking system. B. Account Holder. “Account holder” in the state wetland banking system, is a person, corporation, government agency, or organization that has the right to use/sell credits for mitigation purposes. C. Mitigation. An approved action taken under MN Rule 8420.0526 for the purpose of replacing lost wetland functions and values. D. Wetland banking credit. Replacement credits resulting from the actions in MN Rule 8420.0526 that have been certified and deposited in the wetland bank. Wetland banking credits can be sold to a third party, or used by the account holder to meet a state or federal mitigation requirement. E. Wetland mitigation credit. “Wetland mitigation credit” means a unit of measure (e.g., a functional or areal measure or other metric) representing the accrual or attainment of wetland functions at a mitigation site, or as otherwise defined in MN Rule 8420. III. Fee Structure and Procedures. A. Account Establishment and Initial Deposit Fee. This fee is assessed at the time of the first credit deposit into the wetland bank account. The Account Establishment and Initial Deposit Fee will be assessed at 6.5% of the value of the credits deposited, not to exceed $1,000. The value of the credit(s) and resulting per-credit fee will be determined according to Part III.H. B. Deposit Fees. Deposit fees will be assessed starting with the second credit deposit (the initial deposit is part of the Establishment fee). Credit deposit fees will be assessed at 6.5% of the value of the credits deposited, not to exceed a total of $1,000 per deposit. The value of the credit(s) and resulting per-credit fee will be determined according to Part III.H. Wetland credits deposited into a wetland bank account cannot be used for replacement purposes until the deposit fees have been paid. 2017 Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy Effective June 1, 2017 Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy • Page 2 Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us Requests for deposit containing all of the information required in MN Rule 8420.0725 that are received by a local government unit prior to the effective date of the Credit Fee Schedule developed under Part III.H will be subject to the deposit fees in place at the time the request was received, provided that the credits are deposited by December 31 of that calendar year. C. Account Transfer Fee. Account transfer fees will be assessed at 6.5% of the value of the credits transferred, not to exceed $1,000 per transfer. The value of the credits and resulting per-credit fee will be determined according to Part III.H. Transfer fees are assessed when credits are transferred by any means (e.g. sale, gift, donation, exchange) from one account holder to a new account holder, but not used for replacement purpose. The Wetland Bank Administrator may be contacted to verify the amount of the transfer fee. BWSR will not transfer the credits until the fee is paid. D. Withdrawal Fee. Withdrawal fees are incurred when credits are withdrawn for the purposes of wetland replacement and will be assessed at 6.5% of the value of the credits withdrawn. The value of the credits and resulting per-credit fee will be determined according to Part III.H. Credits will not be withdrawn from the account and used for wetland replacement purposes until the applicable withdrawal fees have been paid. Withdrawal transactions where a signed purchase agreement between the account holder and the buyer of the credits was received by a local government unit, as part of a complete wetland replacement plan application, prior to the effective date of the Credit Fee Schedule developed under Part III.H will be subject to the withdrawal fees in place at the time the replacement plan application was received by the local government unit, provided that the withdrawal is made by December 31 of that calendar year. E. Account Maintenance Annual Fee. Account maintenance fees will be assessed annually at 1% of the value of the credits in each account, not to exceed $500. The value of the credits and resulting per-credit fee will be determined according to Part III.H. Account maintenance fees will be assessed at the time of the first transaction (withdrawal, transfer, or deposit) of each calendar year and will be based on the credits in the account at that time. If there are no transactions in an account for the year, then no maintenance fees will be assessed for that year. The account maintenance fee will not be assessed in the same calendar year during which an establishment fee is assessed and paid. No transactions will be processed until the assessed maintenance fee has been paid. F. Easement Acquisition Fee. Each wetland mitigation easement will be assessed an easement acquisition fee of $3,400. The fee will be assessed in two installments: (1) an initial fee of $1,000 will be assessed at the time the mitigation sponsor initiates the acquisition process. BWSR will not begin the easement acquisition process until the initial fee is paid; and, (2) the balance of the easement acquisition fee ($2,400) will be assessed when BWSR prepares the conservation easement and transmits it to the landowner for signature. BWSR will not sign and accept the conservation easement until the easement acquisition fee is paid in full. The easement acquisition fee will also apply to the modification, release, or partial release of the easement at the request of the account holder and/or landowner except the total fee will be the actual cost of the easement modification or release, not to exceed to $3,400. Upon request, BWSR can provide an estimate of the total cost to modify or release the easement prior to Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy • Page 3 Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us initiating the process. The fee will be assessed in two installments with the first being the initial fee of $1,000 at the time the account holder and/or landowner submits a written request to initiate the process. The second installment is the balance of the fee based on the actual cost to BWSR to complete the process. BWSR will not sign and accept the modified conservation easement until the easement acquisition fee is paid in full. Applicants that have received a wetland bank plan approval through a local government unit notice of decision and have initiated the easement acquisition process by submitting the required paperwork to BWSR prior to June 1, 2017 will not be charged the easement acquisition fee for that bank. The easement acquisition fee will periodically be adjusted for inflation by BWSR using the U.S. Department of Labor Employment Cost Index (ECI) for Total Compensation for State and Local Government Workers (seasonally adjusted). Adjustments will be made relative to the January ECI of the year of the last adjustment (with January 2016 as the base year for the first adjustment). BWSR staff will provide notification, via a public announcement or equivalent method, of a fee adjustment no later than 30 days prior to the effective date of the fee change. G. Easement Stewardship Fee. The easement stewardship fee will provide a source of revenue to cover the costs of monitoring State-held wetland mitigation easements over time. The fee must be an amount sufficient to cover the costs of managing the easement at a level that neither significantly over recovers nor under recovers the cost to the State. The easement stewardship fee will be assessed as a per credit fee applied when credits are withdrawn from the account. The easement stewardship fee will be determined according to Part III. I. Credits will not be withdrawn from the account and used for wetland replacement purposes until the easement stewardship fee has been paid. H. Credit Value Determination. A single credit value shall be determined for each bank service area and will be used for all transactions involving credit value within that bank service area. The single credit value for each bank service area shall be calculated using a weighted average of the credit value for each county based on the total area of each county within the bank service area. The county credit value shall be calculated as the product of the land value (expressed as dollars per acre) in the county and the wetland credit value coefficient. In counties with a ratio of tillable acres to rural/vacant acres greater than 20%, the land value shall be the average agricultural ("tillable") land value. In counties with a ratio of tillable acres to rural/vacant acres less than 20%, the Rural/Vacant land value will be used in place of the average agricultural land value. In Ramsey and Hennepin counties, the county credit value shall be the average of the credit values in adjacent counties. For Ramsey this includes Washington, Anoka, and Dakota counties. For Hennepin, this includes Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Scott, and Wright counties. All land values used in the credit value determination shall be as reported by the Minnesota Department of Revenue. The wetland credit value coefficient reflects the value added to the land encompassed by the mitigation bank easement as a result of the activities completed to generate wetland credits. It is determined by BWSR based on the average ratio of credit sale price to county land value, using credit sale price information available to BWSR. Upon enactment of this policy, the Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy • Page 4 Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us coefficient shall be set at 6.0. This coefficient may be updated by BWSR Board Resolution or Policy to reflect the most recent wetland credit market values. A Credit Fee Schedule will be posted on the BWSR website that identifies the per credit fee associated with each transaction based on the single credit value for each bank service area. The Credit Fee Schedule will be updated no later than June 1 of each year by BWSR staff using land values reported by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and the credit value coefficient established by the Board. BWSR staff will provide notification, via a public announcement or equivalent method, of the Credit Fee Schedule update no later than 30 days prior to the effective date of the Schedule. I. Easement Stewardship Fee Determination. The easement stewardship fee will be determined using the following formula: 𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑎�ℎ𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑎=𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑖ℎ𝑚 𝑎𝑚𝑟𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑚𝑟∗𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑚𝑟𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑘 𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑟 𝑚𝑎 𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑎�ℎ𝑟𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑘 Where: Stewardship cost per easement is a BWSR derived estimate for monitoring, landowner contacts, records storage and management, processing landowner notices, and legal services associated with easement management activities; Average number of easements per bank is derived from the banking database and used as a multiplier to account for banks that may have multiple conservation easements and thus higher management cost; and, Average number of credits per bank is derived from the banking database and is used in the equation to arrive at a per credit fee that can be assessed when credits are withdrawn from the account. As of August 2016 the stewardship cost per easement is set at $7,800. Similar to the easement acquisition fee, this figure will periodically be adjusted for inflation by BWSR using the U.S. Department of Labor ECI for Total Compensation for State and Local Government Workers (seasonally adjusted). Adjustments will be made relative to the January ECI of the year of the last adjustment (with January 2016 as the base year for the first adjustment). BWSR staff will provide notification, via a public announcement or equivalent method, of a fee adjustment no later than 30 days prior to the effective date of the fee change. The average number of easements per bank and the average number of credits per bank used in the stewardship fee calculation also will be adjusted on a recurring basis to reflect changes in the bank program. Effective Date. Unless specifically addressed in Section III, the effective date of these wetland mitigation fees shall be June 1, 2017. Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy • Page 5 Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us Attachment A Wetland Mitigation Fee Statutory Authority 103B.103 EASEMENT STEWARDSHIP ACCOUNTS. Subdivision 1. Accounts established; sources. (a) The water and soil conservation easement stewardship account and the mitigation easement stewardship account are created in the special revenue fund. The accounts consist of money credited to the accounts and interest and other earnings on money in the accounts. The State Board of Investment must manage the accounts to maximize long-term gain. (b) Revenue from contributions and money appropriated for any purposes of the account as described in subdivision 2 must be deposited in the water and soil conservation easement stewardship account. Revenue from contributions, wetland banking fees designated for stewardship purposes by the board, easement stewardship payments authorized under subdivision 3, and money appropriated for any purposes of the account as described in subdivision 2 must be deposited in the mitigation easement stewardship account. Subd. 2. Appropriation; purposes of accounts. Five percent of the balance on July 1 each year in the water and soil conservation easement stewardship account and five percent of the balance on July 1 each year in the mitigation easement stewardship account are annually appropriated to the board and may be spent only to cover the costs of managing easements held by the board, including costs associated with monitoring, landowner contacts, records storage and management, processing landowner notices, requests for approval or amendments, enforcement, and legal services associated with easement management activities. Subd. 3. Financial contributions. The board shall seek a financial contribution to the water and soil conservation easement stewardship account for each conservation easement acquired by the board. The board shall seek a financial contribution or assess an easement stewardship payment to the mitigation easement stewardship account for each wetland banking easement acquired by the board. Unless otherwise provided by law, the board shall determine the amount of the contribution or payment, which must be an amount calculated to earn sufficient money to meet the costs of managing the easement at a level that neither significantly overrecovers nor underrecovers the costs. In determining the amount of the financial contribution, the board shall consider: (1) the estimated annual staff hours needed to manage the conservation easement, taking into consideration factors such as easement type, size, location, and complexity; (2) the average hourly wages for the class or classes of state and local employees expected to manage the easement; (3) the estimated annual travel expenses to manage the easement; (4) the estimated annual miscellaneous costs to manage the easement, including supplies and equipment, information technology support, and aerial flyovers; (5) the estimated annualized costs of legal services, including the cost to enforce the easement in the event of a violation; and (6) the expected rate of return on investments in the account. Wetland Mitigation Fee Policy • Page 6 Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources • www.bwsr.state.mn.us 103G.2242 WETLAND VALUE REPLACEMENT PLANS. Subd. 14. Fees established. (a) Fees must be assessed for managing wetland bank accounts and transactions as follows: (1) account maintenance annual fee: one percent of the value of credits not to exceed $500; (2) account establishment, deposit, or transfer: 6.5 percent of the value of credits not to exceed $1,000 per establishment, deposit, or transfer; and (3) withdrawal fee: 6.5 percent of the value of credits withdrawn. (b) The board may establish fees at or below the amounts in paragraph (a) for single-user or other dedicated wetland banking accounts. (c) Fees for single-user or other dedicated wetland banking accounts established pursuant to section103G.005, subdivision 10i, clause (4), are limited to establishment of a wetland banking account and are assessed at the rate of 6.5 percent of the value of the credits not to exceed $1,000. (d) The board may assess a fee to pay the costs associated with establishing conservation easements, or other long-term protection mechanisms prescribed in the rules adopted under subdivision 1, on property used for wetland replacement. Subd. 15 Fees Paid to Board. All fees established in subdivisions 9 and 14 must be paid to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and are annually appropriated to the board for the purpose of administration of the wetland bank and to process appeals under section 103G.2242 subdivision 9. Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan Environmental Board July 26, 2017 Meeting Topics/Materials •Background •Purpose & Goals •Existing Bank Sites •Site Selection Criteria •Individual Site Review •Credit Compensation •Recommendations Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Background •Woolans Park Complex –2009 •Wetland Credit Eligibility •5.96 acres •Future funding source •Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Purpose •To further the goals of the Greenway System development, stormwater management and water quality improvements, public open space development, and economic development by establishing a self-funding mechanism to acquire, protect, and enhance high value ecological areas. •Goals •Create a high-value greenway system •Promote economic enhancement and development •Establish a wetland bank •Ensure opportunities for replacement of wetland impacts from both private development and public projects within Lino Lakes Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Existing Banks •Bank No. 1122 •Not ACOE-approved •Bank No. 1601 (Woolans Bank) •-ACOE-approved Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site Selection •Objectives 1.Be Part of the Greenway System 2.Be ACOE-Approved Eligible 3.High and Medium Quality Restoration Potential 4.Land Ownership/Willingness of Landowners 5.TMDL Opportunities 6.Floodplain Volume Opportunities 7.Location of Drainage and Utility Easements 8.Upland Buffers Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site 1 (Winters Property) Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site 2 (Northeast Drainage Area) Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site 3 (Otter Lake) Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site 4 (12th Avenue) Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site 5 (Pine Glen Outlot E) Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Site 6 (Woolans II) Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan •Credit Compensation •City would be responsible for the sale of credits •Credit price would be evaluated annually •Cost-plus •Average credit prices •Land value •Expenses associated with wetland banks •Public/private partnerships Natural Resources Revolving Fund Plan Recommendations •Future Studies •Wetland Delineations •Botanical Surveys •MnRAM Assessments •Hydrology Studies •Agency Coordination •Rice Creek Watershed District •US Army Corps of Engineers •Board of Water and Soil Resources •Anoka Conservation District •Wetland Bank Pricing •Fee to be set annually •Based on current market conditions •Revolving Fund 1.Fund future maintenance of the established wetland bank 2.Fund land acquisition for future bank sites 3.Fund construction/restoration of future bank sites WS – Item #7 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 7 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director Re: 2018 Street Reconstruction Project – West Shadow and LaMotte Area Background On June 12, 2017 the City Council held a public hearing and took action to adopt Resolution No. 17-54 approving the 5 Year Street Reconstruction Plan (2017 – 2021). The plan includes the proposed reconstruction of the West Shadow and LaMotte Area in 2018. 4th Avenue (north of Main), Diane Street, 81 St., Elbe St. and Danube St are proposed for reconstruction in 2021. The plan was subject to a reverse referendum process which allows city residents to submit a petition to request an election on the plan. The petitioning period closed on July 12, 2017 and no petition was received. As a result the council may consider moving forward with the proposed 2018 improvements. The next step in the process will be to authorize preparation of plans and specifications. WSB, City Engineer, has submitted a proposal to provide these services. The proposal includes: • Site data collection including topographic survey, well and septic system survey, sump pump investigation, soil borings and evaluation, and culture resources review. • Preliminary and Final Design plans for street, storm, water and sanitary sewer improvements. Design includes culvert replacement as well as proposed stormwater lift station on West Shadow. • ROW/easement acquisition services including title research, owner meetings, acquisition reports, and document preparation. (Additional services may be required depending on the scope and complexity of any proposed acquisition). • Public Involvement and communications including neighborhood meetings and project website. The proposed fee for services is $506,220. The estimated construction cost is $5,612,000 including both sanitary sewer and water improvements. Total project cost, including construction contingencies, engineering, legal and administrative costs is approximately $6,970,000. The inclusion of sanitary sewer and water in the project will be determined during the final design process following additional neighborhood discussion and review. Once authorized WSB will begin the data collection process including the topo survey and septic/well inventory on the project. Neighborhood meetings would soon follow. We are currently proposing to construct the culvert replacement along West Shadow between the lakes as a winter project. Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting council direction to place the authorization for preparation of plans and specification on the August 14 City Council agenda. Attachments 1. WSB Proposal Task Summary HoursStandard Base Fee Non‐Standard FeeHoursStandard Base Fee Non‐Standard FeeHoursStandard Base Fee Non‐Standard FeePreliminary Design & Survey 313 42,572$ 134 18,245$ 447 60,817$ Well & Septic System Survey 142 15,160$ 142 15,160$ Sump Pump Investigation 132 14,070$ 132 14,070$ ROW/Easement Review 12 1,856$ 12 1,856$ Geotechnical Borings & Evaluation 32 5,629$ 14 2,413$ 46 8,042$ Cultural Resource Review (Subconsultant) 3,000$ 3,000$ 6,000$ Sub‐Total ‐ Phase 1499 42,572$ 25,645$ 280 18,245$ 19,483$ 779 60,817$ 45,128$ Roadway & Drainage 958 107,167$ 958 107,167$ Stormwater Lift Station 264 27,720$ 264 27,720$ ROW/Easement Acquisition 264 38,132$ 264 38,132$ Title Work (Subconsultant) 3,500$ 3,500$ Water & Sewer 329 37,375$ 329 37,375$ ‐$ Culvert Replacement 243 30,268$ 243 30,268$ ‐$ Roadway, Drainage, Sewer 445 49,767$ 445 49,767$ ‐$ Sub‐Total ‐ Phase 22,057 174,810$ 69,352$ 445 49,767$ ‐$ 2,502 224,576$ 69,352$ Culvert Replacement 319 35,722$ 319 35,722$ ‐$ Street, Drainage, & Utilities 397 49,437$ 170 21,187$ 567 70,624$ ‐$ Sub‐Total ‐ Phase 3716 85,159$ ‐$ 170 21,187$ ‐$ 886 106,347$ ‐$ Total 3,272 302,541$ 94,997$ 895 89,199$ 19,483$ 4,167 391,740$ 114,480$ Grand Total (Both Projects)506,220$ Phase 2 ‐ Final Design & PermittingPhase 3 ‐ Construction Documents & Bidding ProcessCity of Lino Lakes ‐ Engineering Services SummaryWest Shadow Lake Project LaMotte Area Project TotalPhase 1 ‐ Preliminary Design & Data Collection WS – Item 8 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 8 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson Re: CFD Unemployment Case Update Background On January 4, 2017, the City of Lino Lakes was notified by the Minnesota Department of Employment that former CFD firefighter, Michael Schweigert, had filed for unemployment benefits. Schweigert’s last day of employment with the Centennial Fire District was December 14, 2016. The base period, used to determine Schweigert’s unemployment benefits, was 07/01/2015 through 06/30/2016, his four highest earning quarters. Based on this determination, the City would have been responsible for a maximum charge of $8,260. The City appealed the determination on the basis that applicant was not a City of Lino Lakes employee. Following the first hearing, the initial decision by the unemployment judge was that Schweigert was employed by the City of Lino Lakes because Schweigert’s pay and benefits were administered by the City from November 17, 2012, to January 30, 2016. The City filed a Request of Reconsideration by citing nine instances where the judge’s decision was factually inaccurate. The City was granted a second hearing with another judge, who ruled that Schweigert’s wage credits during his base period were all from employment with CFD. Subsequently, the Centennial Fire District appealed the second judge’s decision and lost. Since Lino Lakes was still in the District for two quarters of the base period, CFD still expects Lino Lakes to contribute at least $3,646.40, based on Schweigert’s actual benefit of $10,600. CFD’s attorney and City Attorney Joe Langel disagree as to the application of the Joint Powers Agreement. Mr. Langel argued that Schweigert’s unemployment occurred long after Lino Lakes withdrew from the District, and unless this was addressed before Lino Lakes’ separation, the City cannot be held responsible for Schweigert’s unemployment when it had no say in the matter. Mr. Langel also pointed out that CFD is seeking to insert language in the JPA that does not exist. Circle Pines City Administrator Patrick Antonen indicated the CFD Steering Committee will move forward with a lawsuit if the Lino Lakes City Council elects not to pay its “fair share.” Requested Council Direction Staff is looking for direction as to how to respond to Centennial Fire District. Attachments July 24, 2017, Email from Circle Pines Administrator Patrick Antonen WS – Item #9 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 9 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Julie Bartell Re: Peddler Regulations Background The council has indicated that they would like to review the city’s regulations, and specifically fees, for door-to-door sales. As background information for the council’s discussion, find attached: - Fee survey (license fees charged by other cities); - An information memorandum prepared by the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the regulation of peddlers, solicitors and transient merchants; - A fact sheet regarding the City’s regulations; - Chapter 613 of the City Code. Requested Council Direction It is the council’s prerogative to adopt and/or amend City regulations. City Amount Length Hanover $50 Lakeville $50 Annually Austin $10 Day/$25 Week Week and Day Alexandria $100 per location? Shoreview $100 60 Days Kasson $30 Chaska $40 St. Cloud $145 + $17 Additional Person + $70 Investigation Fee Faribault $35.00 Inver Grove Heights $50 per peddler’s license + $10 for Peddler Photo ID card and $50 per person for background check 1 Year Rosemount $90 for the first 3 people with the same business, and $20 for each additional person January - December New Brighton $80 Monthly Kenyon Investigation Fee: $100 Permit Fee: $100 per day or $500 Annual Mobile Merchant Fee: $75 per year Day or Year Otsego $100 Annually South St. Paul Peddler: $100 per Applicant Plus $25 Annually Investigative Fee Per Applicant Solicitor: $100 Company Registration and $75 per Applicant Watertown $100 Golden Valley $30 Per Person Farmington $65 per person Temporary (up to 6 months) - $45/person Annually Savage $100 per applicant Mounds View $61 per day $204 per month $510 per year Investigation fee, per new peddler / solicitor $15 I.D. Card $5.00 per person Day/Month/Year St. Peter Investigation Fee: $50 Annual License $375 Six Month License $200 Daily License - $ 50 Daily/6 Month/ Annual Ham Lake $30 6 Months Elko – New Market $65 per person Year Brainerd $200 Year Andover $50.00 $100.00 Week/Month Lino Lakes $250 per company/No limit on people/includes backgrounds 6 Months This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 1/4/2016 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651)281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2016 All Rights Reserved INFORMATION M EMO Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Describes possible ways cities can regulate peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Learn how to differentiate between the persons and practices in order to avoid legal challenges. Understand the meaning of reasonable regulations that do not violate any rights protected by the state or federal constitutions. Contains easy-to-use charts and links to a sample ordinance. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Why regulate peddlers, solicitors or transient merchants Peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants can provide benefits and challenges to cities and their residents. They provide an opportunity to bring interested parties (such as buyers and sellers, or donors and charitable, religious or nonprofit organizations) together. However, they can also cause problems not typically associated with permanently established local businesses. Bad experiences can lead disgruntled home and business owners to contact their local officials demanding relief, including: •Protection from fraud, scam artists, and other unwanted intrusions. •Prevention of crimes and unlawful activities. •A direct city response to their uneasiness and need for safety in the community. Minnesota cities have the authority, both specifically within the state statutes and under their general police powers, to regulate the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. However, this authority is not absolute. Regulations must be “reasonable” and not violate any rights protected by the state or federal constitutions. II.Classifications State and local governments have used different terms to describe individuals who travel city-to-city or door-to-door offering products and services for sale, or expressing ideological and religious beliefs. Among the most commonly used names for those participating in these general practices include: See Part II-section A Peddlers. See Part II-section B Solicitors and canvassers. See Part II-section C Transient merchants. •Peddlers. •Solicitors. •Transient merchants. •Hawkers. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 2 •Canvassers. •Advocates. •Itinerant vendors. •Hucksters. •Proselytizers. •Door-to-door salespersons. •Drummers. •Missionaries. See Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. Such terms (and others) are generally defined by state statute or city ordinance. Language is often used interchangeably, but may be applied differently depending on the relevant jurisdiction involved. Despite the use of these various terms for generally similar practices, there are fundamental differences in actual operations that affect a local government’s ability to regulate a particular type of activity. A.Peddlers City of St. Paul v. Briggs, 85 Minn. 290, 88 N.W. 984 (1902). A peddler is generally described as someone who: •Travels about from place to place with no fixed place of business. •Carries the actual merchandise offered for sale, not merely samples of such products. •Sells the merchandise at the time it is offered for sale. •Delivers the merchandise at the time the sale is consummated. •Sells to the ultimate consumer and not to a retail establishment for an expected resale of the merchandise. Also commonly known as hawkers, peddlers carry the actual products offered for sale from place to place. See Part V-Local regulations. Cities generally have the authority to either license or register peddlers who wish to operate within the city’s jurisdiction. See Part IV-section C Commerce Clause. See Part II-section B Solicitors and canvassers. The licensing or regulation of peddlers usually does not raise constitutional concerns under the Commerce Clause because both product delivery and payment occur during the initial interaction. With peddling, goods are not typically shipped into the local jurisdiction for delivery at a later date and time. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 3 B.Solicitors and canvassers Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). See Edwards v. City of Reno, 103 Nev. 347, 742 P.2d 486 (1987). A solicitor also engages in door-to-door activities. However, unlike a peddler, a merchant solicitor goes from place to place and only obtains orders for goods or services that will be delivered or performed at a later date. Solicitors do not carry the merchandise they are offering for sale with them. Most often, a solicitor will use samples, or carry catalogues illustrating the goods or services available. All Parks Alliance for Change v. Uniprop Manufactured Housing Cmtys. Income Fund, 732 N.W.2d 189 (Minn. 2007). Although this memo often uses the terms “solicitors” and “solicitation” interchangeably with “canvassers” and “canvassing,” canvassing refers to the practice of going from location to location with the primary purpose of furthering religious, social, or political advocacy. Unlike solicitors, financial profit is not the canvassers’ primary motivation. A canvasser (sometimes known as an advocate) may: •Ask for signatures on a petition. •Request support for a political candidate or position. •Espouse religious beliefs or causes. •Seek donations, organization memberships, or other financial support for their religious, social, or political organizations. •Take orders for goods, to be delivered at a later time, in order to raise money for a non-profit or other charitable organization’s operations. See Part IV-Constitutional implications. The regulation of these types of door-to-door advocates involves many basic constitutional rights, including a canvasser’s freedom of speech and possibly freedom of religion, a solicitor’s Commerce Clause protections, and a homeowner’s privacy and property rights. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Although statutory cities are specifically provided the power to “restrain or license and regulate” solicitors and canvassers (most home rule charter cities have similar language within their charters), most legal authorities suggest their authority is actually more limited. See Part IV-section C Commerce Clause. A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Jan. 13, 1961). See Part V-section G Registration. The major restriction on local licensing of solicitors is the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Minnesota attorney general has advised that because states are prohibited from interfering with interstate commerce, local governments cannot collect license fees from solicitors who take orders in one state for goods to be delivered in the future from another state. In contrast, a municipal ordinance requiring all solicitors, including interstate merchants, to simply register with local authorities before engaging in their business activities may be a reasonable local regulation of interstate commerce. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 4 See Part IV-section A Freedom of speech. And while most canvassing activities do not raise concerns under the commerce clause, these activities likely raise protections under the First Amendment. If the activity is pure advocacy (the expression of one’s views or religious principles), a local unit of government cannot impose a prior restraint, such as obtaining a license or registration before engaging in the activity. Unfortunately, it is less clear what regulations, if any, may be enacted when the canvassing involves the sale of goods and services that will be provided at a later date. So, while the city can license peddlers and transient merchants, it probably should not license most solicitors or canvassers. C.Transient merchants A transient merchant is someone who demonstrates the traits of both a peddler and the typical permanent business. Transient merchants are regulated under state law. Minn. Stat. § 329.099. A transient merchant is: •Any person, individual, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation. •That sells goods, wares, or merchandise. •From a vehicle, portable shelter, vacant building, structure, lot, or railroad car. •With the intent to remain in business at any one location for a limited period of time, usually no more than a few weeks. Minn. Stat. § 329.099. Pursuant to state statute, a “transient merchant” does not include the seller or exhibitor in a firearms collection show involving two or more sellers or exhibitors. Minn. Stat. § 329.10. Minn. Stat. § 329.11. Transient merchants are not allowed to begin their business operations without first applying for and obtaining a county-issued license. (In practice, however, a county may not be issuing such licenses.) The license application will include: •The applicant’s name. •The proposed place of business. •The type or manner of business to be conducted. •How long the business will operate at that location. Minn. Stat. § 329.11. A transient merchant pays a county license fee of $150 and provides a bond in an amount not less than $1,000, but no more than $3,000. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 5 The bond is conditioned on the merchant conforming to all laws relating to transient merchants, complying with all material oral or written statements and representations made in regard to merchandise offered for sale, as well as on the faithful performance of any warranties made with the merchandise. Minn. Stat. § 329.13. Minn. Stat. § 329.17. When goods are brought into the state by a nonresident and it is claimed that such stock is to be sold at reduced prices, it is considered prima facie (“on its face”) evidence that the person (partnership or corporation) selling those goods is a transient merchant. Anyone acting in violation of these requirements is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Minn. Stat. § 437.02. In addition, statutory and home rule charter cities have the specific authority to adopt ordinances to regulate, control, and license transient merchants, as well as provide criminal penalties for violating city regulations. State ex rel. Greenwood v. Nolan, 108 Minn. 170, 122 N.W. 255 (1909). State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Licensing or other city ordinances regulating transient merchants must apply uniformly to all transient dealers regardless of residence, locale, or otherwise. 94 A.L.R. 1076. A volume of legal authority recognizes classifications based on the temporary nature of transient merchants as valid, and finds that it is proper to distinguish between temporary enterprises and permanently established businesses. D.Commercial vs. non-commercial In addition to categorizing conduct as peddling, soliciting, or transient merchant sales, these activities also need to be evaluated as to whether they are commercial or non-commercial in nature. See LMC information memo, Public Nuisances. Often, the action or conduct is a nuisance and possibly a violation of city ordinance. In reality, it is not that easy to define community concerns and tolerances. To illustrate the practical differences involved, consider: •The resident, unbothered when non-profits ring the doorbell selling candy bars, but infuriated when a vacuum salesperson comes calling. •The resident, who doesn’t mind the vacuum salesperson who maintains an office on Main Street, but doesn’t want to be disturbed by similar salespersons who live and work in another city, county, or state. •The resident who pretends to be out whenever a member of a particular religious group knocks on the door, just wanting to talk about their beliefs, but opens her door when the parish priest or pastor stops by seeking donations for the church’s latest initiative. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 6 These scenarios describe what seem to be very similar activities, which would seem to require the same manner of regulation. The community may, however, be tempted to regulate certain groups and organizations in a more stringent manner simply because they consider those groups distasteful. See Part IV-Constitutional implications. The particular entity involved (business, church, political candidate or party, or local charity), the activity (the sale of goods or services, political campaigning, or preaching), and purpose behind that activity (for-profit or merely incidental to non-profit’s purpose), are all relevant when determining whether local regulations apply. Cities need to be careful that their regulations are applied evenly with the appropriate category or grouping. III.Local authority Handbook, Chapter 11. Handbook, Chapter 12. Cities, counties, and other units of local government have substantial regulatory powers. Although a local government’s licensing and regulatory authority is necessary to promote and protect the general welfare, they can often provoke conflicts between public and private interests. See Part IV-Constitutional implications. Local regulations may also impact an individual’s constitutional rights. Since resolving these clashes is often a difficult task, the proper application of the city’s licensing and regulatory authority is critical. A.Scope of authority Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Minn. Stat. § 437.02. Despite specific statutory authority authorizing the regulation (or prohibition) of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, and years of judicial interpretation, there is some uncertainty about the actual scope of a city’s authority to license or regulate. While it is fairly clear cities cannot ban certain classes of transient activities, it is far from clear how far their regulations may go. B.Regulations—in general Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). See Part III-section C Time, place, and manner. The government’s interest in regulating door-to-door and transient merchant activities is generally two-fold: 1) To ensure residents’ privacy rights in their homes; and 2) To protect residents from fraud and other crimes. Regulations take different forms, from elaborate licensing schemes, to more simple requirements such as registering with the police department and agreeing to abide by time, place, and manner restrictions. State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907). New Jersey Good Humor, Inc., v. Bd. Of Comm’rs, 11 A.2d 113 (N.J. 1940). With few exceptions, city regulations should seek to control only the nuisance aspects of a particular type of business, not outlaw the activity completely. However, if certain businesses involve a fraudulent scheme designed to trap the unsuspecting citizen, a city may go as far as a prohibition, though that may be difficult to prove. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 7 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989). Cities need to be mindful that their regulations need to be: •Content neutral. (A city generally cannot target or treat individuals differently because of who they are or for their particular message). •Narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest. •Open for alternative methods for the same or similar communications to occur. C.Time, place, and manner Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989). State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907). Cities have some discretion in regulating the time, place, and manner in which peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants operate. If a restriction is not content-based, a city may impose reasonable restrictions. The city’s discretion is not, however, absolute. Bd. of Trs. Of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 3028 (1989). Working America v. City of Bloomington, 2015 WL 6756089 ---F. Supp.3d --- (8th Cir. 2015). Cities need to consider a restriction’s general effect and be able to demonstrate a “reasonable fit” between the government’s end (i.e., to preserve privacy in one’s home; prevent fraud, theft, or other crimes) and the means that they have decided to use to accomplished those goals (i.e., background checks, registration, or bonding). Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Mentor-on-the-Lake, 272 F. Supp. 2d 671 (N.D. Ohio 2003). ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1983). Local restrictions are generally reviewed by the courts using a test that has been defined as intermediate scrutiny (Is an important governmental interest furthered substantially by the regulation used?). However if the restriction is not content neutral (i.e., only applies to a particular group or specific activity), it will be subject to a more stringent test known as strict scrutiny (Is there a compelling governmental interest? Is the regulation narrowly tailored to achieve that interest? Is that regulation the least restrictive way possible to accomplish that goal?). In providing time, place, or manner restrictions, the local authority recognizes that sometimes it is the method, and not the activity itself, that will affect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents. By providing guidelines on acceptable methods, the needs of residents and merchants (or canvassers) can often be accommodated. 1.Time Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Mentor-on-the-Lake, 272 F. Supp. 2d 671 (N.D. Ohio 2003). City of Watseka v. Illinois Pub. Action Council, 796 F.2d 1547 (7th Cir. 1986). City regulations often include restrictions that limit the time during which door-to-door activities may occur. For instance, regulations often prohibit uninvited calls that are too early in the morning or too late at night. As with all regulations, time restrictions must be reasonable, affording peddlers and solicitors a reasonable period of time for their activities. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 8 ACORN v. City of Frontenac, 714 F.2d 813 (8th Cir. 1983). Time restrictions should be content neutral (applying to all door-to-door calls and narrowly tailored to fit the city’s interests). Working America v. City of Bloomington, 2015 WL 6756089 ---F. Supp.3d --- (8th Cir. 2015). A city must be careful not to be so restrictive when establishing permissible hours that the average working person would never be home or available. 2.Place Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453 (1965). Cities can establish provisions that prohibit peddlers and transient merchants from conducting their operations at locations that would be harmful to the community. A common example of a place regulation would be reasonable location restrictions that prevent traffic hazards or interference with movement on streets and sidewalks. 3.Manner Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746 (1989). Cities can also provide reasonable prohibitions on the manner or techniques used by peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Common examples of manner regulations would be to prohibit or restrict the use of: •Whistles. •Air horns. •Megaphones. •Amplifiers. •Other loud noise devices. •Flashing or strobe lights. •Other devices that may be used to attract attention to the merchant, yet would have a demonstrable negative impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 4.Alternative methods – door hangers U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 110 S. Ct. 3115 (1990). Not all transient merchant activities include face-to-face interactions. An example of “alternative” activities is leaving donation request forms, restaurant menus, or other order forms on a residence’s doorknob or on the windshield of a vehicle. If there is no actual contact with the homeowner, common concerns with solicitors and peddlers (invasion of privacy, fraud, or criminal activity) and the justifications for city regulations diminish. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). See Part III-section H Modified Green River ordinances. However, the use of door hangers or other leaflets may trigger a city’s authority in regard to regulating the amount of garbage accumulating on city streets and sidewalks. One remedy allows citizens to themselves indicate whether they are willing to entertain these merchants at their residences. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 9 D.Licensing—authority See Handbook, Chapter 11. See Part V-section C Applications – background checks. A license is a regulatory device used to ensure compliance with regulations governing a specific occupation, profession, commercial trade, or other activity. The authority to regulate includes the power to establish standards and minimum requirements for meeting those standards. Licensing is typically a formal process with an application, fee, and council or city administration determining whether the applicant meets all licensing requirements. Background checks are common. Licensing is an exercise of police power (protecting and promoting the public welfare). Cities have adequate authority for licensing as long as it is: •Constitutional. •Reasonable. •Not specifically pre-empted by state or federal regulations. Minn. Stat. § 329.10. Minn. Stat. § 329.17. It is unlawful for transient merchants to operate without first obtaining a county-issued license. Failure to obtain a county license, or violation of any licensing requirement, is a gross misdemeanor offense. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 19. Minn. Stat. § 329.11. Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Minn. Stat. § 437.02. Minnesota cities have authority from statutes and from court decisions to regulate peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. Statutory cities and counties have the express statutory authority to license and regulate transient merchants, including peddlers and solicitors. Home rule charter cities also have the express authority to regulate these activities (charters themselves often provide specific authority as well). When a county license is required, cities may regulate above and beyond the requirements for county licensure. E.Licensing—exceptions There are several particular trades or activities that are exempt from local licensing based upon the U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, state statute, or judicial decisions. 1.Farm products Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 7. The Minnesota Constitution prohibits the licensing of farmers selling the products cultivated from their own farms. This constitutional exemption would apply to individuals who go door-to-door in a manner typically associated with the normal operations of a peddler. This farm-product exemption also applies to transient merchant operations and prohibits local licensing requirements for those farmers who are operating roadside fruit or vegetable stands. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 10 State v. Hartmann¸ 700 N.W.2d 449 (Minn. 2005). The farm-product exception is limited to products “cultivated” at a farm or garden. In one case, sales of meat were found to be exempt from licensing because the meat was a product of the farm, but not necessary exempt from meat inspection requirements. State ex rel. Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 123 N.W. 408 (1909). This exception cannot be expanded to exempt all persons who make or produce what they are selling from the city’s licensing requirements. It would not be appropriate, for example, to require peddlers and transient merchants who sell industrially manufactured handbags to obtain a city license, but exempt anyone who goes door-to-door selling bags they produced themselves. 2.Other exemptions Minn. Stat. § 329.14. There are additional exemptions to local licensing requirements, including: Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). •Initial contacts to establish delivery routes for perishables. •Businesses making deliveries on regular routes. •Delivery of newspapers. •Wholesalers making direct sales to retail establishments. •Sales made pursuant to invitation issued by an owner or legal occupant. •A seller or exhibitor in a firearms collection show involving two or more sellers or exhibitors. The general nature of these operations (occurring on a fixed schedule, possibly daily; generally upon occupant’s invitation), significantly reduces the chances that they will become nuisances, injuring the general public. F.Green River ordinances As an alternative to licensing, many municipalities across the country have adopted what is commonly referred to as a “Green River” ordinance, prohibiting the door-to-door activities of most transient salespersons. Town of Green River v. Fuller Brush Co., 65 F.2d 112, (10th Cir. 1933). Town of Green River v. Bunger, 50 Wyo. 52, 58 P.2d 456 (1936). Day v. Klein, 225 Miss. 191, 82 So.2d 831 (1955). The Green River approach (named after the city in which it was first used and upheld by the courts) makes it a nuisance to go onto private property and peddle or solicit orders for goods or merchandise, unless the owner or legal occupant extended an actual or implied invitation to the seller. This approach does not apply to soliciting the sale of personal services or to solicitations at places of business. Violations are misdemeanor offenses and punishable by a fine and possible imprisonment. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. 35 A.L.R.2d 355. Other usual methods for seeking business remain. The sale of goods is not specifically prohibited, only a particular method or practice. For example, solicitors may still gain access to homes by appointments made by mail, telephone, or e-mail inquiry. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 11 35 A.L.R.2d 355. However, some courts in other jurisdictions have invalidated Green River ordinances when they considered: •The prohibited conduct involves lawful businesses. •Many useful articles cannot be sold except through home solicitations. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. These ordinances denounce and prohibit the habitual acts of these merchants; a single uninvited act of solicitation or peddling at a private residence may not be found to violate the intent of these ordinances. However, attempting to evade the ordinance by approaching a private residence, only asking for an invitation to come back later to sell or solicit an order for goods, has been found to be a prohibited practice. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’tt, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). It is doubtful that a Green River ordinance can prohibit constitutionally protected door-to-door advocacy. A common example of such a practice would be an individual engaged in religious-related sales, such as religious literature. G.Licensing vs. Green River State v. Northwest Airlines, 213 Minn. 395, 7 N.W.2d 691 (1942). Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S. Ct. 920 (1951). Project 80’s, Inc. v. City of Pocatello, 942 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1991). While licensing ordinances are a tested and legally sound method of regulation, Minnesota courts have never directly addressed the validity of a Green River ordinance (but there have been indirect indications that these ordinances are valid under the Minnesota Constitution). Although upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and never expressly overruled, subsequent federal courts had found Green River ordinances to be an unconstitutional restriction on protected speech (including commercial speech) and other state courts have struck down such ordinances for violating rights under state constitutions. H.Modified Green River ordinances There is an additional, alternative method of city action that both regulates the nuisance aspects prohibited by a Green River ordinance and recognizes the benefits of certain door-to-door activities. Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 63 S. Ct. 862 (1943). A modified version of the Green River ordinance authorizes homeowners to prohibit peddlers and solicitors by posting a sign indicating they do not want to be disturbed. It is a misdemeanor offense to violate that declaration. People v. Bohnke, 287 N.Y. 154, 38 N.E. 2d 478 (1941). This type of ordinance applies to solicitors engaged in interstate commerce, as well as to peddlers or solicitors engaging in the sale or distribution of religious materials, because the critical actor (the one creating the prohibition) is the individual property owner or tenant, not the city. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 12 Courts have consistently held that the Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to go freely onto private property for the purpose of any kind of sales or solicitations, irrespective of the owner or occupant’s wishes. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). The modified Green River approach, particularly when combined with some manner of city licensing, is probably the most effective means of controlling the problems associated with peddlers and solicitors. Despite concerns over the validity of the standard Green River ordinance, specifically when constitutional rights are involved, it appears more conclusive that an ordinance may prohibit peddling or soliciting when individuals post signs indicating they do not want to be disturbed by sales or solicitations. IV.Constitutional implications Many municipal regulations have been struck down for violating constitutional protections. Most often, challenges to city peddler, solicitor, or transient merchant regulations are based on alleged violations of: •Freedom of speech. •Equal protection. •Commerce Clause. •Freedom of religion. See Part IV-section A-2 Commercial speech & Part IV-section A-3 Non- commercial speech. Because concerns over these and other constitutional rights are often raised by local regulation of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, courts must balance the rights of these individuals against the government’s interests to protect the citizens’ rights to privacy, prevention of crimes, and avoidance of frauds. A court’s decision often hinges on whether the contested speech benefits commercial or noncommercial purposes. Attempts to regulate individuals going place-to-place, their primary purpose to exercise their constitutional rights, may be a losing battle. A.Freedom of speech U.S. Const. amend. I. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S. Ct. 146 (1939). The First Amendment provides that communications are generally protected from censorship by the government. Social, political, and religious door-to- door canvassing that does not involve the solicitation of money or the sale of goods (a commercial purpose) is among the most protected activities under the First Amendment. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976). State v. Century Camera, 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981). Commercial speech is also provided with limited protections; protections “commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values.” This allows for some governmental regulations that would not be permitted if noncommercial speech was involved. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 13 1.Prior restraint A prior restraint is a government attempt, either through a total ban or as a consequence of local licensing, to suppress communications before they can reach the general public. Concerns with prior restraint are demonstrated by the situation where a government official is provided absolute discretion in granting or denying a permit and, ultimately, whether the speech is allowed to occur. Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement¸ 505 U.S. 123, 112 S. Ct. 2395 (1992). To avoid claims of unbridled restraint and violations of the individual’s (or organization’s) freedom of speech, the local ordinance must: •Contain narrow, objective, and definite standards used to guide the licensing authority. •Provide limits on the time within which the licensing authority has to make its determination. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S. Ct. 596 (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the lack of such basic requirements “evils that will not be tolerated.” 2.Commercial speech State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976). Commercial speech typically does no more than propose a business transaction. As distinguished from religious, political, or social speech, where the dialogue may include the sharing of a viewpoint on an issue, commercial forms of expression generally relate to economic interests. Limited First Amendment protections have been extended to speech that “does no more than propose a commercial transaction.” Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980). Regulations on commercial speech are subject to a four-part test: •Is the proposed activity protected by the First Amendment to the extent that it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading? The First Amendment does not protect false or misleading commercial speech. •Are the asserted governmental interests substantial? A local government’s interests in privacy, crime prevention, and fraud are usually considered sufficient “substantial interests.” •Does the regulation directly advance the asserted governmental interests? If the purpose of the regulation is to prohibit fraud, there must be a link between that regulation and the prevention of fraud, not mere happenstance. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 14 •Is the regulation not more extensive than necessary to serve those interests? While court decisions indicate use of the least restrictive means to achieve the government’s interest, the absolutely least severe restriction possible is not required. If the ordinance fails this four-part test, it is more likely a violation of the merchant’s freedom of speech. 3.Non-commercial speech Non-commercial speech occurs in many forms. Often, it is the exercise of First Amendment rights by sharing religious or political information during doorstep conversations or distributing door hangers, flyers, and other written materials. Cities generally cannot require all religious, social, or political solicitors to obtain a license or register when the primary purpose behind their activities is to share a viewpoint. Despite the ideological or constitutional differences between commercial and non-commercial conduct, many homeowners don’t value or draw such distinctions. A person who does not want to be disturbed by salespeople may also find charitable canvassing a nuisance. Additionally, some “non- commercial” speech is fraudulent or criminal in purpose. Cities have difficulties when non-commercial solicitors are, to some degree, also engaging in commercial activity (selling candy bars, raffle tickets, or religious publications). In the past, local regulations and the courts have examined specific conduct to determine if: •The activity is primarily commercial in nature and subject to local regulations on peddlers, solicitors, or transient merchants. •The sale is secondary to the expression of a belief or position and falls within constitutional protections and outside certain local regulations. 77 A.L.R.2d 1216. Vill. of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 444 U.S. 620, 100 S. Ct. 826 (1980). Local regulations have been upheld when they apply only to transactions of a commercial nature and distinguish, for example, the evangelist selling or taking orders for materials that support or further his beliefs. From a practical and conservative perspective, non-commercial advocacy is often peppered with some level of commercial activity. Often, despite the incidental commercial activities involved, the entire “speech” is generally protected. Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 108 S. Ct. 2667 (1988). Regulations that apply to non-commercial door-to-door solicitations must be narrowly drafted to meet the legitimate interests of the city and not significantly prohibit otherwise protected activities. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 15 B.Equal protection U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Minn. Const. art. I, § 2. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. This protection is additionally reinforced under the Minnesota Constitution. A local government cannot generally favor one group over another. Equal protection concerns arise when: •Local regulations treat in-state (“locals”) different than out-of-state merchants. •City-based merchants are treated differently than other in-state businesspeople. •Within general definitions for peddlers, solicitors, or transient merchants, groups of merchants are distinguished from one another. •Local regulations specifically allow the door-to-door or transient sale of one type of product or service, but prohibit the similar sale of another. 112 A.L.R. 63. Kalra v. State of Minnesota, 580 F. Supp. 971 (D. Minn. 1983). State statutes or city ordinances that discriminate against non-residents by refusing to grant them a license (or grant licenses on different terms) are generally unconstitutional. The courts have indicated non-citizens also fall within the coverage of the equal protection clause. State ex rel. Greenwood v. Nolan, 108 Minn. 170, 122 N.W. 255 (1909). Minnesota courts invalidated a city ordinance that discriminated between resident and nonresident peddlers since such restrictions denied nonresidents the privileges enjoyed by resident citizens. 94 A.L.R. 1076. State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Regulations that apply only to nonresidents are likely void. For example, an ordinance requiring a transient merchant from outside the county to post a bond was invalidated because it violated the non-resident’s equal protection rights. That court would not follow the assumption that salespersons living within the county were solvent and financially responsible, but individuals residing elsewhere would not satisfy a possible civil judgment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900 (1940). Cities should be able to provide for their community’s general welfare without invading an individual’s rights. Unless there is a clear, definable grounds for making a distinction (an almost certain adverse impact to the public), such divisions are not permissible. C.Commerce Clause U.S. Const. art. 1, § 8, cl. 3. City of Waseca v. Braun, 206 Minn. 154, 288 N.W. 229 (1939). The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the exclusive authority to regulate trade between the states. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 16 This provision both: (1) grants the federal government a tremendous amount of authority over what would otherwise be local issues; and (2) limits what cities may do when their regulations might affect the movement of goods between states. The Commerce Clause substantially impacts the regulation of itinerant salespersons by local governments. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 114 S. Ct. 1677 (1994). Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 104 S. Ct. 3049 (1984). The Commerce Clause prohibits state and local laws that promote local economic protection. An ordinance may establish local protectionism because of either a discriminatory purpose or discriminatory effect. The U.S. Supreme Court has invalided regulations that: Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (1870). •Required only nonresident merchants to obtain licenses. •Charged higher fees to nonresidents. •Prohibited merchants from using nonresidents as salespersons. These decisions are based in part upon the belief that the government may not prevent someone from traveling state-to-state to earn a living. Oregon Waste Sys. Inc. v. Dept. of Envtl. Quality of the State of Or., 511 U.S. 93, 114 S.Ct. 1345 (1994). State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). A local regulation is discriminatory if it provides different treatment to in- state and out-of-state economic interests, benefiting the former and burdening the later. Restrictions that discriminate on interstate commerce are virtually per se invalid. For example, just as with equal protection challenges, a city ordinance that only required nonresident transient merchants to post a bond was an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and unconstitutional. State v. Schmidt, 280 Minn. 281, 159 N.W.2d 113 (1968). Courts have held that formal licensing procedures and fees for solicitors, involved in interstate commerce (orders delivered from a different state at a later time) amount to an undue burden on commerce and violate the U.S. Constitution. Since residents and non-residents must be treated equally under the law, a prohibition on regulating out-of-state merchants creates a situation where in-state merchants may not be licensed as well. Wagner v. Covington, 251 U.S. 95, 40 S. Ct. 93 (1919). Peddlers and transient merchants have their goods within the state before the commercial transaction begins. Because of this, cities that license these classifications are not affecting interstate commerce. D.Freedom of religion U.S. Const. amend. I. Minn. Const. art. I, § 16. Freedom of religion is a constitutionally-protected right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness v. City of Houston, 689 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1982). Various forms of conduct can fall within an individual’s freedom of religion, from pure speech, the sale of religious materials, or the request for donations. Cities must use caution when attempting to regulate religious solicitors because of their First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 17 Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibits cities from even registering individuals going from place to place to exercise their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In that case, the city required all solicitors to register and obtain a permit from the mayor’s office before entering private property to promote any cause. The Court held that a licensing requirement for social, political, and religious door-to-door canvassing would inhibit the free exercise of a person’s right to express ideas or solicit support anonymously or spontaneously. City regulations must be narrowly tailored to meet their purpose of protecting city residents from crimes and fraud, but cannot overreach and significantly burden noncommercial solicitors and their advocacy. It is unclear how far cities may go when constitutional rights and commercial activity intermingle. Of particular concern is the situation where professional fundraisers are used on behalf of a nonprofit, religious, or similar organization. Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 119 S. Ct. 636 (1999). ACORN v. Golden, Colorado, 744 F. 2d 739 (10th Cir. 1984). While cities have taken different approaches in policing the activities of non-commercial advocates, a conservative approach is practicable. These types of solicitors should not be required to obtain a license; cities should probably not be requiring non-commercial advocates to register. Mandatory background checks are likely impermissible for non-commercial door-to- door activities; identification requirements for noncommercial activists have also been invalided. City regulations—requiring licensing, permitting, or registration for the dissemination of ideas—will be considered inherently suspect. V.Local regulations Apart from the Green River approach, a licensing ordinance is by far the most common method used to attempt to control the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient sellers. A.City ordinances Handbook, Chapter 7. Hanson v. City of Granite Falls, 529 N.W.2d 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). The decision to regulate people or property, and to provide penalties for any violations, should be adopted by city ordinance. As a result, the council must pass, in ordinance form, all police regulations for public health, morals, economic well-being, welfare, and safety. Ordinance regulations apply generally within the city and are permanent and continuing in nature. Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 559 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). Ordinances, particularly when regulating peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants, must be consistent with the constitutions and statutes of the United States and Minnesota. An ordinance must not limit or deny any common law or constitutional rights, or unreasonably restrain trade. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 18 Press v. City of Minneapolis, 553 N.W.2d 80 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). An ordinance must not be unconstitutionally vague. Ordinances must be reasonably certain in their terms and set forth objective standards, providing adequate notice of what is required and/or prohibited. Ordinances establish the process for granting and issuing licenses. See Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. Although form varies from city to city, most peddler, solicitor, and transient merchant ordinances provide: •Definitions. •Exceptions. •Licensing requirements and exemptions. •License ineligibility. •Suspension/revocation procedures. •Transferability. •Registration. •Prohibited activities. •Exclusion by placard (modified Green River). The ordinance must specifically mention and define each term used for the purpose of the local regulation. The courts have been strict in their definitions of what type of activity constitutes a particular type of business practice. This is particularly important since there are legal distinctions between the terms “peddler,” “solicitor,” “canvasser,” and “transient merchant.” City of St. Paul v. Briggs, 85 Minn. 290, 88 N.W. 984 (1902). Excelsior Baking Co. v. City of Northfield, 247 Minn. 387, 77 N.W.2d 188 (1956). State ex rel. Mudeking v. Parr, 109 Minn. 147, 123 N.W. 408 (1909). See Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. A licensing ordinance should be complete and detailed. The ordinance provides the authority and procedures for: •Applying for the license. •The term of the license. •Required qualifications of the license applicant. •Bond and insurance requirements (if applicable). •The possible reasons for denial, revocation, or suspension of the license. •Transferability of the license. •Any other limitations or applicable city regulations. The ordinance should place specific time limits within which the decision- maker must issue the license or permit, and establish specific criteria used to determine whether to grant a license or permit. An ordinance should list some specific reasons for which an applicant could be denied a city license. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 19 B.Licenses in general Handbook, Chapter 11. The city council’s authority to grant or refuse a license varies with the nature of the business or activity. On one hand, there are licenses (more appropriately considered a permit) available to anyone who applies, pays the required fee, and meets any basic conditions specified by city ordinance. When the applicant has complied with the requirements, the city must issue the license. Except for determining whether an applicant satisfies the basic, pre-existing written requirements, council or staff discretion is largely removed from the process. 54 A.L.R 1104. 92 A.L.R. 400. On the other hand is a city licensing system where, based on the potential abuses and in lieu of prohibiting the activity altogether, more extensive qualifications on license eligibility or on the business operations are weighed before a license is granted. A licensing ordinance is a tested and legally- sound method of regulation. Although more leeway is provided under this method, a city council cannot be given uncontrolled discretion in granting a license based on the character of the applicant, the nature of the organization, or the general welfare of the community. See Part V-section D Fees. 9 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 26.11. When a license is required, it must be obtained before sales begin and should be issued in the names of those persons who actually will be engaged in the peddling. Ordinances need to be specific and should prohibit the transfer of licenses from person to person. Fees need to be reasonable. Preference cannot be given to resident vendors over non-residents. Once issued, individuals have an interest in the license and the ability to conduct their door-to-door activities. When a license comes up for renewal, the licensee is in the same position as any other applicant unless a statute, charter, or local ordinance provides otherwise. Minn. Stat. § 329.15. Gifford v. Wiggins, 50 Minn. 401, 52 N.W. 904 (1892). Despite specific statutory authority that would seem to indicate otherwise, cities cannot prohibit the sale of some items but permit the sale of others, unless the prohibited items have some adverse effect on the public health, morals, safety or general welfare and even then, it may be difficult for the city to prove such detriment. C.Applications—background checks Minn. Stat. ch. 13. See LMC information memo, Data Practices: Analyze Classify & Respond. It is important for cities to consider the form of their peddler or transient merchant license applications. The information provided and the background checks that are authorized will be the means by which a city obtains all the information on which they will make their licensing determinations. Cities need to ensure they comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act in the collection and maintenance of such information. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 20 Handbook, Chapter 11. The ordinance gives authority and guidance on the procedural matters involved. An ordinance should provide: •Who investigates the applicants. •Who decides whether an applicant is qualified. •What procedural rights exist in the case of denial, suspension, or revocation. When background checks are a required part of the process, there must be a demonstrable link between the inquiry and the ultimate goal of crime and fraud prevention and other general safety concerns. It is a good idea to make findings (statements of fact) when adopting the ordinance, establishing the crime and fraud problems requiring this action, and also ensuring that the background check’s results are considered when making licensing decisions. See Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. With city licensing, time is always of the essence. Licenses should be issued as soon as reasonably possible, taking into account that applicant review takes time. To balance city and applicant needs, an ordinance should provide: •The actual amount of time city staff has to determine if the submitted application was completed in full (two days). •Licenses will be issued or denied within a specific period of time (within 10 regular business days). •Rights to appeal the decision, either through city or district court, within so many days of receipt of written denial (20 days of receipt). The timeframes provided should be clearly established within the ordinance and followed by city staff and elected officials. Handbook, Chapter 11. The background check determines whether an applicant can satisfy the personal requirements for obtaining a peddler or transient merchant’s license. Disqualifying factors could include: See Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants, LMC Model Ordinance. •Failure to obtain a county license (when applicable). •Application was not completed truthfully. •Applicant has a record of criminal convictions related to the sale of goods, such as larceny, theft, or fraud. •Revocation of license elsewhere. •Bad business reputation. The prerequisites used must be valid, applied consistently, and able to withstand challenge. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 21 D.Fees Watters v. People of State of Michigan, 248 U.S. 65, 39 S. Ct. 29 (1918). Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cleveland, 105 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1997). Whenever a city requires a license, it may also require a license fee. A license fee imposed on all peddlers (regardless of the source and nature of the products they peddle) can be a content neutral, constitutionally permissible time, place, and manner regulation as long as the purpose of charging the fee is limited to defraying the expenses incurred for regulating the activity. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 122 S. Ct. 2080 (2002). While permit or license fees probably cannot be charged for commercial and non-commercial door-to-door solicitors, cities may charge a fee to most peddlers and transient merchants. Cities often utilize a fee schedule to establish the fees for all city-issued licenses. By removing specific dollar amounts from specific ordinances and referencing a fee schedule, the city can pass one ordinance adopting the new fee schedule each time it changes a fee. See “Setting Municipal Fees,” Minnesota Cities (Apr. 2004, p. 19). Orr v. City of Rochester, 193 Minn. 371, 258 N.W. 569 (1935). State v. Redmond, 43 Minn. 250, 45 N.W. 232 (1890). Licensing should not be viewed as a significant source of revenue. A license fee should approximate the direct and indirect costs associated with issuing the license and policing the licensed activities. License fees that significantly exceed city costs are generally considered to be taxes the city does not have the authority to enact. A license fee may not be so high as to produce any substantial revenue beyond what it actually costs to issue the license and to supervise, inspect, and regulate the licensed business. Establishing licensing fees by simply comparing fees imposed by other cities can be problematic. The reasonable character of a particular fee depends on the kind of business, the amount of inspection and regulation, the current value of the dollar, and other inherently local factors—all of which can vary greatly by location. If the city fee is large enough to cover more than the cost of issuing the license and all city licenses expire on the same day, it may want to consider providing a pro rata fee system for those who get or give up licenses during the year. E.Bonds A bond is similar to an insurance policy. If a merchant fails to comply with city regulations or uphold his or her guarantees, an injured party may be entitled to recover funds secured by the bond. The benefit of requiring the posting of a bond before door-to-door or transient operations are allowed may appear obvious in theory, but is more problematic in practice. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 22 Larson v. City of Shelton, 37 Wash.2d 481, 224 P.2d 1067 (1950). Bonding requirements for commercial activities may be used to ensure compliance with city standards, and to protect the public from fraud and other crimes. The protection of the public is an obvious reason for states and cities to require peddlers to post a bond to obtain a license or permit. These merchants are often here today and gone tomorrow. Unless a bond or deposit is required, local residents will have no remedy if fraud occurs. A.G. Op. 59a-32 (Jan. 13, 1961). A city considering including a bonding requirement must proceed with caution. Bonding requirements for non-commercial activities will likely be deemed unconstitutional if challenged. A bond may violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Commerce Clause if not imposed evenhandedly and a city cannot properly require a solicitor to post a bond. Finally, the required bond amounts should not be excessive in regard to the activity being regulated. F. Denying license State ex rel. Cook v. Bates, 101 Minn. 301, 112 N.W. 67 (1907). Where a Minnesota city has the power to regulate, it exercises the authority and considerable discretion to decide what restraints will be imposed. For operations that are nothing more than a fraudulent attempt to trap the unsuspecting or the unwary, a consequence of city regulations may be to prohibit those activities altogether. Grounds for denying a license may include: • A material misrepresentation in the application. • An applicant with “poor” moral character. • Circumstances where granting the license would harm the safety, health, morals, and general welfare of the community. Handbook, Chapter 11. A licensing ordinance doesn’t generally need to specifically define terms such as “good moral character” or “professional misconduct”. However, a city cannot generally disqualify someone from a licensed occupation, including peddling or transient sales, based solely upon a prior criminal conviction. A prior conviction must directly relate to the occupation for which the person is seeking the license. A city should also consider the time elapsed since the conviction when determining whether it justifies a denial. G. Registration As a less intrusive option, cities can, as an alternative to a full licensing process, require all peddlers and transient merchants to register with the city prior to beginning their operations. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 23 Registration is a process that involves recording a person’s name and all other information necessary to ensure the good faith and conduct of the registrant. With registration, there are no approvals or denials, and no fees or background checks. The process should only take a few minutes, rather than the days involved with licensing. It is likely that a city may also require commercial solicitors to register prior to their door-to-door activities; registration alone should not have any impact on interstate commerce. This authority probably cannot extend to non- commercial operations (circumstances where an individual’s primary or sole purpose for going door-to-door is to further social, political, or religious beliefs) or where commercial profit, if present, is a secondary concern. VI. Suggestions The regulation of these profit and nonprofit activities is subject to ever- evolving legal interpretations. What may be a relatively safe and settled regulation today can change with a single decision from the U.S. or Minnesota Supreme Courts. Unfortunately, these new decisions don’t always clearly uphold or reverse prior decisions, leaving this area of law sometimes even more unsettled. Accordingly, Minnesota cities considering adopting or amending a city ordinance that regulates the activities of peddlers, solicitors and other transient merchants should work with their city attorney to ensure their regulations comply with all current legal requirements. From an intentionally conservative approach, a city should keep these basic ideas in mind when considering regulating peddlers, solicitors (both commercial and non-commercial), or other transient merchant and their activities: • Do nothing. • Adopt a Green River ordinance and prohibit most commercial door-to- door and transient activities. • Adopt a modified Green River ordinance, either alone or as part of a larger city licensing or regulatory ordinance, allowing residents to decide if they want to create a blanket prohibition for door-to-door advocacy on their property. • License peddlers and transient merchants. • Register peddlers, transient merchants, and commercial solicitors. • When activities concern non-commercial social, political, or religious advocates, the city may not be able to license or register. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 24 Because this can become a highly litigated (and potentially costly) concern, and because there is the potential risk for violating constitutional protections, cities need to involve their city attorney before adopting or revising any municipal regulation that affects peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 25 Appendix A: Local Authority – Regulations or Prohibitions This chart provides a basic summary of the general authority cities have in regulating or prohibiting door-to-door or transient activities. As this area of law is subject to change, a city should consult its city attorney when establishing (or reviewing) local regulations. Classification Can City Regulate? Can City Prohibit? Can Resident Prohibit? Peddlers, Solicitors & Transient Merchants (For-Profit Activities) ? Cities have significant authority to regulate the activities of peddlers, solicitors, and transient merchants—from licensing or registration requirements for most peddler or transient operations, to establishing time, place, and manner restrictions on all operations. While our courts have never determined the validity of a Green River ordinance (prohibiting all transient activities) as applied specifically to the Minnesota Constitution (likely to be upheld), a total prohibition could conflict with particular provisions of the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of speech or the regulation of interstate commerce. Additionally, a city can adopt a modified Green River ordinance, where residents, through their posting of notice, individually determine if peddlers or solicitors are welcome. Canvassers (Non-Commercial Door-to-Door Activities) No* While non-commercial door-to-door activities fall under various constitutional protections, cities have the ability to establish reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on their operations; regulations that do not, in purpose or practice, prohibit those activities from occurring. These protections will still apply to sales that are “secondary” to the primary, constitutionally-protected rights of free speech, freedom of religion, etc. If a Green River ordinance is adopted, its general prohibition on transient or door-to-door activities probably cannot be applied to individuals going door-to-door exercising their constitutional rights. While a city would have the general authority to prohibit purely fraudulent canvassing activities, that would, in practice, occur more on a case-by-case basis and not through specific ordinance prohibitions. However, a modified Green River, with the resident, and not the government, regulating speech would most likely apply to commercial and non-commercial activities. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 26 Appendix B: Local Authority - Licensing or Registration This chart provides a summary of the general authority cities have in regulating door-to-door or transient activities. As it is often difficult to classify actual conduct into only one of these classifications, a city should consult its city attorney when such specific assistance is needed. Classification Can City Require License? Can City Require Registration? Peddlers *While most peddlers are subject to a city’s licensing or registration requirements, there are trades or activities that are exempt from local licensing. See Part III – E - Licensing – exemptions. Solicitors (For-Profit Operations) No *Licensing of for-profit solicitors brings up equal protection and interstate commerce concerns. See Part II – B – Solicitors and canvassers. Transient Merchants *Most transient merchants are subject to city licensing or registrations. However, there are activities (i.e. produce stands) that may be exempt from local licensing. See Part III – E - Licensing – exemptions. Canvassers (Not-for-Profit Solicitations) No No *The licensing and/or registering of religious, political, or other non-profit canvassers impacts constitutional rights (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). See Part IV - Constitutional implications. FACT SHEET Transient Merchant, Peddler, Canvasser & Solicitors Chapter 612, Lino Lakes Code of Ordinances WHAT THE CITY LICENSES Transient Merchant is a business temporarily “setting up” on private property and selling Canvassing is the business of going door-to-door selling merchandise or services for future delivery Peddling is the business of carrying merchandise for sale door-to-door Excluded from regulations is sale of newspapers, food sales to retail/wholesale establishments, sales with an appointment, garage sales, vendors seeking to establish a regular route (such as for solid waste collection), and school aged children selling for fund raisers Charitable, religious, patriotic, philanthropic and other non-profits don’t need a license but are required to submit an application for a “non profit” permit Distribution of flyers door-to-door (without contact) is not licensed but a notification of the activity is sent to the Police Department LICENSING PROCEDURE One license required per business - all representatives are covered Fee is $250 for up to six months Background for all company representatives required Representatives required to carry license (with photo) and display upon request PROHIBITIONS No sales or soliciting allowed before 9 a.m. or past one half hour past sunset No sales or soliciting at premises displaying a “no soliciting” sign No sales or soliciting on public property or right of way Lino Lakes, MN Code of Ordinances CHAPT ER 613: T RANSIENT M ERCHANT , PEDDLER, CANVASSER AND SOLICIT OR Section 613.01 Definitions 613.02 Exceptions to definitions 613.03 Religious and c haritable organizations 613.04 Licensing; exemptions 613.05 License ineligibility 613.06 License suspension and revocation 613.07 License transferability 613.08 P rohibited activities 613.09 P enalties § 6 1 3 .01 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this c hapte r, the following definitions sha ll apply unless the context clearly indicates or require s a different meaning. PEDDLER. A person who goes from house-to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-street or a ny other type of place-to-place, for the purpose of offering for sale, displaying or exposing for sale, selling or attempting to sell and delivering immediately upon sale, the goods, wares, products, merchandise or other personal property that the person is c arrying or otherwise transporting. The term PEDDLER shall mea n the same as the term hawker. PERSON. Any natural individual, group, organization, corporation, partnership or association. As applied to groups, organizations, corporations, partnerships a nd associations, the terms shall include each member, officer, partner, associate, agent or employee. SOLICITOR. A person who goes from house -to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-street, or any other type of place-to-place, for the purpose of obtaining or attempting to obtain orders for goods, wares, products, merchandise, other personal property or se rvices of which he or she may be c arrying or transporting samples, or that may be described in a catalog or by othe r means, and for which delivery or performanc e shall occur at a later time. The absence of samples or catalogs shall not remove a person from the scope of this provision if the a ctual purpose of the person's activity is to obtain or attempt to obtain orders as discussed above. The term shall mean the same as the term canvasser. TRANSIENT MERCHANT. Any person whose business in the city is tempora ry or seasona l and consists of se lling and delivering merchandise within the city, and who in furtheranc e of the purpose uses or occ upie s any structure , vehicle or other place for the exhibition a nd sale of the mercha ndise. (P rior Code, § 612.01) (Ord. 01-89, passed 2-13-1989) § 6 1 3 .02 EXCEPTIONS TO DEFINITIO NS. (1) For the purpose of this chapter, the terms peddler, solicitor and transient merchant shall not apply to the following: (a) P ersons doing business by appointment; (b) P ersons selling or attempting to sell at wholesale their goods, wares, products or merchandise to retail, wholesale, professional or industrial establishments; (c) P ersons conducting the type of sales commonly known as garage sale s, rummage sale s or estate sales, as well as anyone conducting a n auc tion as a properly licensed auctioneer or any officer of the court conducting a court-ordered sale ; (d) No licenses shall be re quired for vendors as a preliminary step to the establishment of a regular route se rvice for the sale and delivery of commodities or the providing of service s to regular customers; and (e) School aged children selling items for fund raisers. (f) P ersons selling only farm products they have grown themselves. (2) Exception from the definitions for the scope of this chapter shall not exc use any person from complying with any other applicable statutory provision or local ordina nce. (P rior Code, § 612.03) (Ord. 01-89, passed 2-13-1989; Am. Ord. 01-11, passed 1-24-2011) § 6 1 3 .03 RELIGIOUS AND CHARITAB LE ORGANIZATIONS. (1) Any organization, socie ty, association or corporation desiring to solicit or have solicited in its name money, donations of money or property or financial assista nce of any kind or desiring to sell or distribute a ny ite m of literature or merchandise for which a fee is charged or solicited from persons other than me mbers of the organizations upon the streets, in office or business buildings, by house to house canvass or in public places for a charitable, religious, patriotic, philanthropic or otherwise non-profit purpose shall be exempt from § 613.04 of this chapter, provided a sworn application in writing on a form furnished by the c ity is filed which shall include the following information: (a) Name and purpose of the cause for which the license is sought; (b) Names a nd addresses of the officers a nd/or directors of the organization; (c) The period during which the solicitation is to be carried on; and (d) Whether or not any commission, fee, wages or emolume nts are to be expended in c onnection with the solicitation. (2) Upon the foregoing being satisfied, the orga nization, association or corporation shall furnish all its membe rs, agents or representatives conducting the solicitation crede ntials in writing stating the name of the organization, name of the a gent and the purpose of the solicitation. The credentials shall be kept on the person of the members, agents or representatives during the actua l solicitation and be presented to anyone requesting to see same. (P rior Code, § 612.04) (Ord. 01-89, passed 2-13-1989) § 6 1 3 .04 LICENSING; EXEM PTIONS. (1) Co u n ty license required. No person sha ll conduct business as a peddler, solicitor or transient merchant within the city limits without first having obtained the appropriate license from the county as required by M.S. Ch. 329, as it may be amended from time to time, if the county issues a license for the activity. (2) City licen se req u ired . Except as otherwise provided for by this chapte r, no person shall conduct busine ss as either a pe ddle r, solicitor or transient merchant without first having obtained a license from the city. The license period will be no longer than six months from the date of issuance. A single license may be issued to a company covering its employees or agents as long as an applica tion, as described he rein, is complete d, for each individual person operating in the city. (3) App lication. Application for a city lice nse to conduct business as a peddler, transient merchant or solicitor shall be made at least ten regular business days before the applic ant desires to begin conducting business on an application form available from the office of the City Clerk. All applications shall be signed by the applicant and shall include the following information: (a) Applica nt's full legal name, name of business and a pplicant's current position; (b) All other names under which the applicant conducts business or to which applicant officially answers; (c) Applica nt's permanent home and business address as well as a local a ddress for correspondence; (d) Any and all busine ss related telephone numbers, including a number where the applic ant can be reached while conducting business in the city; (e) A brie f written description of the nature of the business, the goods to be sold and the applicant's method of operation; (f) A brief statement of the nature, charac ter and content of the advertising done or proposed to be done in order to attract customers (sa mples may be requested); (g) Full legal name of any a nd all business operations owned, managed or operated by applicant, or for which the applicant is an employee or agent; (h) The le ngth of time which the applicant intends to do business in the city with the approximate dates; (i) A statement as to whether or not the applicant or the person managing the business activities has been convicted within the last five years of any felony, gross misdemea nor or misdemeanor for violation of any state or fede ral statute or any local ordinance, other than traffic offenses; (j) The applicant's driver's lic ense number or other acc eptable form of ide ntification. (k) If a vehicle is to be used, a description of the same together with license number or other means of ide ntification; (l) A photograph of the applicant, taken within 60 days immediately prior to the date of filing of the applica tion, which picture shall be two inches by two inches showing the head and shoulders of the applicant in a c lear and distinguishing ma nner; (m) A list of the three most recent locations where the applicant has conducted business as a peddler, solicitor or transient merchant; and (n) Tra nsient merchants shall include the addresses of a ll places where the business is to be located along with written consent of the owners or occ upants. (P rior Code, § 612.06) (Ord. 01-89, passed 2-13-1989) (4) Fee. All applications for a license under this chapter shall be accompanied by the fee established by ordina nce annually in the city fee schedule, as it may be amended from time to time. (5) Proced u re. Upon receipt of the completed application and payment of the license fee, the City Clerk must determine if the application is complete. An a pplication is determined to be complete only if all required information is provided. If the City Clerk determines that the application is incomplete, the City Clerk must inform the a pplicant of the required or necessary information that is missing. If the application is complete, the City Cle rk must order any investigation, including background checks, necessary to verify the information provided with the application. The City Clerk will present the license request to the Council as soon as possible. If there exists grounds for denying the license under § 613.05, the Clerk will present that information to the City Council. If the Council denies the license, the applicant must be notified in writing of the decision, the reason for denial and of the applicant's right to a ppeal the denial by re questing, within 20 days of receiving notice of reje ction, a public hearing before the City Counc il. The City Council shall hear the appeal within 20 days of the date of the request. (6) Licen se ex emp tio n s. (a) No license shall be required of any person going from house-to-house, door-to-door, business-to-business, street-to-stree t or other type of place-to-place when the activity is for the purpose of exercising that person's state or federal constitutional rights such as the freedom of speech, press, religion and the like, except that this exemption may be lost if the pe rson's exerc ise of constitutional rights is merely incidental to a c ommercial ac tivity. (b) P rofessional fundraisers working on behalf of an otherwise exempt person or group sha ll not be exe mpt from the licensing requirements of this chapter. § 6 1 3 .05 LICENSE INELIGIB ILITY. The following shall be grounds for denying a lic ense under this chapter: (1) The failure of the applicant to truthfully provide any of the information requested by the city as part of the application, or the failure to sign the application or the failure to pay the required fee at the time of application; (2) The convic tion of the applicant within the past five years from the date of application for any violation of any federal or state statute or regulation, or of any local ordinance, which adversely reflects on the person's ability to conduct the busine ss for which the license is being sought in an honest and legal manner. Those viola tions shall include but not be limited to burgla ry, theft, larceny, swindling, fraud, unlawful business practices and any form of ac tual or threa tened physical harm against another person; (3) The revocation within the past five years of any license issued to the applicant for the purpose of conducting business as a peddler, solicitor or transient merchant; and (4) The applicant is found to have a bad business reputation. Evidence of a bad business reputation shall include, but not be limited to, the existe nce of more than thre e complaints against the applicant with the Better Business Bureau, the Attorney General's offic e or other similar business or consumer rights office or agency, within the preceding 12 months. § 6 1 3 .06 LICENSE SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION. (1) Gen e rally. Any license issued unde r this section may be suspended or revoked at the disc retion of the City Council for violation of any of the following: (a) Fraud, misrepresentation or incorrect statements on the application form; (b) Fraud, misrepresentation or false statements made during the course of the licensed activity; (c) Conviction of any offense for which granting of a lic ense could have bee n denied under § 613.05; and (d) Violation of any provision of this chapter. (2) M u ltip le perso n s under one license. The suspension or revocation of any license issued for the purpose of authorizing multiple persons to conduct business as peddlers or transient merchants on behalf of the license e shall serve as a suspension or revocation of each authorized person's authority to conduct business as a peddler or transient me rchant on beha lf of the licensee whose license is suspended or revoked. (3) No tic e. P rior to revoking or suspending any license issued under this cha pter, the city shall provide the license holder with written notice of the alleged violations and inform the licensee of his or her right to a hearing on the alleged violation. Notice sha ll be delivered in person or by mail to the local address given on the a pplication. (4) Pub lic h ea ring. Upon rec eiving the notice provided in division (3) of this section, the licensee shall have the right to request a public hearing. If no request for a hearing is re ceived by the City Clerk within ten regular business days following the service of the notice, the city may proceed with the suspension or revocation. For the purpose of mailed notices, service shall be considered complete as of the date the notice is placed in the mail. If a public hearing is requested within the state d time frame, a hearing shall be scheduled within 20 days from the date of the request. Within three regular business days of the hearing, the City Council shall notify the licensee of its decision. (5) Emergency. If, in the discretion of the City Council, imminent harm to the health or safety of the public may occur be cause of the actions of a peddler or transient merchant licensed under this chapter, the City Council ma y immediately suspend the person's license and provide notice of the right to hold a subsequent public hearing as prescribed in division (4) of this section. § 6 1 3 .07 LICENSE TRANSFERAB ILITY. No license issued under this chapter shall be transferred to any person other than the person to whom the lice nse was issued. § 6 1 3 .08 PROHIB ITED ACTIVITIES. (1) Sell or solicit before the hour of 9:00 a .m. or after one-ha lf hour past sunse t unless a previous appointment has been ma de. (2) Enter or conduct business upon any pre mise where a sign or plaque is conspicuously posted stating in effe ct that no peddlers or solicitors are allowed. The signs shall have letters a minimum of one-half inc h high. (3) Occ upy for the purpose of advertising and/or conducting business any area within a sight triangle, at a ny road intersection. (4) Occ upy a s a transient merchant, solicitor or peddler, any public right-of-way or other public property for the purpose of advertising a nd/or conducting business. (5) Obstruct the free flow of either vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any stree t, alley, sidewalk or other public right of way. (6) Conduct business in a way as to create a threat to the health, safety and welfare of any individual or the general public. (7) Call atte ntion to business or items to be sold by means of blowing any horn or whistle, ringing any bell, crying out or by any other noise, so as to be unreasonably audible within an enclosed structure. (8) Failing to provide proof of license and identification, when requested. (9) Making false or misleading statements about the produc t or service being sold, including untrue stateme nts of endorsement. No peddler, solicitor or transient merchant shall claim to have the endorsement of the c ity solely based on the city having issued a license or registration to that person. (10) Remaining on the property of another whe n requested to leave or to otherwise conduct business in a manner a reasonable person would find obscene, threa tening, intimida ting or abusive. § 6 1 3 .09 PENALTIES. Whoever does any act forbidden by this c hapte r or omits or fails to do any act required by this c hapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to all penalties provided for under Minnesota law. WS – Item 10 WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Work Session Item No. 10 Date: August 7, 2017 To: City Council From: Jeff Karlson Re: Public Works Facility Background During the July 5th work session, the Council directed staff to seek alternative options for upgrading the public works facility. Since that meeting I have talked to several of you, including staff, about what direction we need to take. None of us seem to be on the same page. Therefore, it is unclear to staff what direction the Council wants to go. Is it the Council’s intent at this point to only address deficiencies with the building before moving forward with a plan for additional storage? Requested Council Direction Staff is requesting further direction. Item #12 Monthly Progress Report August 7, 2017 Item Last Action Taken Staff Status Digital Scanning Project 7/5/17 Council requested staff to prepare a report of what has been completed during the Laserfiche project Julie The report is included in the August 7 work session packet White Bear Lake Restoration Assn. v. Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) 8/25/16 – The NE Metro Water Summit Group met to discuss a draft JPA that would create a coalition of cities to work together as one voice with regards to water supply issues in the northeast metro area. Jeff The trial was held March 6- 24 and we’re still awaiting the judge’s ruling Location of Veteran’s Memorial 12/5/16 – The American Legion expressed in a letter what its preferred location was, although there was some confusion about whether they meant the undeveloped land at Legacy of Woods Edge or in front of city hall Mike The Council may need to make a decision on who will prepare a design Upgrade of HD Audio/Visual Equipment in Council Chambers and Control Room 7/18/17 – Request for Proposals were prepared and mailed out to five vendors and was posted on the City’s website Jeff RFP’s are due August 11th Channel 16 Upgrade 10/4/16 – NMTV Operations Committee agreed that the local government channels needed more attention Jeff The updated bulletin board will be switched over right after Labor Day Arlo Lane Stop Sign Request 6/5/17 – Council directed staff to take additional speed and volume counts at different locations Mike City Engineer’s report is included on the August 7 work session agenda Culvert Maintenance ACD 10-22-32 7/5/17 – Staff was directed to monitor the culvert and to work with the RCWD on a longer term solution Mike RCWD cleaned the culvert Updates are shown in italics. August 2017 Laserfiche Project Update Definition of Project – Conversion of permanent city data from paper to electronic, for ease of use and better access Past October 2013 - Our first part-time scanner techs (2) started; one scanner worked exclusively on council records; other scanner worked on property files July 2015 – Budget reduced to one 24 hour per week scanner tech August 2016 – Purchased quick fields program for property file records (program produces bar codes which speed process) December 2016 – Completed large format scanning project (council had authorized funding of $15,000; project done for approximately $10,000) Present As of June 2017, in our LF repository we have: - 64,414 documents - 471,164 pages We have one scanner tech position, working 24 hours per week; workload is 90% property records and 10% finance. Each city department has its own scope: Administration – city council records are continuously updated; more than 95% of council records have been deposited. Finance – working independently on converting all records to electronic; new finance system allows automated deposit of new records. Community Development – the bulk of the LF project records are in this department, including property records, building plans, and planning files; Property records are approximately 40% complete; large format plans are complete. Public Services – Park Board packets on public weblink. Public Safety – police/fire have special record keeping needs and requirements and handle their own systems; they have access to LF depository for administrative records. We have an internal LF Users group to collaborate and coordinate. Future Administration – add record sets to repository, including human resources, legal (contracts, affidavits), and historical; Finance - on course to 100% of records to digital; Community Development – Continue property records; outsource residential plans; Public Services – public works chemical inventory; investigate link to Cartegraph Training – expand training opportunities (free training at vendor OPG3; Laserfiche Users Group at Metro iNET; LF training website). Public Web Link - make additional records available to the public. Misc LF License required – Without LF license, access is view only. City currently has three licenses. Cost is per license is approximately $700 with a $140 annual fee. Structure of the City’s electronic files is coordinated with our divisions and files; one person in each department works on LF (license is required for depositing records) Access to Laserfiche Files – there are two weblinks: a) the public weblink - used by the city council to access packets and council documents and linked to our website for public use); b) the internal weblink – used by staff to access our working records and non-public data LF Internal Weblink